Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Unpredictable
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Short story is we have been volunteering trail building and maintenance to our land manager (National Parks) for about 3 years after everyone got back to the table following more than a decade with no cooperation, no planned trailwork and rogue building. A formal trail audit was contracted listing works required. A couple of trails were already authorised at the time of the audit. 3 more have been brought on line since. 2 are completely new trails.

We were satisfied that legal trailwork, even if limited to designated regions of the park, would bring old trails up to the standards demanded by the LM over time. We were authorised to work on the legal trails including new trails and closures, as well as performing emergency repairs as required all over the place. The agreement included moving to new regions of the park as the previous were brought to standard. We presented the LM with a very detailed document indicating our grand plan at the beginning and have subsequently reported on an almost weekly basis via a dedicated website and on-site inspections. The works performed have been accepted by the LM. We definitely have not done the wrong thing and ignored what was requested to concentrate on "emergency repairs", although we certainly have done lots of them as well after storms and fires and where erosion or rider numbers created risk.

After the audit, the MTB singletrack system was designated by the LM as either legal MTB trail (signposted and mapped), or MTB trail pending upgrading to acceptable standards (IMBA or Qld Parks and Wildlife standard). Last week a new trailhead sign appeared at the main entrance for riders. It has a QR Code link to the MTB trail map which is a great idea we supported. It also has the typical blurb for all users. Part of that is advice to horse riders that they are not allowed on MTB trail, but they are allowed on "Shared Trail".

The only shared trail in the park was fire road, to our knowledge. The equestrian lobby had previously achieved legislation that those fire roads were public road and therefore open to equestrian use. They are also open to pedestrians and dogs on leash. Our ranger confirmed the status of fire road and so does the QR Code link. However, he also stated that all "singletrack is shared trail". That is standard in other parks in our state.

We have been building MTB specific trail for the last 3 years and in fact also before that as "rogue" builders. We stand by the illegal work we did because we put every effort into making sustainable trail or modifications and we only replaced bad trail with new in the interest of what was there and the bush it was in. Now we find that all but the 5 legal trails are "Shared Trail" where MTB gives way to pedestrian and everyone gives way to horses. While we may be OK on the legal trails, we are also responsible for much trail that is not yet been completely upgraded to appropriate standard and authorised.

We built trail that is truly MTB specific, as required. It was not made as shared trail and there are real concerns about trail conflict given this "new" trail designation. I do not believe our land manager's volunteer insurance will cover any legal claim for damages arising from a bike to horse accident. I have real concerns that any lawyer representing an equestrian or pedestrian client will be clearly able to site our influence as well as that of the MTB rider and land manager. Not only that, but LM signs show the old triangle of MTB yielding to walker and all yielding to horse riders.

Therefore after thousands of hours volunteer work, thousands more of photo editing and website reporting, with volunteers funding all tools as well as time and uncounted hours of advocacy, we have been allocated the lowest rung of trail priority on trails built by riders. We have officially worked for trail users we see as dangerous and damaging (no horse rider or pedestrian has ever helped with trailcare) and we may be exposed to legal risk. Nice reward for all that work!

As it happens and by pure coincidence, we have access to senior managers from Qld Parks and Wildlife at a statewide forum tomorrow. While I don't expect an immediate outcome, especially as the LM believes in statewide policy before considering local common sense, I do have great respect for the QPWS managers attending tomorrow. I still have hope we can get this returned to the agreement we thought we were working to, or come up with some new alternative like a re-write of our insurance cover.

What would you do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,555 Posts
You won't have much luck barring pedestrians IMO, but you should make it very clear that the trails were not designed or built to handle equestrians and the amount of wear and tear they put on the trails. Clearly explain all the particular issues horse traffic will cause and that you're not equipped (nor willing) to be saddled with all the added responsibility of keeping up after them. Then hope the LMs are reasonable people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
"Now we find that all but the 5 legal trails are "Shared Trail" where MTB gives way to pedestrian and everyone gives way to horses."

This sentence confuses me. Are the 5 legal trails mountain bike only? The rest of your post indicates that they aren't.

I'd rewrite what you have here in a letter that you can print and hand it out to the senior managers. I would be hesitant to do this though if you haven't thoroughly discussed these issues with your land manager as it may make him/her upset. If you've kept track of volunteer hours, include a table with them in the letter. Also include any other written agreements and plans you have. I've somewhat rewritten below what you have in a way that I would probably say it if I were you; change it to be yours. I didn't check it well for spelling or grammar, so be warned.



[Insert date, address, recipient, originator, subject of letter, etc. here]

We, the mountain bike trail building community, hope to bring to your attention what we consider to be a serious issue regarding usage of the trail system on the [insert park name here]. The issue is concerning conflicting groups of users--primarily equestrians, hikers, and bikers.

Prior to three years ago, trail construction and usage on the [insert park name here] was in disarray to say the least. There was little cooperation, rogue trail building, and unmanaged usage of the trail system in the park. This situation was deemed unacceptable and changes were made that brought interested parties together to improve the trail system on the park. A formal trail audit was contracted listing works required. After the audit, the mountain bike single track trails were designated by [insert LM title and name] as either legal trail (signposted and mapped), or trail pending upgrade to acceptable standards (International Mountain Bike Association standards, or the older Parks and Wildlife standards). A couple of the rogue trails were authorized for acceptance to be integrated. Three more rogue trails have been brought on line since. Two completely new trails have also been constructed.

We believed that under the proper authorization, our trail work would bring old poorly thought out trails up to modern standards. We accepted the guidance, standards, and limitations imposed on our trail building completely and willingly. We were authorized to work on the approved trails, including new trails and closures, and also approved to perform emergency repairs as required throughout the system. The agreement [do you have this in writing?] under which we performed these works included clauses stating that we would be allowed to construct trail in new regions of the park as the previous were brought to standard. We presented [insert LM title and name] at the time of the audit with a very detailed document indicating our grand plan and subsequently reported on an almost weekly basis via a dedicated website and on-site inspections. We received official acceptance of our work before we considered it complete.

The only shared trail in the park at the time of the audit to our knowledge was a fire access road. The equestrian community had previously achieved legislation that those fire roads were public road and therefore open to equestrian use, and pedestrian use. We have no issue with this and are grateful that these demographics are being given somewhere to recreate. They are also open to pedestrians and dogs on leash. Our local ranger [name?] confirmed the status of fire road and it is properly marked as to who may use it. Our concern is that he also stated that all single track is shared trail which is standard in other parks in our state. This is our concern.

The rogue trails were built primarily by mountain bikers prior to the audit. The new trails have also been built and maintained primarily by mountain bikers. These trails were built with biking as their specific use case and are substantially different from trails that would make good multi-use trails. A new trail head sign has been placed that shows these mountain bike trails as multi-use with mountain bikers yielding to everyone, which we accept is the correct order of operations on a multi-use trail system. But we did not believe we were building multi-use trails. This has caused us to feel as though our efforts to work with the system may have partly been in vain.

We have spent quite literally thousands of man hours working, photo editing, and website reporting. Volunteers have funded all construction tools and spent countless hours of advocacy. We have been allocated to the lowest rung of trail priority on trails built by us, the mountain bike trail building community. We believe other user groups that have not significantly contributed to these specific trails are receiving the benefit of our work at our expense. These trails were built for bikers to ride at relatively high speeds with limited line of site, and a negative conflict with a pedestrian, or equestrian is quite probable. We worry that this will lead to complaints, injuries, trail closures, and possibly lawsuits. We also feel demotivated in performing maintenance and bringing additional trail up to standard knowing there is additional work above and beyond what we have been doing to accommodate horse traffic.

We are more than willing to work to help accommodate equestrian traffic in the park, and even use our trail building experience to help them construct trails for them. We are happy to share the park with everyone who wishes to appreciate it. Even so, we would appreciate bike specific trail designations, or at the very least trails where others are required to yield to bikers such that our liability is reduced should an accident occur.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We hope we can continue to do our work and appreciate the park systems that we have.

Signed, The Mountain Bike Trail Building Community
 

·
since 4/10/2009
Joined
·
31,492 Posts
You won't have much luck barring pedestrians IMO, but you should make it very clear that the trails were not designed or built to handle equestrians and the amount of wear and tear they put on the trails. Clearly explain all the particular issues horse traffic will cause and that you're not equipped (nor willing) to be saddled with all the added responsibility of keeping up after them. Then hope the LMs are reasonable people.
Focus on the design standards of the trails in question. Corridor dimensions, sight lines, rider speeds (any of them preferred downhill routes?), features like logs, rock gardens, bridges, jumps, that sort of stuff. Make this a technical discussion rather than an emotional one related to perceived conflict (what's what mtb opponents frequently do).

I have ridden in many parks where there's a mix of trail permissions designations depending on the particular trails, the standards to which they were built, or the sensitivity of the ecosystems through which they pass.

Stuff varies from wide, old roadbeds where all nonmotorized users are permitted, to singletrack where all nonmotorized users are permitted, to hike/horse trail, hike only, hike/bike, and so on. Frequently, this stuff coexists all in the same park and is designated on a trail-by-trail basis. It typically tends to work pretty well once users get used to it all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
You should thank imba for creating the triangle that puts riders on the bottom rung. The organization is so weak it kowtows to any other group to get a trail approved. This has led to MTB trails built by riders having to submit to other user groups whether they worked on the trails or not.

Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,555 Posts
Focus on the design standards of the trails in question. Corridor dimensions, sight lines, rider speeds (any of them preferred downhill routes?), features like logs, rock gardens, bridges, jumps, that sort of stuff. Make this a technical discussion rather than an emotional one related to perceived conflict (what's what mtb opponents frequently do).

I have ridden in many parks where there's a mix of trail permissions designations depending on the particular trails, the standards to which they were built, or the sensitivity of the ecosystems through which they pass.

Stuff varies from wide, old roadbeds where all nonmotorized users are permitted, to singletrack where all nonmotorized users are permitted, to hike/horse trail, hike only, hike/bike, and so on. Frequently, this stuff coexists all in the same park and is designated on a trail-by-trail basis. It typically tends to work pretty well once users get used to it all.
TH

Good advice.

One of my area's more popular spot is huge with equestrians and has been for a lot longer than mtbs have been around. Long before we built the first bike specific stuff out there, there's been a very established history of horse traffic. I first started riding there in around 1990, and there were lots of long-standing and substantial steeple-chase type obstacles all over the place even then. (Actually pretty damn cool to see someone doing 4' drops or big built-up rock and log up-overs on a horse IMO).

There was friction when mtbs first came on the scene, but through hard work and a responsible and courteous presence, mtbing has become by far the most common activity; hundreds of riders over a nice weekend, easily. There are many miles of newer purpose built mtb trails that are off limits to horses, but it doesn't seem to be any sort of issue to their riders, I think mainly because bikers have been generally friendly, respectful and responsible as trail users and that helped make the equestrians not feel like they were being pushed out in any way. After a rocky start way back in the day, it's really turned into a model of a shared use system IMO.

I think you guys have a lot going for you already and if you do as H said and keep it clinical and friendly, you're probably going to get everything sorted out. Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,555 Posts
1just curious how did the equestrians build their trails in the area you are talking about? Are those ancient trails being used by the mountain bike community today? Are there any YouTube or Vimeo videos of those ancient trails?
Don't know how they were built, they were already well established when I started riding there. Those trails are shared with everyone these days; there are no trails there where biking or hiking is barred.

The place is Great Brook Farm, in Carlisle MA if you want to look for vids.

"Mountain biking is popular here, and the park is a major equestrian center. North Bridge Hunt Club maintains 38 fixed jumps and also conducts occasional drag foxhunts and hunter pace events."

NEMBA host regular events with attendance well into the hundreds, sometimes on the same day as equestrian shindigs, and there are also cyclocross races and an pretty major XC ski scene at the same place.

Carlisle Trails Committee / Great Brook Farm State Park

(page is 8 years old - there's been quite a bit of MTB trails added since)
 

·
Unpredictable
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I will have to digest all these replies when I have some more time, especially as to how the trail definition has changed. Thanks in advance. We have become very connected over the years and yesterday were able to to sit down with top management of Qld Parks and wildlife (state office), plus lodge the concerns in person with government via the CEO of the Qld Outdoor Recreation federation. The CEO of MTB Australia was also present and while we did not raise this issue as part of general business at the forum (not fair in the absence of local QPWS staff and in front of their senior managers), I suspect it will make it onto the meeting summary when distributed.
 

·
since 4/10/2009
Joined
·
31,492 Posts
You sound like John Kerry talking to Putin. I guess you and your buddies will get to ride the trails you built when you are done negotiating.
What's your problem? Part of being "included" in trail management decisions, includes being at the table when management decisions are made about the trails. Yes, that kind of work does take away from riding time. But it's necessary work. I have personally sat down in talks with my state's director of the Dept. of Natural Resources. Having those high level discussions gets you brought to the table when important issues come up.
 

·
Unpredictable
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
OK. I don't have enough hair to be John Kerry but I see the humour of the comment.

The LM defined all the trails on the audit as MTB trails. A couple were to be closed, most were to be upgraded, 2 were already signposted and legal. A new park sign states horses are allowed on shared trail. On seeking the definition of shared trail the ranger stated all singletrack was shared trail. All our singletrack is MTB trail. It was almost all illegally built, but our trailcare agreement post-audit was based on upgrading illegal trail and having it authorised over time. We have been closing, fixing, rerouting and building new trail as required and reporting it all regularly (weekly to monthly) with photos and blogs via our website. The LM accesses our reports and if we seek to perform a larger job (e.g. bigger than rerouting 30m of trail), we approach that with the rangers directly in advance. They come and check onsite with us if there is uncertainty. So it is all a very constructive volunteer system that substantially reduces LM time while enhancing communication and facilitating efficient work.

So, going back to the problem. If all singletrack is shared trail then 2 issues arise. First other users with higher trail priority are legally allowed on all the MTB trail EXCEPT what is legally signposted and mapped (5 out of many trails). That means we are working for other user groups - not part of any agreement we made. Second is that if other users with higher trail priority come into conflict on trail not yet signposted and mapped (legal MTB trail), where does that stand volunteers in the case of an open lawsuit for damages siting any rider involved as well as the LM and the trail builders?

I have no doubt Qld Parks and Wildlife do not want horses going off fire roads and anywhere they choose, but this raises a possible legal loophole that would allow a lawyer to prove that is exactly what they are allowed to do. Fact: it IS what plenty do regularly and they argue vigorously they have the right to be there, to which we offer to ring the ranger so they can discuss it on the spot. I guess I won't be saying that in the immediate future. There's no shortage of horses here. Lots of money and lots of large, local properties with nags. They represent a clear danger on MTB trails and the damage they cause is totally unacceptable. Regardless of that, the fact is we never would have agreed to build trails for equestrian use and nor will I in the future because I don't believe horses should be carrying and crapping invasive plants and microorganisms into National Parks. They may be allowed in NP's, but I am never going to assist them and fire roads are managed by the LM anyway. Also, rangers are certainly not telling everyone to access all the trails. Nothing has changed other than potentially, if you like.

Coincidental to this was the state government MTB forum we attended yesterday, but Putin did not. We were able to raise this personally with senior QPWS staff who know us well. We meet and talk regularly and have done for years. It was an ideal opportunity to address where generic designations like shared trail and TTF standards fail to deal with specific questions and issues. In the end, the LM is far more exposed than we are, but the fact is there is previously unrecognised risk to our work and legal liability exposure easily identified when a small group does a lot of work on multiple trails over time. So many sections of so many trails not built as shared trail, but as MTB trail have our signature ands they are not yet legal and signposted.

Would you continue to work before having these issues resolved?
 

·
since 4/10/2009
Joined
·
31,492 Posts
on one of your issues, my local mtb club DOES work on trails that are shared with horses. We have built new trails that are shared with horses. On occasion, we've even worked on some horse-only trails. We don't make that a regular occurrence, but doing so tends to generate goodwill with the local horse groups.

That goodwill banking is a good thing for us, as some old horse trail is about to get opened to mtb use soon, and the horse riders are none too pleased about that. But for us, it will be important trail that links different properties that have trails that are popular with mtb riders. Some of which is singletrack shared with horse riders.

Yes, maintenance of that stuff will inherently be different from the singletrack that we usually maintain. For better or worse. But realistically, getting access to that trail as a connection was the easiest way for mtb use to get written into a state nature preserve designation that would have otherwise permanently prevented our connecting two pieces of public land (via a third, where we are getting entirely new access and new trails) we have been working to link for at least a decade.

From a legal and liability standpoint, with the different laws you have as compared to the US, is a different issue. When my club was just starting out and trying to build a perception of being legitimate, it was willing to take on a LOT more risk than it should have. Nowadays, that risk is something we are working a lot more to limit. We say "no" to land managers that want us to take on more risk and liability than we feel we should.

It sounds to me like part of the way you handle things should include some adjustments to your workflow to ensure that mapping and signing of a new trail occurs BEFORE it is open, so that if horses are prohibited from said trail, they know that before they ever know that the new trail exists. And that trails NOT open for use should be signed as such, if the trail is visible/accessible to users. And that riders should always assume horses will be present on trails where they are not expressly prohibited. As for who's liable in a trail conflict situation, it SHOULD be the users involved, and nobody else. Of course that depends on the laws in your area, and what is required of you as volunteers to cover your bases and limit your own liability.
 

·
Unpredictable
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
We want to work, but your statement about our "group's negligence" sums it up. We have been potentially negligent by doing what we were asked to do and doing it well.
 

·
Unpredictable
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
50, yep that's the park and you are correct it shows MTB trail in the bottom right. There are (previously) designated MTB singletracks through about 50% of the park, as well as more unauthorised trail. This is the current QR linked map of MTB trails and I am sorry, but I cannot get it to post as a pic, so please click the link.
http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/parks/nerang/pdf/nerang-trail-map.pdf

It shows 5 legal trails, of which 2 are inaccurately mapped. Brett's ends at NG26 and that's where the LM signpost is. From NG26 to the start of the green on Brett's is not shared trail, but legal MTB trail. Three Hills has been completely rebuilt. The entire trail line is changed. It also ends at NG26. In fact the only trail accurately mapped is Pete's Extension and this is a brand new map presented by our LM.

This map shows less than 30% of the trails they designated as MTB trails and less than 20% of all bike trails in the park. There are 4 singletrack links from these 5 mapped trails that by LM definition are now shared trail along with all the rest of the network. I could post you a complete trail map, but I am not allowed to.

We are trying to pull the LM into the real world and they are still kicking and screaming instead of getting realistic about their assets and public protection. The latest communication informs us we have no reason to complain. Although they refer to the QR linked map all the time, as yet they have not even noticed it is inaccurate. I am waiting to see how long that takes. We are still on strike.
 

Attachments

·
Unpredictable
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Complications: after receiving no answers to our questions from the LM and getting into (me starting) a spat with the MTB club about their attitude to trail care in the park, the issue of a day/night running race on our legal trails popped up out of left field.

To be more exact, a sign appeared on the gate announcing a 2PM to 10PM running event (run last Saturday) and I emailed the organiser, rangers, club etc saying it couldn't happen on our legal trail. I got into trouble with a slap on the wrist from the LM for going behind their back over the sign. However, that was 2 days after one of our volunteers (and Facebook manager) walked from the group because he had found out from the event organisers that they had discussed the event with our group as well as the club and had official permission, plus event permit from the LM. He had posted an angry response to the event on the Facebook page, was embarrassed and felt he was misled and compromised by us (me).

So how did this mess happen? In early March the LM approached us and the club in the "pre-notification stage" about a night running event. There was an exchange of emails and the light it up event was given the MTB OK except if adverse weather made trail damage likely. The trailhead sign was posted by an organisation unknown to me and no reply was received from the organiser or the LM. I was away for work when our volunteer messaged that despite my denial earlier that day, the light it up guys had in fact discussed their event with us and done everything correctly and he was out. I didn't put 2&2 together that this unknown commercial event planning company was the light it up group from the pre-notification email and lost an irreplaceable volunteer; a good mate.

It bothers me that the specifics of words and arrangements get muddled. "Discussion" = discussion. Night event = night event. Light it up (the name of the group used in talks about the event) was not = to the name on the sign. Singletrack MTB trail is not = to "Shared Trail" where riders do not have trail ownership or priority. In court, "Horses are allowed on shared trail" as per the trailhead sign may mean exactly that regardless whether the LM says they intended otherwise.

There was a need for some clarity, so our little group advised the land manager we are discontinuing volunteer work in the park and would like to meet to hand over (nearly 1000 hours of) timesheets from the last 11 months. We were there because we enjoyed the work, the chance to get together as mates and the bonus of helping riders and the park. I am really proud of the work we did and I am sure the others are too. It's not enough. The return for abiding by politics has to be some security. When the club does nothing to help and we get slapped on the back of the hand AGAIN for not letting them negotiate our concerns, when the club gets credit for us doing their trail work, when the club does nothing to influence illegal trailwork or even report it, leaving it to us to get between the LM and all the good old boys, when the LM feeds us half truths and when we are targeted as causing problems when we are the only ones actually helping the land manager; well in this case, that's the end.

So there's the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this thread - no more MTBtrailcare in Nerang National Park! It's time the LM worked out its own solution to something they have had plenty of time to consider. It's time the club interacted with their LM too.

How do I feel? Like the trail system is at risk until the pro builders arrive for the Commonwealth Games work and like someone with a lot more spare time. Not the outcome I saw coming, but there it is.
 

·
1 bike to ride them all
Joined
·
223 Posts
Complications: after receiving no answers to our questions from the LM and getting into (me starting) a spat with the MTB club about their attitude to trail care in the park, the issue of a day/night running race on our legal trails popped up out of left field.

To be more exact, a sign appeared on the gate announcing a 2PM to 10PM running event (run last Saturday) and I emailed the organiser, rangers, club etc saying it couldn't happen on our legal trail. I got into trouble with a slap on the wrist from the LM for going behind their back over the sign. However, that was 2 days after one of our volunteers (and Facebook manager) walked from the group because he had found out from the event organisers that they had discussed the event with our group as well as the club and had official permission, plus event permit from the LM. He had posted an angry response to the event on the Facebook page, was embarrassed and felt he was misled and compromised by us (me).

So how did this mess happen? In early March the LM approached us and the club in the "pre-notification stage" about a night running event. There was an exchange of emails and the light it up event was given the MTB OK except if adverse weather made trail damage likely. The trailhead sign was posted by an organisation unknown to me and no reply was received from the organiser or the LM. I was away for work when our volunteer messaged that despite my denial earlier that day, the light it up guys had in fact discussed their event with us and done everything correctly and he was out. I didn't put 2&2 together that this unknown commercial event planning company was the light it up group from the pre-notification email and lost an irreplaceable volunteer; a good mate.

It bothers me that the specifics of words and arrangements get muddled. "Discussion" = discussion. Night event = night event. Light it up (the name of the group used in talks about the event) was not = to the name on the sign. Singletrack MTB trail is not = to "Shared Trail" where riders do not have trail ownership or priority. In court, "Horses are allowed on shared trail" as per the trailhead sign may mean exactly that regardless whether the LM says they intended otherwise.

There was a need for some clarity, so our little group advised the land manager we are discontinuing volunteer work in the park and would like to meet to hand over (nearly 1000 hours of) timesheets from the last 11 months. We were there because we enjoyed the work, the chance to get together as mates and the bonus of helping riders and the park. I am really proud of the work we did and I am sure the others are too. It's not enough. The return for abiding by politics has to be some security. When the club does nothing to help and we get slapped on the back of the hand AGAIN for not letting them negotiate our concerns, when the club gets credit for us doing their trail work, when the club does nothing to influence illegal trailwork or even report it, leaving it to us to get between the LM and all the good old boys, when the LM feeds us half truths and when we are targeted as causing problems when we are the only ones actually helping the land manager; well in this case, that's the end.

So there's the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this thread - no more MTBtrailcare in Nerang National Park! It's time the LM worked out its own solution to something they have had plenty of time to consider. It's time the club interacted with their LM too.

How do I feel? Like the trail system is at risk until the pro builders arrive for the Commonwealth Games work and like someone with a lot more spare time. Not the outcome I saw coming, but there it is.
RDN'P,

Just want to say that I appreciate and respect your commitement, thoughts, and work.

Cheers for fighting the good fight and for sharing the ups and the downs.

CB
 

·
Unpredictable
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Thanks CB: appreciated. It's a pity the full trail system never became publicly mapped or signposted. So many more people would have been involved and invested, but it was never acceptable to the local land managers.

The interest is there still. I hope we can still be part of the wider Qld MTB project through the state government and we are still included in Commonwealth Games planning. How weird is that? There's volunteer work 40 minutes up the road when we need a fix. Some of it is in other national park locations where issues like this seem to be managed better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,577 Posts
You should thank imba for creating the triangle that puts riders on the bottom rung. The organization is so weak it kowtows to any other group to get a trail approved. This has led to MTB trails built by riders having to submit to other user groups whether they worked on the trails or not.

Good luck.
Not only is this of zero help to the OP, it's also ignorant
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top