Thoughts on Ned...

[brutah]

^^^^I agree with Joey Joe

Maybe other mountain communities in colorado should take note and get on the front end of things to preserve their illegal trail systems. Much cooler illegal trails in Colorado than those found in Ned.

[Danno]

it just strikes me as a typical "boulder" 1st world problem. Bickering about expanding and making a trail system better just seems funny to me, especially the Ned locals taking such an entitled stance on Forest Service land.

My guess there has always been a beef between Ned and Boulder residents. There certainly was 20 years ago

I lived in boulder from 2002-2005, and when we rode mountain bikes, we would go to ned. I always enjoyed riding up there, but the Ned attitude of Us vs Boulder has always made me laugh. I would wager 90% of the people living in Ned commute to Boulder for work, which makes it funny that there has been a Ned vs Boulder beef since Nederland is just a Boulder suburb in most people's eyes.

Funny, I have been in Boulder for 19 years and never felt any us vs them attitude (as a general matter; nobody has ever given me crap just because I live down the canyon). And the debate isn't so much about Ned being entitled.

The problem starts with a very well known Boulder problem, that it (meaning the govt) is not friendly towards mt bikes. So the local trails advocacy group gets nowhere when it comes to building trails. If the city was more friendly, this article would never exist, because the advocacy group would be busy as hell creating a local trail system. But they can't. So they naturally start looking for where they can have "wins", and Ned stands out.

But what happened from there is they just didn't think about the real locals, the people who rode the trails every day, versus the occasional jaunt up the canyon. So they stepped in with the USFS , presenting themselves as the "local" advocacy group, and ignored (and in some cases actively worked against) getting the input of those people. And then destroyed my favorite trail, because the USFS had issues with it (private land and erosion) that the group offered to fix. Rather than just try to fix those issues, they took it as an opportunity to get in good with the USFS and build something they thought was cool, what they wanted, and entirely ignored the original character of the trail or the fact that some people might want to see as much of that trail retained as possible. And in so doing, took a great trail and destroyed it in favor of a different trail, one that is perfectly fine but nothing like the original.

So step back a moment and forget about how you want to ridicule the people involved. How would you like it if a trail you loved, one a few minutes from your house, that started off and ended every ride you did, that was kinda primitive and had some great fast descents with long sightlines and some tech to keep you on your toes, was suddenly and without warning gone and replaced by a machine built trail that was all slow and twisty and turny and was missing the one real techy section? You'd be pretty pissed, I bet. And while I get that USFS lands belong to all of us, you'd be extra pissed to find out that an advocacy group 20 miles and 3000' of elevation away was responsible. The reality is that local groups don't own it, it belongs to everyone, but some consideration should be given to the local people. I don't know where you live, but do you really think that someone living in, say, NYC, should have the same input on your local public land trails as you?

So that's the root of the dispute. Dismiss it as a first world problem, call it "so Boulder", ridicule Ned locals. But I don't think any of you would be ok with what happened if you were living in Ned and riding these trails every day. And since that event, which is what caused Ned to form its own advocacy group, the Boulder group has not always played nice, as the article points out.

And while it's the Boulder group's talking point that they are expanding and making a trail system better, the reality is that isn't always what's been happening. They claimed in their press release that there would be "44 miles of new trail", when in reality there is actually a net negative of trail miles. Yes, there are trails that could use some love and we could also use some new trails, but it would be great if it could be done collaboratively and with consideration of the locals (yes, in some sense we're all locals, but some are more local than others). That is what's happening now, this article would have been better timed a year or two ago, but there is still conflict and the Boulder group still has a "get out of our way" attitude at times.

[adrenalated]

BMA could have gone about things better and made more of an effort to solicit feedback from the locals in Ned, and I'm not 100% on board with the changes being made up there, but any of the Ned people that think "their" illegal trails were never going to change are unrealistic motherfuckers.

If you want full control over your trails build them on private land.

