Not-So-Secret Trail Re-Route
Interesting post about the Secret Trail re-route up on FlagstaffBiking.org.
I understand what the forest service is trying to do with the re-route, but I have to agree with Big Jonny’s Comment at the bottom of that post.
. . . The problem with the re-alignment is simple, and part of what is annoying for trail users of all types, this exercise is pointless. There will still be both bicycle and other vehicle traffic within the “Most Sensitive Area For Mexican Spotted Owls”.I can still ride my bike on Freidlein Praire Road, literally within 100 metes of the existing Secret Trail the whole way. I can drive a truck up and down Freidlein Praire Road all day and night if I want to – within the protective bubble outlined on the map. I can rent a quad or motorcycle and do the same thing.
How does this help mountain bikers?
Unfortunately, the forest service is calling the shots, whether we agree with them or not, but if you care to leave some comments one way or another over there, I’m sure it will be an interesting discussion.
Yeah, it sucks, and it’s not even the worst of it. For one thing, in September 2009 the CNF will be issuing the final Travel Management Rule that basically closes all but 28 (or so) miles of single-track to the motorcyclists that built and maintained the trails for no less than three decades. Don’t care about motorcyclists? Well, there’s bad news in store for mountain bikers too. Durring one of the Coconino Trail Riders trail days, I had a chance to talk with Brian Tridal (the new CNF manager guy) about my frustrations with the forest service closing everything. I explained that while I might be able to deal with having some trails closed to motorcycles, I would be absolutely furious if they were closed to mountain bikes too. Brian believes that Flagstaff riders have some strange sense of entitlement that he’s never seen in any other district. Brian almost flat out told me to look forward to an end to mountain bicyclists being able to ride on any trail the please, and more restrictions and closures will be in the works.
- Dom
Link | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
That is interesting since Trittle ( I believe that is the correct spelling) is also an avid cyclist, or perhaps simply owns a beat-down single speed for the infiltration it provides. Regardless, if he – as a cyclist – is down with “the man’s” grand singletrack revision in the CoCo, what does that say about who is in charge of policy? Flagstaff and the surrounding forest is a one-trick pony. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are prototypical in some ways regarding how this “resource protection” goes down. Regardless, I find it as hypocritical as it is, that small-scale logging operations are occurring “just down the way” from the MSO’s chateau.
History repeats itself. What happened to the moto in the 70’s & 80’s is going to happen to the mtb now, to a lesser extent, because it is a lesser violation of senses.
- gnome
Link | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
The ‘entitlement’ comment bothers me a little bit, and I certainly hope that the cyclist in flagstaff have their heads screwed on straight enough to not feel entitled. I think that is one place where FBO comes in, and it worries me that they have lost a large chunk of their funding. One of the things that always impressed me about flag was the voice that the cyclists, shops, and activists have in this community and the influence they can wield because of their sheer numbers and involvement. I don’t want to get up on a soapbox and start raving about how ‘we should be thankful for what we have’, but I will say that I hope we can appreciate what we have and try to encourage management of those recreation opportunities in a responsible and respectful way.
Creating adversity with the forest service is not heading the right direction, but demonstrating the importance of keeping the recreation opportunities that we all hold so dearly, be in on foot, bicycle, horse, or something with a motor should be on the priority list.
Honestly, I don’t feel like I know enough about the intentions for the ‘Travel Management Plan’ and the implications to be swayed one way or another, but this discussion has definitely made me want to find out more. I certainly hope that the end of freedom to mountain bike on trails outside of the wilderness areas is not in the future, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was either.
- Nathan
Link | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 am
I concur. Somehow, FBO or another collective of the flagstaff cycling culture may need a good shot in the arm, or is this good enough or as good as our representation can be? I doubt that, but what do I know.
The travel management plan is another political entanglement. How it plays depends on who the players are, more than the actual ecological considerations that may have spawned the movement.
again, should be an interesting show.
- Gnome
Link | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
These debates are rarely about ecological considerations. It’s sad, but true. They’re usually about somebody’s agenda behind the thinly veiled smokescreen of conservation. I guess all we can do is make sure that agenda includes our pursuits.
I guess that’s why it’s called politics, and not environmentalism.
- Nathan
Link | July 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Most of us mountain bikers feel very protective of our “right” to ride our favorite trails whether or not we’re officially allowed to. That may be partly because we’re damn-the-rules free spirits, but I think there’s more to it than that. In part, I think it’s because we see mountain biking as a low-impact way to get out and experience nature and we know our bicycles really don’t hurt anybody or anything (little more than hiking boots and certainly not nearly as much as motorcycles or horses).
Unfortunately, there’s more to it than that. While any of us individually or in small groups don’t have much impact, large numbers of bikers are highly obtrusive… especially since there are more than a few loud, rude, skidding, and littering mountain bikers in our midst. Since the access game is more about politics than ecology, wholesome hikers and rich equestrians come into the game with more clout than mountain bikers… and of course motors are king in the U.S.A.
Which brings me to a point: a mature, unified front engaging the system is the only way for us to maintain the access we’re so accustomed to here in Flagstaff. While it may be true today that anybody can ride whatever trails they want—and build new ones without sanction if they’re not satisfied with the ones already there—eventually there will be effective enforcement in the forests. And our happy-go-lucky free-spirited pasttime will be a memory. SO….. if there’s any question of whether FBO is representing mountain bikers adequately, get involved and help us do it better. We’re a small group of people who do a lot of work to advance cycling in Flagstaff—most of us putting in well over a hundred fifty or two hundred volunteer hours a year—and we could use more active participation and help from the concerned, avid cyclists in the community. I can’t help but believe that those of us who have time to blog and to go on epic rides could find time to help FBO (or another legitimate advocacy group) protect their trails and their rights.
- Neil
Link | July 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm