Advocacy Opportunity: Mad Rabbit Trails Project (Steamboat Area)

[skiracer88_00]

The USFS is looking for public input on the Mad Rabbit trails project that proposes to add 70-80 miles of singletrack trail in the steamboat area, the vast majority of which will be open to mountain bikes under either proposal. This is in addition to the 40 miles of trail construction already approved near the buffalo pass area. This is an absolutely ideal project (in a sea of proposals to reduce biking access to USFS land around the country) that would vastly improve backcountry riding in the steamboat area. The construction of the trails would be paid for by a lodging tax approved by voters in steamboat. A message of support for this project to the USFS would be helpful to get this thing moving. Unfortunately, there is some opposition (https://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4122460) to this proposal by the winter motorized recreation community (which is kind of a head scratcher).

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbr/n...d=FSEPRD568683

[panchosdad]

4 pages of whining about spindle sizes, and no one cares about this. It's no wonder mountain bikers get the short shaft when it comes to access.

Good luck with this.

[doebedoe]

Looks rad.

Just spent my first time up at Rabbit Ears & Steamboat skiing and camping. Something like this would definitely make it a top destination for fall season mtbing.

[Sirshredalot]

Comment sent

[goldenboy]

Unfortunately, there is some opposition (https://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4122460) to this proposal by the winter motorized recreation community (which is kind of a head scratcher).

]

Reading the subsequent comments, it sounds like the complaints are really summertime motorized users that also happen to be wintertime motorized users, and are just posting on Snowwest

[jm2e]

Are the motorized folks mad that MTBs will be on their trails? Or are they mad that MTBs will get access and they won't get access?

[406]

What is the designation "Colorado roadless area"?

Should we support proposal A or B? I don't know the area.

Cool that the trails will be paid for with lodge tax money, crazy how expensive how much legal trails cost.

[jono]

Reading the subsequent comments, it sounds like the complaints are really summertime motorized users that also happen to be wintertime motorized users, and are just posting on Snowwest

Thanks for that; I was having trouble making heads or tails of their arguments in a winter context. Seems like there's a jealousy problem underlying most of them. Something like 'we spent money and did stuff and now they're going to get access for less' or similar. Odd. Maybe speaks to the oft-stated problem of different users not knowing each other IRL?

As 406 says...A or B? I'd be inclined to support the proposal that leaves the (current?) motorized use least impacted, but is there a reason not to?

[simple]

Yeah jealousy....That is a great summarization. Fuck no wonder the factions will not help each other.

The motorized group made some great points. They have been at the discussion table, done a ton of work, pay dues, and they get offered crumbs. Mtn biking is the hot new shit these days so they get miles of trail to "shred" and push everyone including hikers away.

This will all come back to burn you when e-bikes are all over the place. You'll see.

[jono]

Yeah jealousy....That is a great summarization. Fuck no wonder the factions will not help each other.

The motorized group made some great points. They have been at the discussion table, done a ton of work, pay dues, and they get offered crumbs. Mtn biking is the hot new shit these days so they get miles of trail to "shred" and push everyone including hikers away.

This will all come back to burn you when e-bikes are all over the place. You'll see.

I don't think we're going to learn any shocking lessons from e-bikes so much as we already have from dealing with hikers and horses, and in that sense I'm inclined to be sympathetic to motorized singletrack users. But their user conflict complaints seem hollow without more specifics.

Would you mind pointing out some of their best points and possibly elaborate a little on them?

Maybe it was just the wording or the missing details, but I only got a few truisms whose relevance I don't have the context to know. OTOH I'm far away and certainly not entrenched; if there's a good reason not to simply support options A or B I'm honestly interested.

I got a little distracted by this, for example:

d. Increased bike usage in the Steamboat Area has negatively impacted many other activities in the Rabbit Ears/Buff Pass area including winter usage reviving conflicts long ago settled. Measures must be put in place to mitigate conflicts from any proposal and tolerance of other uses on USFS lands is not a strong point of the Mad Rabbit Proposal.

Without more specific context I just wind up scratching my head trying to see why bikes and winter users would be at odds, so what's missing? (Or is that just not one of the better points?)

[simple]

That comment is about the FAT bikers riding on existing Nordic trails and skin tracks. It is happening in lots of mountain towns.

The rest I don't have time to get into, sorry. Off to work.

[skiracer88_00]

After reviewing the proposals more, I would tend to support Option A because of the increased overall trail miles and the fact that it incorporates at least something for motorized users. I believe that as much as mountain bikers get the shaft from hiking/equestrian groups, motorized users have it far worse. Although, I have never ridden a motorcycle and don't plan to, I tend to support proposals that improve their access.

[skiracer88_00]

Reading the subsequent comments, it sounds like the complaints are really summertime motorized users that also happen to be wintertime motorized users, and are just posting on Snowwest

Yeah, but the original post is a cut and paste from a statement issued by the Colorado Snowmobile Association. I can't really understand why they would oppose building summer trails in an area that snowmobiles already have essentially unfettered winter access with no proposal to change that access.