Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Hairshirt Rider
Joined
·
1,879 Posts
Could you do us a favor and take some notes and send them on down the line for the benefit of those of us who are attending tomorrow in the Springs?

1) What was the format of the meeting (discussion? small groups?)
3) What groups are representing and how well-organized are they
2) What topics/trends/agendas are rising to the surface

From my experience I've seen that this kind of info can be helpful in understanding how to participate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
hope this helps

Loudpawlz said:
1) What was the format of the meeting (discussion? small groups?)
yes. ;)
besides the obligatory "here's what we're doing here tonight" spiel from the facilitator, the majority of the night was spent in small groups, randomly assigned, which then later presented back to the entire group. pretty effective actually.
3) What groups are representing and how well-organized are they
(3?)
i would say that just about every single group was represented; if i had to guess, i'd say the mtn bike community was likely in the minority. to generalize, the audience was definitely skewed on the older side judging by the amount of gray hair in the audience. :p in my group: hikers, ecologists, gun rights activists (NRA), mtn bikers.
2) What topics/trends/agendas are rising to the surface
well they asked each group to report on the top two issues raised, and if your group's issues were already raised you were asked to go further down the list to avoid repetition and get a broader representation. again, pretty effective.

subsequently topics were diverse, including the obvious and not so obvious: multi-use vs. exclusion; wilderness areas; shooting; biking; wildlife preservation; access; ATVs/motos; CO2 emissions / climate change; fire mitigation; beetle kill; GIS; law enforcement; parking; funding; 4x4/offroad; inter-agency cooperation ... etc.

snowskilz said:
it was a very good meeting. nice to meet you gotdirt
back at ya'... thanks for showing up. :thumbsup:

saw some other familiar faces: edemtbs, slowerthensnot, jasonb, and others. :rockon:

i'd say it is worth attending for the forthcoming meetings/locations-- definitely early in the process, but best to get our voices heard now, on the record. :) thankfully i didn't hear too much opposition to bikes and multi-use, though i'm sure there were pockets of folks scattered about the room.
 

·
Really I am that slow
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
Hummm

There was a few folks in my group who where angst any humans in the wild life.... A little odd.. I think I sound more then a little odd wanting Mtb'ers alowed on any existing trails dirt roads =)

Was cool too see more then a few MTB'ers there and to just learn a bit from the ranger at my table:)
 

·
3327333
Joined
·
2,856 Posts
gotdirt said:
yes. ;)
besides the obligatory "here's what we're doing here tonight" spiel from the facilitator, the majority of the night was spent in small groups, randomly assigned, which then later presented back to the entire group. pretty effective actually.

i'd say it is worth attending for the forthcoming meetings/locations-- definitely early in the process, but best to get our voices heard now, on the record. :) thankfully i didn't hear too much opposition to bikes and multi-use, though i'm sure there were pockets of folks scattered about the room.
Just bring your ideas and concerns as they relate to how the forests are and could be managed. And GO!

Terry has summarized it pretty well. I got there late so I missed part of the meeting. It did seem well organized and the process of breaking into teams to gather thoughts and proposals, then presenting the top two worked well I think. All proposals eventually get submitted but with limited time it was important to limit each team to the top two and it seemed to provide good representation of all ideas. There were 21 teams at least, so 100-120 people I'm guessing.

All user groups were represented from what I could tell; biologists, equestrians, mtb'ers, hunters, motorized, hikers, etc. Definitely an older crowd and hard core mtb'ers seemed a little light in attendance. I'm pretty sure some of the folks not obviously mtb'ers, mtb a little bit.

In my little group there were two mtb'ers, a hunter, a trail runner and two equestrians one of whom also hunts. No anti-mtb sentiment was expressed and the two equestrians described the process they go through to train their horses for seeing bikes on the trail. They also gave us some insight on how the horses react and what we should do. Good stuff actually.

The equestrians were mostly concerned about having a place to park their trailers and such, so trail access in that regard. They also don't like water bars, etc. LOL, who does?

The hunters were mainly concerned that some shooting ranges were being shut down due to developments encroaching, limiting their opportunities thereby potentially causing future conflicts.

The trail runner was vocal with lots of ideas on various things but it was hard to gauge his motives, he was shot-gunning ideas. He did utter the scary words for mtb'ers "They should increase wilderness areas." to which there was a bit of a reaction from everyone - limited access, already enough, etc.

In the general presentations after our groups got together, the most opposition I heard was towards motorized use, not a surprise. There generally was a feeling that they should be limited and made to stay in designated areas. One person brought up "mechanized" use obviously including bikes and such.

There were some statements made about segregating users and keeping some areas free of various users but it did not seem too strong a sentiment.

Anyway, glad I went. Thanks to COMBA (Terry and Mark) and Team Evergreen (Janet Saxon was there) for representing!!

And finally I'd like to point out that amongst the dozens of parked cars owned by all these environmentalists and concerned for the forest citizens, there was just one bike; SlowerThenSnot's.

Ed E
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
edemtbs said:
And finally I'd like to point out that amongst the dozens of parked cars owned by all these environmentalists and concerned for the forest citizens, there was just one bike; slowerthensnot's.
indeed... as i was leaving in my overbuilt, gas-guzzling jeep (what can i say? i like the mountains) i had the heat cranked up full blast and once again realized i'm not worthy-- when you consider that dave rides that (SS) bike *everywhere*, any time of day or night, in any weather.


speaking of not worthy (me, not him) i'm pretty sure i heard ed promise dave he'd ride in his colorado gonzo grinder event this fall...
;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
edemtbs said:
In the general presentations after our groups got together, the most opposition I heard was towards motorized use, not a surprise. There generally was a feeling that they should be limited and made to stay in designated areas. One person brought up "mechanized" use obviously including bikes and such.
This will be the mountain biker battle of this plan. Mountain bikers at future meetings need to leave comments that mountain bikes are not a form of motorized use. As long as mountain bikers remain ungrouped with motorized, this plan will not significantly impact mountain bike use in the PSINF.

The interdisciplinary team putting together this plan is firm about making a general plan that does not involve the expensive NEPA process. I don't think any major changes in land designation will emerge from this plan (Wilderness).

I was glad to recognize a lot of faces in the crowd from the mountain bike community.
 

·
Your retarded
Joined
·
3,085 Posts
gotdirt, edemtbs, splitter_66, and SlowerThenSnot,

Thank you very much for reporting back your observations and experiences. I enjoyed reading over the verious topics that may arrise, how they are presented, and how the meeting is conducted. I'll be looking forward to tonight's Colorado Springs meeting.

-Nicholas
 

·
I think I can.
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
Poor Planning

Well, I just got back home and never had a chance to get into the building, the forest service closed the doors at 5:30 as the building was full. Could not believe how many cars were trying to get in and were stuck trying to navigate the place. Range said they are going to schedule another one in CS next week so will try to keep you posted.
 

·
Your retarded
Joined
·
3,085 Posts
Yeah, I got in just under the cutoff. Heckler_ASX and I both did. We were the only two MTBRer's that I recognized there. Their building and parking were seriously packed though. The first things that were said when the meeting began were apologies for the poor planning and bad estimation of turn out.
<o></o>
I thought the meeting was actually somewhat productive. I walked in wondering what issues besides trail related ones would be addressed. Apparently I'm somewhat narrow-minded and naive because there were points addressed that I had never even considered. For instance, topics like how to effectively control forest age and density, how to preserve sensitive areas, water shed, wildlife, etc. Some points were very good ones while others made me wonder. Regardless, the most commonly occurring point was trail usage in some form or another. Some groups proposed that no more trails need to be build and that we are fine with what we have, while others said that there need to be more access points to current trails systems to help alleviate congestion and wear at trail heads. Some want to see more properly constructed trails to help minimize over usage and excessive wear. In addition, many want to see more trails that are specified use. For instance, hiker only, ATV only, horse only, etc. I think that's kind of a good idea if they are properly managed. I'm afraid that in order to accommodate the idea of specific use trails, they would dedicate entire trail systems to one purpose when it should only be a portion of specific trails within a trail system. Something like a 25/75 split with 25% of trails in a system being specific use and the other 75% as general use. That's my opinion though. I'd recommend going to the next meeting put forth your voice.
<o></o>
I think my one complaint was that if a topic had already been made mention of, the next group had to propose two new topics. I would have preferred that we present our two more important topics because, well, they're most important to us and they are the ones we want to have heard. It was probably a good thing though because out of 25 tables, probably at least 20 had some form trail management as one of their top two. That wouldn't have produced much variety... but it would have emphasized the importance to the group as a whole.
 

·
3327333
Joined
·
2,856 Posts
Nickle said:
Apparently I'm somewhat narrow-minded and naive because there were points addressed that I had never even considered. For instance, topics like how to effectively control forest age and density, how to preserve sensitive areas, water shed, wildlife, etc. Some points were very good ones while others made me wonder.

I think my one complaint was that if a topic had already been made mention of, the next group had to propose two new topics. I would have preferred that we present our two more important topics because, well, they're most important to us and they are the ones we want to have heard. It was probably a good thing though because out of 25 tables, probably at least 20 had some form trail management as one of their top two. That wouldn't have produced much variety... but it would have emphasized the importance to the group as a whole.
Cool, thanks for attending and reporting! I guess Loud missed it too??

It is amazing what you learn when you attend these types of organized events, there are so many perspectives and ideas out there that are interesting and valid (and some that aren't).

You hit the nail on the head that there would have been lots of repetition if each team presented their top two ideas w/out regard to what had already been expressed by other teams. By forcing the teams to broaden their scope to lesser topics a more diverse representation was had and perhaps a nugget of an idea that can be mined later (should I not have said mined? ;) ). I think the top ideas will get repeated over and over in the various locations and that will be emphasis enough - hopefully anyway.

Hope to hear more from others.

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
I made it in to the CSpring meeting

I agree that it was a pretty good meeting. People were very cordial towards others view and usage in my group. I have been a part of forest planning in other states and found this to not always be the case! I hope they hold a second meeting to allow everyone who wants to voice there opinion get their voice out there.

I think the idea of forcing groups to provide new ideas rather than piling on old ones is to get everything on the table at once and early in the process. I think the majority of the people were there becasue of concerns of limitations on their particular recreation opportunity. That was pretty obvious but this was not intended to be a ranking process. it is important to get the underlying issues of propping up the ecosystem functions of the forest and protecting its health because it enhances everyones use whether we realize it or not. PLus, those ecosystem functions provides services to the public that once lost are very hard to re-establish and very costly.

Something I learned that may be just as important as this process is that they are also in the process of reviewing or creating (I am not quite sure which) the Travel Management Plan which addresses how and where people travel on the forest. And that includes every form; 2 wheel or four wheel, no motor or motor, two feet or four feet. Having a say in that process may be just as important as a part of the overarching forest management plan. As that plan may most directly effect our usage groups and all trail users more than this plan.

Does anyone else know more about that process?

Lastly, the more controversial issue of whether the pike/san isabel will continue to use the NEPA process or not as they move forward with projects did not come up last night. It will sooner or later and depending on how they proceed could become a huge issue.

Chip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
thanks for representing

Nickle said:
I think my one complaint was that if a topic had already been made mention of, the next group had to propose two new topics. I would have preferred that we present our two more important topics because, well, they're most important to us and they are the ones we want to have heard.
...don't forget though that all of the worksheets were turned in and will be "tallied", so to speak, so your top two issues will be heard, but in the public forum it definitely made for a better meeting to have the variety presented instead of the same 3-4 topics repeated by each group.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
I was at the springs meeting too

Ditto on above comments. I was also surprised by the overwhelming amount of grey hair in the audience -- I guess we old folks either care more or don't have anything else going on. I would estimate the crowd at over 200.

Out of all the issues, to me, the NEPA process really stood-out as a big impediment to new trails, IMO. Talking to the guy who runs the Pike district, he said it costs about $10,000 per mile of new trail to meet the NEPA requirements. In other words, don't hold your breath for Forest Service sanctioned new trails under the current system. That has to change.

Anyways, Loudpawlz was there, and I also talked a bit with Corey and Rob from SRAM. Whether or not anything good comes from the process it was nice to see lots of people who seemed genuinely interested in hearing other people's points of view and wanting to do "right" by the forests.
 

·
I can't ride 45!
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
I was there too and left (early) with a blank comment worksheet. I inquired today as to how the FS would like to receive comments from individuals who were not at the meeting and when I have a response I will circulate the appropriate material. Hopefully we can generate a lot of comments from mountain bikers in a helpful and appropriate way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
jasonb said:
I was there too and left (early) with a blank comment worksheet. I inquired today as to how the FS would like to receive comments from individuals who were not at the meeting and when I have a response I will circulate the appropriate material. Hopefully we can generate a lot of comments from mountain bikers in a helpful and appropriate way.
The yellow sheet has a mailing address on it. People were told to mail in comments if they did not have a chance to fill it out. I think that is a good idea.
 

·
Hairshirt Rider
Joined
·
1,879 Posts
Nickle said:
Yeah, I got in just under the cutoff. Heckler_ASX and I both did. We were the only two MTBRer's that I recognized there.
Let's hear it for the reintroduction of the moose!! About the only thing left on our list that wasn't covered (my idea BTW).

I saw you guys come in, but you hot-tailed it out of there when the flag was dropped. I had to drink alone.

Curious if anyone has heard anything in the meetings about extraction i.e., timber, oil/mineral leases, grazing leases? Seems most everyone is voicing concerns about recreation and one of the FS roles is being overlooked. These forests don't have much of a logging industry, but there is grazing, mining and some fossile fuel reserves.

And for you Joe...

[Nelson Muntz]

Ha ha

[/Nelson Muntz]
 

·
I think I can.
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
Loudpawlz said:
Let's hear it for the reintroduction of the moose!! About the only thing left on our list that wasn't covered (my idea BTW).

I saw you guys come in, but you hot-tailed it out of there when the flag was dropped. I had to drink alone.

Curious if anyone has heard anything in the meetings about extraction i.e., timber, oil/mineral leases, grazing leases? Seems most everyone is voicing concerns about recreation and one of the FS roles is being overlooked. These forests don't have much of a logging industry, but there is grazing, mining and some fossile fuel reserves.

And for you Joe...

[Nelson Muntz]

Ha ha

[/Nelson Muntz]
Hey,
I'm not an arsonist

Fictional character that no one sees is accurate for last night, I blame the wife.
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 20 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