Uh oh. Just noticed this message posted to the email list of the Oregon Bicycle Racing Association:
Someone has been placing sticks and logs on the River View trails in an attempt to stop or hurt mountain bikers. They are around blind corners and after drops. I picked up a bunch last week and they are back again. Email if you see Amanda Fritz or Nick Fish on the trail with a handful of logs while wearing a “I hate mountain bikers” tee shirt.
And here’s another another report from Mark Molchan:
HEADS UP! Someone is placing obstacles on trails. Most are no big deal, but I had to clear away 4 sections of branches/logs. Whoever placed these by doing so has confirmed that they are aware of cyclists still using the trails, and have knowingly taken action that could harm someone. At least half of the obstacles were placed at/on/near/around technical, steep, runout sections and on blind turns. Please be careful and scout ahead.
And more photos from Molchan:
Advertisement
To refresh your memory, the trails at River View Natural Area were purchased by the city of Portland in 2012. Prior to that they were owned by the River View Cemetery and people have been riding on them, illegally, for several decades. While technically trespassing, River View never enforced a ban. After the city purchased the land, they permitted bicycling until an abrupt decision this past March put a temporary “pause” on bicycle use until a more formal decision can be made.
It’s unclear who would sabotage trails at River View. Throughout our coverage of this issue there hasn’t been an organized and vocal opposition to mountain biking on the trails (that’s not to say it doesn’t exist, and as commenters point out below, some neighborhood residents and other groups appear to be organizing against bike access). There are a few local residents who have spoken up at meetings — mostly it seemed out of fears of people parking on “their” streets more than use of the trails. Unlike Forest Park, where there’s a long legacy of hiking and world-class trails like Wildwood, the River View trails are mostly unauthorized and relatively underused and therefore biker/hiker conflicts have not been an issue in the recent debate.
Sabotage is nothing new in the trail riding world and Portland is not immune. Back in 2014, a bomb squad was forced to respond when a trip wire device was found strung between two trees in Forest Park.
If anyone else has seen this and/or has photos or other information, please drop me a line. I’ve requested to have a Portland Parks and Recreation ranger stop by and check this out and will report back if I learn anything else.
UPDATE: Portland Parks & Recreation has sent rangers to check out the situation. I will report back if/when they find anything. Also, I just discovered an email written to us on May 21st that offers more details about the alleged trail sabotage:
I am writing to inform you of some disturbing observations I have made regarding RVNA. Though I am sure your readership are all good, law abiding citizens, I feel I should report these findings in the unlikely circumstance that someone who reads Bike Portland may be riding these wonderful trails. Yesterday I was on the main descent (since whether I was on a bike or not is irrelevant to the observations, I will not mention my mode of enjoyment) and I discovered large sticks, branches and logs strategically placed across the trail. This was observed the whole length of the trail adding up to more than 20 objects. These objects where placed across the trail after blind turns, many anchored by trees in a manner that made them fixed. Some of the logs were as large as 12 inches in diameter. I recognized this as trail sabotage.
I have seen this on legal trails when I lived in California. Trail sabotage is criminal regardless of trail legality. People can suffer life threaten ing injuries from such sabotage, not to mention that many of the objects where dragged from off trail, sometimes for more than 10ft before their placement. One such object was a nurse log with actual epiphytes growing on it. Regardless of how you feel about the bike ban, about trail poaching and about the climate around these subjects, this is an unacceptable action. Whether or not a malicious outcome was intended, the mechanism was present. This, to me, is a scary escalation of events. It would be wonderful if you could mention this to your readers so nobody gets hurt. Thanks for all your excellent coverage on this important subject.
My spouse went over the handlebars last week on the trail because of a camoflagued rock in that location….
A camouflaged rock?! What would that look like? A piece of wood? Another rock? A pile of dirt?
If you’re riding on a trail, I’d think that you’d be looking for each and every potential path obstruction. See, you bunnyhop those, or cat-like, deviate your line around them.
Well, that’s what I’ve always done when I’ve mountainbiked. On the trail, expect the unexpected.
This report must be wrong. Nobody rides Riverview any more- it’s illegal.
I thought bike riding was banned in the park…
do a lot of OBRA members hike in the park?
besides, more sticks and logs just make the ride more awesome…
The first rule of poaching trails is do not complain about the trails in public.
The second rule is, you do not talk, about Fight Club!
Seriously, whether or not riding a bike on those trails is legal or illegal or annoys some local residents or disturbs some salmon eggs, anyone intentionally trying to physically hurt someone (or kill them – a severed spinal cord, a fractured pelvis…) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and held fully accountable. There is no place for this type of vigilanteism in a civilized society. Portland, I expect much better from you than this.
And the police need to proactively pursue this investigation and arrest.
As soon as someone gets seriously injured or killed pro-MTB vigilantes will force a violent confrontation with the anti-MTB that did the sabotage.
If PPD wants to pretend that they are not a parody of a real law enforcement agency they must immediately deal with these saboteurs who are a direct threat to public safety.
“Throughout our coverage of this issue there hasn’t been an organized and vocal opposition to mountain biking on the trails.” -JMaus
I can tell you the local neighborhood association is pretty closely associated with the hike-only mindset. someone from the neighborhood started this website:
http://riverviewfriends.org
they’re trying to be “neutral” in their presentation, but they are not in support of MTB in the park
see the FAQ for why MTB is not compatible per this group
“Why should mountain bikers be excluded from using the trails in RVNA?”
that question alone shows that they’re against cyclists in the area…
“Why should MOTORCYCLES be excluded from using the trails in RVNA?”
that question alone shows that they’re against cyclists in the area…
WTF?
You do understand the affect motors have on bicycles. If not, I suggest you hold the front brake of a motorcycle then turn the throttle. After that, stand on a bicycles pedals and try to turn them with a front brake applied. You will quickly find out the difference between the two. This is the worst straw man argument that continuously gets brought up by the anti-mtb crowd. Mountain bikes are considered passive recreation and motorbikes are not.
That question aside, in terms of its use on Friends of Riverview’s informational page on the overall Riverview/mountain biking controversy, at their site, does have some good, researched information from both ‘for’ and ‘opposed’ sides of the issue.
What I gathered about the group’s position on mountain biking on this land, from having browsed the site (around the time of the last series of biikeportland articles of Riverview.), is that their intent is not so much to oppose use of the land for mountain biking, as it is to offer information to help people understand why plans to use the land for that purpose have gone astray…and I think it’s fair to say they’ve done a decent job of that.
Most important point to draw from reading information available at that site about mountain biking at Riverview, I would say, is that there is a possibility that opportunities for mountain biking could be created, if presented in a form that recognizes and allows for that land’s environmental integrity to be sustained. The site has posted material that explains that parts of trails, ‘trail poachers’ created, does not sustain that land’s environmental integrity to be sustained; trail is reported to have conflicted with creeks on the land…something more conscientious trail builders could have avoided through better trail design.
Where is the documentation, such as photos, of the so called “…sabotage…” rumored to have been affected to trail at Riverview? Or…long shot…of someone actually throwing stuff on the trails? Anyone could throw down obstacles on the trail and claim someone did it to hurt mountain bikers. Mountain bikers themselves, possibly in inept attempts to create a spur of the moment ‘more exciting jump’, threw stuff down and conveniently forgot to clean up when it was time for them to leave.
This is no big deal. Not supposed to be mountain biking there in the first place, but if you’re going to do it anyway…go a little slower the first time round, and scout out the trail before going at speed.
Respectfully disagree.
1) They link to and use cut/paste information from Mike Vandeman.
2) Though they removed it on 05/04/15, they did have a section entitled “Urban Mountain Biking” that just made up stuff about Minnesota urban mountain biking. I mean complete falsehoods.
They also mention the conservation easement as the only reason MTB is banned at Riverview. The problem there is that it’s a new argument from the City. First it was “abundance of caution”, then it was environmental factors, then it was a previous lawsuit and then, finally, the conservation easement. There is also the issue of whether or not the conservation easement actually bans biking, but I have not seen the text of it, so I don’t want get too far out on that limb.
I would consider them anti-MTB, mainly for the reason that they attempt some heavy FUD regarding mountain biking and urban mountain biking in particular.
Here is an image created from my urban MTB trail system database that shows all the reasons they are wrong: http://postimg.org/image/5hw11b7ar/
“…Here is an image created from my urban MTB trail system database that shows all the reasons they are wrong: …” MNBikeLuv
You’ve posted a link to a map image with a bunch of red dots on it, claiming it shows reasons you think the Friends of Riverview is wrong about something. What is it you think your database image shows, relative to information provided on the Friends of Riverview site?
You find they cut and paste from comments Mike Vandeman (mountain bike racer, mountain biking advocate…pardon me if I’m incorrect on this.) has made. So what? If you really think there is something contextually relevant, missing in the excerpts they’ve chosen from his full comments, at least summarize what you think that was. No news source, website, weblog, or individual citing a source, can reasonably be excepted to quote the entire range of comments on a subject made by someone.
“…I would consider them anti-MTB, mainly for the reason that they attempt some heavy FUD regarding mountain biking and urban mountain biking in particular. …” MNBikeLuv
In discussing this important issue, spare everyone the obnoxious acronyms (that’s referring to your colloquial, trendy reference to data.)…in addition to being obnoxious, using those kind of dismissive, inarticulate expressions is rude and lazy. Not a good way to encourage a constructive dialogue. Simply as you can, clearly write out what points you disagree with them on.
Truly insufferable.
Try being a spending little less time being pseudo-paternal and use your Google machine if you’re unclear what data means or who someone might be. It’s surprising how well that works.
As far as spreading FUD, (fear, uncertainty and doubt) if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. In your case FUD is something you’re been accused of on many, many occasions on this blog. I can see why it’s use would make you testy. When you get testy you pretend to be the arbiter of all that is polite discussion, especially when you’re being proven wrong.
The above post is filled with autocorrect errors. Apologies for the lack of proofreading.
Just to pile on: Vandeman is infamous in the Bay Area and beyond as a shrill mountain-bike opponent who stood trial for using gardening implements to lash out at riders. You can sample his style here: https://disqus.com/by/mikevandeman/
…which you probably should have before commencing to screed.
Walters…No, MNBikeLuv, is who should have offered to readers, a brief, descriptive reference to who …Vandeman, the guy that messed with trail down in Cali. was, but again, that’s also something he didn’t do in his comment to which we’re responding.
What it all boils down to, is that information provided about the mountain biking controversy on Friends or Riverview’s site, apparently doesn’t agree with the view some mountain bikers have of using that land for mountain biking, so they don’t like it.
Most likely nothing particularly wrong or incorrect with the information and data they provided, because if so, mountain biking proponents commenting to this comment section would have seized upon it and picked it apart, point by point. Which they obviously haven’t, again, most likely because they don’t have any solid information to counter that provided on the Friends of Riverview site.
Friends of Riverview, on their website, did a brief but decently objective job of capsulizing the entire, complex series of events leading to the suspension of mountain biking on the Riverview land. It’s as objective, and credible, maybe more so, than the version of events provided by various other media outlets and organizations.
I tried to do exactly what you suggested in a reply to your previous comment. The mods took it down, likely for length and for content since I did reference the history of the person in question.
There was a great article in the November 2011 Bike magazine that you would get you up to speed on this matter. Its written by a Portland native, Peter Frick Wright. Much more has happened since that time, of course, including events I’ve become privy to here in MN.
I also tried to do a paragraph by paragraph listing of all the issues with their site. Again, mods took it down.
@wsbob, while you and I see mountain biking very differently, I am always willing to answer any questions, assuming you are willing to listen. I live in a state with 275/303 miles of urban mountain biking (depending on whether you count Cuyuna) trails. I know its possible to do and to do well. The answers are there if you truly want them.
p.s. The graphic before shows all 268 (current number) of urban mountain bike trail systems in the USA.
This Q is from the FAQ on the website — evidently a question that MTB guys frequently ask. So, you can’t blame them for trying to answer it.
ironically the “Leave No Trace principle, Respect Wildlife” link in their FAQ links to a page that shows a cyclists respecting wildlife on a trail by stopping and keeping a distance…
https://lnt.org/learn/principle-6
their “friend” facade is thin at best…
There are two groups who have publicly spoken out in opposition to cycling in River View: https://www.facebook.com/RiverViewNatAreaConservationProject
http://riverviewfriends.org/
I realize there are people/groups who might not be super excited about mountain biking in River View — but the point I was trying to make in my story is that thus far they don’t seem to have been a major part of the public dialogue. Of course I have a very strong hunch there are anti-bike forces at work behind the scenes but I won’t go into that now.
Again, my comment in the post was meant to convey that we haven’t seen an organized and public counterpart to the NW Trail Alliance and/or activists like Charlie Sponsel emerge thus far.
And IMO there’s a good reason there are no vocal/coherent/organized/public anti-bike voices… Because that perspective is not only very unpopular but it also doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Again, this is IMO.
The friends group had quite a few of their “members” show up at the last public meeting (sporing new nametags), though I think only a couple spoke. They are definitely getting organized, though they are still a very small group.
I did not see anything supporting or opposing mountain bikes at Riverview on the River View Friends website or FB page. Do you have other evidence?Why needlessly make them an enemy by suggesting they are opposed to all mountain biking? This is the for-us-or-against-us approach that keeps single-track advocates isolated and ineffective.
I am not creating the division, they are. Mountain bikers have tried to reach out to find common ground. In fact, I sent an invite to the RVNA facebook group to get together for friendly conversation and food/drinks. Declined.
See the “FAQ” on the website, and read the posts and comments on the FB page. The evidence is there.
This is unacceptable. Yes, it is not permitted to ride there for now. However, taking the “law” into your hands is never an option. What if some kids from the neighborhood ride that trail and get hurt? What’s next? Poisoning dogs if they are banned? IMO, Portland Parks is partly to blame for this escalated conflict in parks on the West side. They have done nothing to provide alternatives for cycling, and have done nothing to encourage successful trail-sharing. Trail sharing is not a problem whatsoever in Powell Butte, or MANY other places around the state and country.
People advocate taking the law into their own hands on this blog all the time. Diverters on SE Clinton- detaining & confronting drivers on Powell etc.
Not that I agree with the criminal acts on the trail. If someone was harmed the perp could/should be prosecuted and be held financially liable.
But we need to be principled. Leave enforcement to law enforcement and park rangers on the streets and on the MTB trails.
If someone was just placing sticks across a trail to unofficially close it, I would agree with you. If someone was doing it in a way to potentially injure someone, I disagree. The intended outcomes of that instance are very different from your examples. I see the potential for harming someone as a little different than holding up traffic by legally walking across a crosswalk or placing large planters in a street. My fear is that acts like this may escalate to what we are seeing in other places, such as dangerous lines across the trail.
You said “taking the law into your own hands is never an option.” O.M. was simply stating otherwise. Your more nuanced distinction is fair, but that wasn’t the original statement.
You are both correct. I should have thought about that a bit more about posting.
Thanks, Gary, for listening.
Here is my point, clarified for other readers:
Vigilante/mob justice is almost always a bad idea. The mindset of the vigilante is dangerous. One act of mob justice provokes another.
Do you dislike the tacks on the Hawthorne Bridge? I do. Do you dislike the
diverters? I do. Do you oppose cyclists shutting down Powell and confronting cyclists? I do. Do you think Coal Rolling is lame? I do. Do you think appointing yourself park ranger and shutting the trails is lame? I do.
Are all these acts the same in dangerousness? Prob. not- but they are still unwise and unprincipled.
You can’t embrace vigilante justice for your side and complain when
other vigilantes with opposing viewpoints mete out their version of “justice.”
Kill the George Zimmermans and Hart Noeckers in your head. Complain lawfully or with your middle finger (okay- I give one finger salutes to both cyclists and cell phone users all the time. cell phone users cannot signal back ha ha ha and the spandex crowd doesn’t scare me in the least)
But keep it classy (okay- not classy but the finger doesn’t break the law).
Live by the sword- die by the sword. Don’t write checks your fists can’t cash. And finally, remember if you see the word “Nortenos” on the driver’s arm say your prayers because you doesn’t always know who you are messing with.
One person’s “mob justice” is another person’s “people getting together to solve problems in a leadership vacuum “.
Thanks for adding narco-mobsters to the list of threats to cyclists though mamacita, I hadn’t thought of that one!
That came from a great post on another thread on this blog. The cyclist got mad at a driver and was about to say something when he saw the tattoo.
Seriously, you are naive if you think you can antagonize strangers.
And Rob, you are not being principled here, IMHO. You are just inviting retaliation that you will then complain about.
Booby trapping trails, if that is indeed what is happening, is certainly antagonistic to strangers no?
I actually stand by my principles. If I lived near Riverview I’d be happy to patrol the trails to look for intentionally placed hazards. If the presence of all of my limbs after surviving my old occupation is any indication I’m at least competent at that sort of thing.
Oh, and I missed the tattoo story the first time around, that’s comedic gold thanks!
“And Rob, you are not being principled here, IMHO. You are just inviting retaliation that you will then complain about.”
Do you feel exactly the same way about speeding near vulnerable people, close passes near vulnerable people, cutting vulnerable people off, and tail-gating vulnerable people? Despited witnessing these behaviors every day, I have never once witnessed anyone lecture people driving aggressively that they are “just inviting retaliation that [they] will then complain about”.
spandex crowd blah blah blah
trail sharing isn’t a problem because it is known by all parties that the trails are there to share. a bunch of “what ifs” aside along with a heaping of feigned outrage, why would any rider even use this area? Its limited, its unfriendly, and its now illegal. There are better places to spend what is supposed to be your fun time. sounds like this place is just making everyone who thinks about it straight up pissy, which is quite un-mountain biking.
I don’t ride there, but if I lived close and didn’t own a car and had been biking there for many years…….I’d find it hard to want to ride anywhere else.
And PPR, apparently won’t even let us “discuss” biking, since, you know, it’s now banned……..
“However, taking the “law” into your hands is never an option.”
it’s always an option with Oregon’s Citizen Initiated Citation…
Perhaps no truly loud public opposition, but it has most definitely been on the radar of the neighborhood association boards. I suspect the opposition is more iceberg-like than you’d like to think. Maybe an interview of riverviewfriends.org would be a good thing for this site to pursue? They are certainly aware of this site and its general vibe.
Hurting people, not cool. Riding in out of bounds areas, not cool. I say the issue needs to be settled in the Thunderdome.
>Someone has been placing sticks and logs on the River View trails in an attempt to stop or hurt mountain bikers.
That seems like an awfully vague observation, based on second hand information taken from the internet, to call sabotage.
But then again, there hasn’t been a good witch hunt here since the duck guy a few months back.
Yeah, I don’t get it. It’s mountain biking. Like, riding on dirt in the woods. Is it not conceivable that there might be sticks on the ground? It’s not like someone comes through with a Zamboni after every run.
I think this article is equally ridiculous. If you can’t handle a few sticks on the trail while mountain biking, you need to find a new sport…
It’s more than that. Someone posted some additional photos on a Facebook page. Looks potentially dangerous considering the placement, especially for younger/less experienced riders.
How many times has a cyclist been accused of sabotaging a hiking only trail? The anti-mtb crowd in this town needs to get over itself already.
the issue is that the trails were created, used, and then booby traps set up in an attempt to hurt or maim those on a bicycle. its wrong, its malicious, and its not OK.
146 acres is plenty of room for mountain bikes.
I would venture to guess you haven’t done a lot of MTB riding in other places?
My sympathy for people heading through private property literally desecrating graveyards in the name of cyclist rights is less than zero and makes me ashamed to ride on the association alone.
And the city owning it does not make it open to the public. (Before someone tries to turn this into semantics.)
You haven’t been to River View before, have you?
Lith, are you being sarcastic? The parcel in question formerly belonged to Riverview Cemetery, but was never developed, so there are no graves there to desecrate.
By the way, I’m a Riverview plot owner myself (and it being a co-op, that makes me a part owner of the cemetery as a whole). If any graves were being desecrated by cyclists or anyone else, I’d be calling for an end to it.
“Email if you see Amanda Fritz or Nick Fish on the trail with a handful of logs while wearing a “I hate mountain bikers” tee shirt.”
Does antagonizing those who make the decisions make sense??
These are the people we have to work with to resolve the access issue.
How about “Email Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish with your safety concerns on this issue”
Sure it’s meant as humour, but more flies with honey.
Yep, honey’s the ticket if you’re settling for flies.
I condemn any and all efforts to place obstructions in trails designed to target cyclists. This is potentially dangerous, and even people riding illegally should not be at risk of injury.
At the same time, I also oppose “poaching” trails that are closed (at least at this point) to bikes. Illegal action is not the answer to policy disagreement.
And I am still sick and tired of advocates for mountain bike access hanging the “anti-bike” label on everyone who opposes or even questions mountain bike use in Riverview. I use my bikes as my primary mode of transportation, exercise, and recreation. The last thing anyone would call me is anti-bike. But I’m still not sure whether mountain bike use is appropriate for Riverview.
The cycling community usually opposes labels, particularly those that can be quite unfair. So I suggest not stooping to tossing such labels around ourselves.
Who said “anti-bike”? Most people (including statements in this article) just say “anti-mountain bike”.
Or, “anti-bike” in River View, which is a completely fair description.
A very similar scenario recently played out in North Vancouver, BC. Search “trail saboteur” on NSMB.com. Basically a long-time anti-bike advocate, a neighbor to the heavily used bike/hike/multi-use trails, was CAUGHT ON HIDDEN CAMERA setting up dangerous trail obstacles. I believe some riders were taken down by the obstacles, but no serious injuries. The saboteur was arrested and charged, and even though the most serious charges didn’t stick, she (and her husband who was likely involved too) was publicly outed and shamed.
Want justice? Don’t hold your breath for the Portland Police. Set up your own camera sting!
Great idea Andrew, who has a trail camera?
Some other recent comments I read in other articles suggested ideas like:
“There’s two ways to get real change re: traffic – bug the city until they do it, or DIY until the city does it.”
It seems to me that this is what it looks like from the other side of the fence. Some DIYer has decided to get “real change” in RVNA. If you’re attracted to the idea of taking matters into your own hands on city streets — or anywhere really — then please remember this article and reconsider. Making progress through consensus can be frustrating and slow, but trying to accelerate matters by taking them into one’s own hands is not the answer.
So, let me get this straight. Biking is not allowed but people continue to ride and are complaining about trails being rigged? Are you people daft? Why is this conversation even happening?
When the Management Plan bans dogs, and dogs are still being brought in to the park, is it cool if an angry neighbor puts poison in dog treats in the area? What about banned, off-trail hiking? Is it ok to toss some booby-traps around the area, too?
Because intentionally harming other people is a far worse crime than riding a bicycle on a trail.
rouge riding makes the MTB community the bad guys. Follow the rules and you won’t have an issue. Parks has been narrowing the trails and closing short cuts. Nuff said.
Every counter argument is so exaggerated. It’s very difficult to take the pro biking stance seriously. The opposer is always wrong, always making stuff up, always accused of using no scientific data, and now the opposer has the poisoning of dogs analogy to look forward to when people shouldn’t be riding the trails to begin with. I don’t know. I’m having a hard time understanding how ‘minimal human impact’ is so hard to comprehend whether there are sticks on the trail or not. I stopped walking back there a LONG time ago. This crying game is getting old.
Have a great day.
The crying game gets results. When we pitch fits and block traffic, the city listens to us. You could say that the city is training the cycling community to be a group of angry whiners.
…has trained, sorry.
I would hope parents lead by example and don’t take their “young/less experienced” riders on trails their not allowed to ride! This really shouldn’t even be a topic. Bikes should not be on the trails. Respect the rules, trails and environmental concerns and you’ll gain respect from the greater community.
Bicycle riding will cause no environmental “damage.” The greater community doesn’t care about bicycling on those trails but the neighbors nearby care about people parking in “their” neighborhoods while using the area.
Placing obstructions on a trail with the intention of causing injury to another person, is a crime. I would hope parents lead by example and choose not to try and kill people on bicycles.
Then again, rules are rules. I guess riding a bicycle on a dirt trail closed to them deserves the death sentence…
When I was young I rode my bike in the woods all the time, without my parents. I’m not so sure that as a 12 or 13 year old, I would have obeyed a sign. I assume that as the only place in that part of the city to ride a bike on dirt, that some may do just that.
I bask in all of the respect that I have gained by not riding singletrack in Forest Park.
Dear Mark Molchan, please follow the rules and stay off the trails. You’re giving the MTB community a bad name/image.
Really? By hiking trails and cleaning up trash and shit left there by someone else? How does doing volunteer clean-up on trails he is no longer to ride give the mtb community a bad name?
I am walking the trails. I ride to the trails and then push my bike around with me, but sometimes leaving it if I hike uphill and loop around. So if your timing is right, you can have it for free. Those Sidi shoes have cleats and are easy to hike in. I just wish some others would help a guy out. It is scary scouting the homeless camps. And to others who read this, friends of Riverview is reporting bikers they see to parks/Rangers. Just FYI.
I’m not a fan of trail poaching nor is the vast majority of cycling community.
…and I don’t think he’s “hiking” in his Sidi.
Maybe he rode there and is walking his bike on the trail. Looks like he is at the bottom entrance, which he could have ridden to.
Hey all, I checked back and wanted to note that Dog Walkers are not banned right now and can walk their dogs on leash. It is in the plan to potentially ban them but, for now, they are allowed. So, if you see a dog off-leash, say something. Don’t let it slide…seriously. Also, I work with a lot of people who bike, so I’m not against biking. For me, the overarching idea for RVNA is “minimal human impact” including foot traffic. That’s why it’s been a LONG time since I walked back there. