Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
"Ride Lots" - Eddie Mercx
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
isn't this

" can be permanently avoided by means of more responsible trail use"

one of the reasons that was cited for closing the area in the first place? I've only ever raced XC there so I'm not in demographic affected directly by the closure (and yes, closures of any kind are bad) but weren't they adn the Forest service a bit ticked off at all of the new trails being created by those venturing off line?

YR
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
824 Posts
"pal"

Once_Upon_A_Time said:
Just sign the darn thing and support are downhilling brothers and sisters. You're wrong in saying it does not affect you. It will. Just watch.
First off, I doubt MP is your "pal".

Second, my brothers and sisters pedal their bikes uphill instead of coasting downhill on engineless motorcycles.

Third, you're wrong in assuming the closure to pig bikes at Snow Summit will have any negative impact on those who prefer to pedal their bikes uphill. Quite the contrary would be my guess because responsible riders will no longer have to fear a thermoplastic-encased Darth Vader on a 50lb pig bike running out of control into them. That's quite the plus.

Lastly, pay attention in school and you may be able to communicate effectively someday.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
824 Posts
crocodile tears

matthew said:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/downhill/petition.html

It probably wont change anything but stand up and be heard anyway.
Money talks so feel free to mention how much money you spent in the Big Bear area (use comments area)
Spread the word, it can't hurt.
Oh, but it can and has hurt the abusers who whine when they get injured, or decide to ignore common sense and the rules by riding wherever the hell they feel like riding. Why on Earth would anyone in their right mind want to be associated with a bunch of scofflaws and crybabies? If that petition was on paper, I wouldn't wipe my butt with it because it would dirty my butt.
 

·
"Ride Lots" - Eddie Mercx
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
hehehe

Once_Upon_A_Time said:
Just sign the darn thing and support are downhilling brothers and sisters. You're wrong in saying it does not affect you. It will. Just watch.
kinda what JD said.

my original comment was simply in response to what the original poster stated about the closure could be managed by more responsible trail use. It was the irresponsible trail use that led to the exclusion of one type of rider. Yes, it sucks that all people in that class have to suffer but the reality of the situation is they didn't close the mountain or the trails. they're simply limiting use of the area to all riders who choose not to ride a certain type of bicycle.

So, any single individual bicyclist can still go to Big Bear and enjoy the trails. They can even pay to take the lift up to the top if they so desire. There's nothing wrong with that every once in a while if that's your pleasure. All the exclusion means is that pure DH adrenaline junkies are not welcome on their 9" travel bikes. those same riders are more than welcome on ligher, shorter travel bikes so nobody is really being excluded at all. it's the equipment that's being excluded, not the riders. Now one coudl certainly argue that excluding only the bike means that the same riders who were venturing off trail and creating their own trails and stunts on national forest land still can do the same thing but since we all know that technology makes a weaker rider better, if these individuals are limited to a "lesser" technology they may not be able to create the same lines and such.

So, in a nutshell, I see no reason why this is an issue. access is not being denied, and even if it were Big Bear is a private institution and can do whatever they want to. IT's not like a public park has suddenly decided to ban all mountain biking. a private business owner has said that they'd prefer to only let certain pieces of equipment on their mountain. they're allowed to do that as far as I'm aware.

on a more personal note, there are plenty of trail closures that directly affect me due to increasing urban sprawl. These are the closures that really matter to all cyclists because these are the neighborhood trails that will quickly become houses. a private business excluding some bikes from their mountain, but not all bikes, is of little concern. A piece of land that either disappears due to consturction or bows to the pressures of horse people and bans all biking on all trails is of far greater importance.

and let's not lose sight of the fact that it wasn't too long ago that a profession racer's DH bike was the same one he raced on the XC course so one can have just as good a time on a shorter travel (or dare I say HT) bike on the same trails with only some limitations.

YR
 

·
"Ride Lots" - Eddie Mercx
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Hey

now that you're more local, when are you going to come down this way and hook up with Sorni, Billy, Bill, Miles, et. al. and go do Noble Canyon with us? NOne of us have been out there for a while so it'd be a great excuse to get the crew together and see the sights!

YR
 

·
new shoulder
Joined
·
44 Posts
Ban the abuser, not the bike

Every ski resort I've ever skied at has signs that say "ski fast, loose pass" - with the obvious message that reckless and irresponsible patrons will be asked to leave. They don't ban certain types of skis or boards. These rules are enforced by both volunteer and paid ski patrollers.

I fail to see why a similar approach would not be beneficial with mountain bikes at ski resorts. If you ride out of control near other riders, plow off trail, build structures, or other unauthorized activities, then you will be asked to leave. Otherwise if your bike is in good working order and you have a helmet and $40 (or what ever they charge), please come ride.

And yes, I have a DH/FR bike (a Yeti ASX), wear more plastic than Darth Vader (I'm 40 and have kids and a mortgage), and usually earn my downhill runs, but the lift lets me take 10 runs a day, vs 2.

And thanks for posting the petition - I signed it and added my comments.

Cheers,
Old Dog
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
824 Posts
enforcement costs

Old Dog said:
Every ski resort I've ever skied at has signs that say "ski fast, loose pass" - with the obvious message that reckless and irresponsible patrons will be asked to leave. They don't ban certain types of skis or boards. These rules are enforced by both volunteer and paid ski patrollers.

I fail to see why a similar approach would not be beneficial with mountain bikes at ski resorts. If you ride out of control near other riders, plow off trail, build structures, or other unauthorized activities, then you will be asked to leave. Otherwise if your bike is in good working order and you have a helmet and $40 (or what ever they charge), please come ride.
Old Dog
Sure, the resorts have and pay for a ski patrol which is included in the Winter lift price, but I doubt they would want to pay for a bike patrol to enforce Summer rules. They obviously were not able to keep up with patrolling/closing the poached trails that were aproblem at Snow Summit as it was. Then again, if they increased the lift ticket price for all bicycles to pay for enforcing the rules, we'd have to change all of the dhers' diapers and wipe away even more crocodile tears.

I agree that shuttle monkeys need to be contained so they can only destroy areas concentrated for their use, however I do not agree in the destruction itself, especially on public lands.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
824 Posts
noble, etc.

Yeti_Rider said:
now that you're more local, when are you going to come down this way and hook up with Sorni, Billy, Bill, Miles, et. al. and go do Noble Canyon with us? NOne of us have been out there for a while so it'd be a great excuse to get the crew together and see the sights!

YR
Onea these days. My schedule's still a little too erratic to plan too far ahead, but I am looking forward to riding down there some. I've been mostly riding the Santa Anas and San Gabriels.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,029 Posts
We're not banning the riders, just the bikes

YR,

I'm loath to say this, but that same argument has been used, ad nauseam, by MV in his ever annoying posts. He's been saying that since back in the usenet groups (damn, did I just show my age.)

I live in the mid-west so there is nothing like Big Bear in my back yard. I don't know if I agree with their decision, but ultimately it is their decision to make. The resort has to keep the Forest Service happy, and has to make money. They do not take in the same type of cash off of bike riders as they do skiers. Until we reach that type of influence in their pocketbook, we will not have that type of influence on the trails.

Riding and building illegal trail there sounds like a motivation to curtail DH rides, as does the lawsuit they had against 'em.

Is there any way to set up a meeting with the management/owners to see if there will be a way in the future to re-open the access? Adversarial stances tend to have both sides digging their feet in, instead of compromise and working for a solution.

Either way, I wish the DH's good luck. There are never enough good places to ride.

JmZ

Yeti_Rider said:
kinda what JD said.

my original comment was simply in response to what the original poster stated about the closure could be managed by more responsible trail use. It was the irresponsible trail use that led to the exclusion of one type of rider. Yes, it sucks that all people in that class have to suffer but the reality of the situation is they didn't close the mountain or the trails. they're simply limiting use of the area to all riders who choose not to ride a certain type of bicycle.

So, any single individual bicyclist can still go to Big Bear and enjoy the trails. They can even pay to take the lift up to the top if they so desire. There's nothing wrong with that every once in a while if that's your pleasure. All the exclusion means is that pure DH adrenaline junkies are not welcome on their 9" travel bikes. those same riders are more than welcome on ligher, shorter travel bikes so nobody is really being excluded at all. it's the equipment that's being excluded, not the riders. Now one coudl certainly argue that excluding only the bike means that the same riders who were venturing off trail and creating their own trails and stunts on national forest land still can do the same thing but since we all know that technology makes a weaker rider better, if these individuals are limited to a "lesser" technology they may not be able to create the same lines and such.

So, in a nutshell, I see no reason why this is an issue. access is not being denied, and even if it were Big Bear is a private institution and can do whatever they want to. IT's not like a public park has suddenly decided to ban all mountain biking. a private business owner has said that they'd prefer to only let certain pieces of equipment on their mountain. they're allowed to do that as far as I'm aware.

on a more personal note, there are plenty of trail closures that directly affect me due to increasing urban sprawl. These are the closures that really matter to all cyclists because these are the neighborhood trails that will quickly become houses. a private business excluding some bikes from their mountain, but not all bikes, is of little concern. A piece of land that either disappears due to consturction or bows to the pressures of horse people and bans all biking on all trails is of far greater importance.

and let's not lose sight of the fact that it wasn't too long ago that a profession racer's DH bike was the same one he raced on the XC course so one can have just as good a time on a shorter travel (or dare I say HT) bike on the same trails with only some limitations.

YR
 

·
"Ride Lots" - Eddie Mercx
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
where exactly are you

J.D. said:
Onea these days. My schedule's still a little too erratic to plan too far ahead, but I am looking forward to riding down there some. I've been mostly riding the Santa Anas and San Gabriels.
now? PM me if you don't want to post to the world.

I'll be in Ventura county this weekend at the in-laws but I suspect that's about as far from you as San diego is thus making a get together probably as difficult.

YR
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
824 Posts
North OC

Yeti_Rider said:
now? PM me if you don't want to post to the world.

I'll be in Ventura county this weekend at the in-laws but I suspect that's about as far from you as San diego is thus making a get together probably as difficult.

YR
Hitting Ventura is harder because I have to wade through Gel-A and the friggin Valley. I'd rather battle South OC and North SD to get to cleaner air. Keep me in the loop on a possible date to access Noble and I'll drag Hemo D Maginifcent along from Pacific Beach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
Theres a good article on this issue in the new issue of Decline (new best mtb mag). Its a combination of forces that caused the closure...bootleg trails and a big lawsuit from an injured racer.
 

·
120 pounds of xc sex!
Joined
·
639 Posts
well..

While I do ride XC with a hardtail, this really doesnt effect me. But what you guys do have to understand, is the last lawsuit, where the rider was paralized was due to fact that he hit a trail marker that was a rebar with a pipe on it, making it the parks fault. Yes it would have been different if he it a tree, but he didnt.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
824 Posts
"man" from a boy

Once_Upon_A_Time said:
I'm not a downhiller. Again, no need to throw insults.
Why don't you tell us all how you became a "Nissan Titan Driver"? I bet you had one helluva paper route to afford one of those. Either that, or McDonald's decided to pay above the minimum wage. Which is it?

Your notion that the shuttle monkey set is brethren to mountain bikers who pedal up the hills to earn their descents is an insult to many who can and do ride up and down mountains/hills.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top