Rock climbers figured this out awhile ago, I don't know why mountain bikers haven't. Take a look at the Red River Gorge Climber's Coalition. As they say, "If we own it, they can't close it" and they've crowdsourced fundraising to purchase nearly 1200 acres of the best climbing in the area. I realize that buying land for mountain biking in Colorado poses more challenges - you need more of it, and the land is more expensive - but climbers are a bunch of broke ass dirtbags driving beater Corollas and living on ramen and mountain bikers are a bunch of rich yuppies carrying $7000 carbon bicycles on $100k Sprinter vans. But for whatever reason mountain bikers are convinced that attempting to work with public land managers and bitching about the results is the way to go.

[Danno]

And yes, I totally agree that these trails were destined for change. And I am fine with some change. The problem was that a non-local group stepped in and represented themselves as the local group, and did what they wanted to do. And when the real local group formed and wanted a seat at the table, the non-local group actively tried to shut them out. It all spiraled from there.

[brutah]

But what happened from there is they just didn't think about the real locals, the people who rode the trails every day, versus the occasional jaunt up the canyon. So they stepped in with the USFS , presenting themselves as the "local" advocacy group, and ignored (and in some cases actively worked against) getting the input of those people. And then destroyed my favorite trail, because the USFS had issues with it (private land and erosion) that the group offered to fix. Rather than just try to fix those issues, they took it as an opportunity to get in good with the USFS and build something they thought was cool, what they wanted, and entirely ignored the original character of the trail or the fact that some people might want to see as much of that trail retained as possible. And in so doing, took a great trail and destroyed it in favor of a different trail, one that is perfectly fine but nothing like the original.

I grew up in Park City. You know how much the trail system has changed in my lifetime? Have we lost beloved trails? you bet. But is the trail system now 100 times better now than it was then? it sure is. Is it easier to find trails and creates a better riding experience for all involved? it is. And that trail system is almost 100% on private property, but the local government actively advocated for trails and put in laws to protect existing trails.

It also seems like they aren't done building trails so stating there is a net negative of trails seems unfair as the project isn't complete.

I also prefer hand dug trails to machined ones, but no one is building trails by hand anymore so.....

[brutah]

And yes, I totally agree that these trails were destined for change. And I am fine with some change. The problem was that a non-local group stepped in and represented themselves as the local group, and did what they wanted to do. And when the real local group formed and wanted a seat at the table, the non-local group actively tried to shut them out. It all spiraled from there.

Seems like a trail organization representing boulder and boulder county is a local group. Last I checked Nederland is in Boulder County. sorry the ned locals weren't organized.

[brutah]

Rock climbers figured this out awhile ago, I don't know why mountain bikers haven't. Take a look at the Red River Gorge Climber's Coalition. As they say, "If we own it, they can't close it" and they've crowdsourced fundraising to purchase nearly 1200 acres of the best climbing in the area. I realize that buying land for mountain biking in Colorado poses more challenges - you need more of it, and the land is more expensive - but climbers are a bunch of broke ass dirtbags driving beater Corollas and living on ramen and mountain bikers are a bunch of rich yuppies carrying $7000 carbon bicycles on $100k Sprinter vans. But for whatever reason mountain bikers are convinced that attempting to work with public land managers and bitching about the results is the way to go.

I think mountain biking access and climbing access are a little bit different.... You could probably put 100 climbing routes in a few acres of land and that same piece of land would accommodate one short bike trail.

[Danno]

It also seems like they aren't done building trails so stating there is a net negative of trails seems unfair as the project isn't complete.

I am speaking about all of the trails that are part of the project, including new ones not yet built and old ones slated for obliteration. Yet overall, I am still ok with that. Just don't like "44 miles of new trails" being a talking point for the Boulder advocacy group.

I'll say it again, I am for more trails as are most people, and most people are willing to work to get that.

You also conveniently ignored most of my post. You live in Park City and you have awesome trails? Congrats, that's great. But how would you feel if folks from SLC secretly started working with the USFS to change your trail system, without consulting any Park City locals? And in so doing, destroyed your favorite trail? Because that's what this is really about, not about what one has to do with the USFS to create and maintain and grow a trail system (that's what BMA makes its talking point, but that isn't the issue, it's a deflection). Maybe if you consider that, you might understand where this is coming from.

[adrenalated]

I think mountain biking access and climbing access are a little bit different.... You could probably put 100 climbing routes in a few acres of land and that same piece of land would accommodate one short bike trail.

I agree, and mentioned that. You need a lot more land for mountain biking, no question.

But it also depends what kind of trails you're talking about. Buying land is not an effective solution for backcountry, remote trails. But for a frontcountry trail system with purpose built, bike only, directional trails where you don't mind pretty heavy trail density you can do a hell of a lot with 1200 acres. And again, there are a lot more people that MTB, and that have a lot more money.

[Danno]

Seems like a trail organization representing boulder and boulder county is a local group. Last I checked Nederland is in Boulder County. sorry the ned locals weren't organized.

and now they are. And are still being ignored and actively worked around.

Are you trying to be an asshole? This is something I am passionate about, admittedly, but you're being intentionally obtuse and kind of a dick. Why? Because you lived in Boulder for 3 years some 15 years ago?

What defines local? A county line? Mileage?

[ACH]

This isn't about locals thinking that things would never change.
This is about a "trail organization" claiming to speak for a constituency, when in fact they (specifically Jason Vogel) went to lengths to exclude the community (that made those trails possible in the first place) from the dialog.

[adrenalated]

This is about a "trail organization" claiming to speak for a constituency, when in fact they (specifically Jason Vogel) went to lengths to exclude the community that made those trails possible in the first place from the dialog.

Speaking only as an outside observer with no knowledge of what actually went down:
I think the accuracy of this statement would be very heavily debated and it's not really possible to find a neutral party that can actually say how it all went down. The stories from BMA and from NATO are VERY different and all the people involved feel so passionately about it that getting a straight answer doesn't seem possible.

That said, I think it's all kinda irrelevant at this point. The USFS has approved a plan and it's happening whether anyone likes it or not. Best thing either group can do is get on the ground and dig the trails - which both groups are doing.

[concretejungle]

Just drive north to Lyons for good riding.

Nothing to see up in the Lyons area.

Fuck BMA.

[Danno]

Speaking only as an outside observer with no knowledge of what actually went down:
I think the accuracy of this statement would be very heavily debated and it's not really possible to find a neutral party that can actually say how it all went down. The stories from BMA and from NATO are VERY different and all the people involved feel so passionately about it that getting a straight answer doesn't seem possible.

That said, I think it's all kinda irrelevant at this point. The USFS has approved a plan and it's happening whether anyone likes it or not. Best thing either group can do is get on the ground and dig the trails - which both groups are doing.

I think that is true. I had a sit down with Vogel quite some time ago, and I don't think he's the root cause (though I do think he screwed up in spots for sure) and I don't think he or anyone else, on either side, has anything but the best of intentions. Which is not to say that BMA (and Vogel) didn't fuck up. Sometimes they own up to that fuckage, and sometimes they deflect and forget. And truthfully, the "root cause" is what they did to Sugar Mag, and that was the trailbuilding guy, not Vogel (to my knowledge).

What's done is done. And like I said, the article is a day late and a dollar short. But there are still problems in the relationship between BMA, NATO, and the USFS.

[EWG]

Funny, I have been in Boulder for 19 years and never felt any us vs them attitude (as a general matter; nobody has ever given me crap just because I live down the canyon). And the debate isn't so much about Ned being entitled.

The problem starts with a very well known Boulder problem, that it (meaning the govt) is not friendly towards mt bikes. So the local trails advocacy group gets nowhere when it comes to building trails. If the city was more friendly, this article would never exist, because the advocacy group would be busy as hell creating a local trail system. But they can't. So they naturally start looking for where they can have "wins", and Ned stands out.

But what happened from there is they just didn't think about the real locals, the people who rode the trails every day, versus the occasional jaunt up the canyon. So they stepped in with the USFS , presenting themselves as the "local" advocacy group, and ignored (and in some cases actively worked against) getting the input of those people. And then destroyed my favorite trail, because the USFS had issues with it (private land and erosion) that the group offered to fix. Rather than just try to fix those issues, they took it as an opportunity to get in good with the USFS and build something they thought was cool, what they wanted, and entirely ignored the original character of the trail or the fact that some people might want to see as much of that trail retained as possible. And in so doing, took a great trail and destroyed it in favor of a different trail, one that is perfectly fine but nothing like the original.

So step back a moment and forget about how you want to ridicule the people involved. How would you like it if a trail you loved, one a few minutes from your house, that started off and ended every ride you did, that was kinda primitive and had some great fast descents with long sightlines and some tech to keep you on your toes, was suddenly and without warning gone and replaced by a machine built trail that was all slow and twisty and turny and was missing the one real techy section? You'd be pretty pissed, I bet. And while I get that USFS lands belong to all of us, you'd be extra pissed to find out that an advocacy group 20 miles and 3000' of elevation away was responsible. The reality is that local groups don't own it, it belongs to everyone, but some consideration should be given to the local people. I don't know where you live, but do you really think that someone living in, say, NYC, should have the same input on your local public land trails as you?

So that's the root of the dispute. Dismiss it as a first world problem, call it "so Boulder", ridicule Ned locals. But I don't think any of you would be ok with what happened if you were living in Ned and riding these trails every day. And since that event, which is what caused Ned to form its own advocacy group, the Boulder group has not always played nice, as the article points out.

And while it's the Boulder group's talking point that they are expanding and making a trail system better, the reality is that isn't always what's been happening. They claimed in their press release that there would be "44 miles of new trail", when in reality there is actually a net negative of trail miles. Yes, there are trails that could use some love and we could also use some new trails, but it would be great if it could be done collaboratively and with consideration of the locals (yes, in some sense we're all locals, but some are more local than others). That is what's happening now, this article would have been better timed a year or two ago, but there is still conflict and the Boulder group still has a "get out of our way" attitude at times.

First of all, you can say or think whatever you like, but this post is exactly right. Very well explained.

[EWG]

And yes, I totally agree that these trails were destined for change. And I am fine with some change. The problem was that a non-local group stepped in and represented themselves as the local group, and did what they wanted to do. And when the real local group formed and wanted a seat at the table, the non-local group actively tried to shut them out. It all spiraled from there.

And to go further, it wasn't even just a Boulder advocacy group. It was a small number of folks within a Boulder advocacy group without hardly any outreach, in Boulder or in Ned.

[Danno]

And to go further, it wasn't even just a Boulder advocacy group. It was a small number of folks within a Boulder advocacy group without hardly any outreach, in Boulder or in Ned.

That's true. Because I was a member of BMA for years, follow them on social media, get all of their emails, etc. And the Sugar Mag stuff happened with virtually no warning or publicity. I quit being a member after it.

I don't think the Sugar Mag stuff happened out of malicious intent. I don't really believe any of it happened out of malicious intent. But I do believe that BMA took some big missteps initially, and was (and still is) very slow to acknowledge their errors. They get defensive and fall back on their "we're awesome and better than you" talking points, which doesn't help.

[EWG]

I think that is true. I had a sit down with Vogel quite some time ago, and I don't think he's the root cause (though I do think he screwed up in spots for sure) and I don't think he or anyone else, on either side, has anything but the best of intentions. Which is not to say that BMA (and Vogel) didn't fuck up. Sometimes they own up to that fuckage, and sometimes they deflect and forget. And truthfully, the "root cause" is what they did to Sugar Mag, and that was the trailbuilding guy, not Vogel (to my knowledge).

What's done is done. And like I said, the article is a day late and a dollar short. But there are still problems in the relationship between BMA, NATO, and the USFS.

Danno is dead on in all his posts in this thread.

I think another issue is that all mtn bikers aren't the same, and there are a bunch of different types liking a bunch of different things, trailwise. When a small group of folks makes a decision to build or modify a trail, they have a particular user group, or small number of groups, in mind.

Generally, the original trails in Ned were for a very specific type of user - bat out of hell strong cross country riders (maybe would be called "enduro-light" now) that had good technical ability, could corner very well, and could usually clear technical cruxes at speed with power. That was essentially 90% of the user group on many of these trails.

The rebuilds have moved further and further away from that, seeking dirt that could be enjoyed by a much lower common denominator. On purpose. But that very much alienated the original user group (whether they were from Boulder or Ned or Kansas or wherever) who felt like this was dropped on them without any input under the cover of darkness - by a small number of people who felt they knew what was best for everyone - acting out of good intentions, granted. Their trails were stolen from them, in their mind, but they also felt like their experience was stolen from them. Which it kind of was, 'cause there are fewer and fewer places to go get that same experience in the area. And since those remaining trails have similar access issues, those are earmarked for destruction too - all of them, pretty much. Even the "super secret" ones that we don't talk about, ever, because progress is coming.

It's just that for the original user group, it isn't progress. It's regression from a raw, visceral, sometimes difficult, always challenging at speed experience into something less than that. 44 miles of a different kind of trail still doesn't replace 1 mile of the original.

And when I say "they" when talking about that original user group, I also mean "me."

[EWG]

That's true. Because I was a member of BMA for years, follow them on social media, get all of their emails, etc. And the Sugar Mag stuff happened with virtually no warning or publicity. I quit being a member after it.

I don't think the Sugar Mag stuff happened out of malicious intent. I don't really believe any of it happened out of malicious intent. But I do believe that BMA took some big missteps initially, and was (and still is) very slow to acknowledge their errors. They get defensive and fall back on their "we're awesome and better than you" talking points, which doesn't help.

Exactly right. And, for the record, it's not just the Ned trails. Exactly the same thing happened to the front side of Hall Ranch. One day riders showed up and it was being "improved." Great big dirt ramps covering up rock features few could climb. Great for one group. Terrible for another rider type.

I think I had cleaned it once climbing, bottom to top. I had cleaned all the parts of it many times, but only once all in one go. And then one day, I discovered I would never get another try to stitch it all together again, with zero warning. That was a bad day.

[Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo]

All I would add, and I can only speak from my dealings with the FS and watching the White River TMP unfold over almost 12 years, is that as clandestine or disingenuous as BMA’s tactics or lack of outreach was, it is to everyone’s benefit that they did speak up and reach out to the FS.

IME the FS is not in the business of building new trails or legitimizing bandit ones. With their staff and budget they can barely maintain what they have and on the WR they decommissioned as many old/illegal roads and trails as they could if they had low/no use or no one to speak up for them.

They only undertake these projects if there’s a private advocacy group or citizens who will do the legwork and help with the bills. And they don’t always spend much time seeking out these groups. If the Nedheads really didn’t know about this or get organized until 10 years into the FS process they might have lost those trails because there was no one to speak up and show a need or desire to maintain and legitimize them. I’m not saying the locals don’t have a legitimate beef with BMA but sadly when it comes to dealing with FS if you don’t actively seek out a seat at the table on these more complicated, less glamorous issues then your voice won’t be heard as loudly.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[fastfred]

I swear they were crying about a bunch of tree cutting just a few years ago, boulder county people are never happy, specially if it's not about them

nederland was cool like twenty something years ago, place is a has been now
thank god the house I wanted in eldora didn't work out, I'd just be another smug boulder type

[Danno]

I think I had cleaned it once climbing, bottom to top. I had cleaned all the parts of it many times, but only once all in one go. And then one day, I discovered I would never get another try to stitch it all together again, with zero warning. That was a bad day.

This describes my feelings on Sugar Mag. That one technical section, the crux, was something I always tried my damnedest to clean (going uphill, downhill was no problem), had come so close a couple of times but never had (I know a number of riders who could, but I'm a hack). And every offseason I looked forward to it, every day I was going to ride, I looked forward to another attempt. Until one day without warning it was gone.

And to your point re different user groups, what burns me is that they think that the "Expert" user group all wants big constructed rock features, and that everyone else just wants to roll their bikes at moderate speed. When I really don't give a crap about big rock features, but I also want to do more than just roll my bike at moderate speeds. I want to go really fast, with the occasional drop or rock garden or whatever, but not built features. Hall is fun but not my cup of tea, I'm more of a Schoolbus or Braille kind of guy, but I fear those will be sanitized to make them easier. And they'll justify that because they're planning to build a new downhill trail that probably won't be my thing either.

That last paragraph was totally just me whining about "progress", I know.

[Danno]

I swear they were crying about a bunch of tree cutting just a few years ago, boulder county people are never happy, specially if it's not about them

There was some crying about that. I was mostly crying because I couldn't ride the trails for a summer. But some people did complain about all the tree cutting.

It looks awesome now, there are views and wildflowers and still plenty of forest.

[Danno]

All I would add, and I can only speak from my dealings with the FS and watching the White River TMP unfold over almost 12 years, is that as clandestine or disingenuous as BMA’s tactics or lack of outreach was, it is to everyone’s benefit that they did speak up and reach out to the FS.

IME the FS is not in the business of building new trails or legitimizing bandit ones. With their staff and budget they can barely maintain what they have and on the WR they decommissioned as many old/illegal roads and trails as they could if they had low/no use or no one to speak up for them.

They only undertake these projects if there’s a private advocacy group or citizens who will do the legwork and help with the bills. And they don’t always spend much time seeking out these groups. If the Nedheads really didn’t know about this or get organized until 10 years into the FS process they might have lost those trails because there was no one to speak up and show a need or desire to maintain and legitimize them. I’m not saying the locals don’t have a legitimate beef with BMA but sadly when it comes to dealing with FS if you don’t actively seek out a seat at the table on these more complicated, less glamorous issues then your voice won’t be heard as loudly.

There's a lot of validity to that, and certainly that's been BMA's line. The Ned locals probably wanted to believe that these trails wouldn't have been obliterated because they wouldn't be inventoried. And they might be right, they might not. We never got to find out. But BMA's approach in that respect was the right one. It's just the way they went about it that was wrong.

[stapes]

BMA absolutely plays to the lowest common denominator. Seems everything they’ve built is 3ft wide buff pump track style ‘flow’ bs under the guise of sustainability. They fucked up Heil too. Yet they think they’re gods gift to mt biking. Yea I get it, advocacy, new trails etc. Well, they spend a lot of time hacking up existing trails, and the new ones are all like I described above.

Part of what made West Mag great to me was the natural feel to those trails. They’ve taken away the original character. Everything Danno has said rings true. And yea there’s still more shit out there that is ‘secret’ guess ya just got poke around and pedal more. I just hope it stays relatively off the radar, but I’m sure they’ll be discovered and sanitized one day too.

And maybe I’m incorrect or have gotten the wrong impression, but my take on Vogel is that he’s come across as a fairly smug douchebag. Felt the same in that article.

Not sure why I’m bitching here, I’ve barely rode in the past few years due to kids, other hobbies, etc. but for many years I’d spend almost an entire weekend day up there riding, and weeknight rides in the summer. Get it while ya can. And this shit was just starting to boil back then. Kinda sad to see it still going on, and brings back a little emotion.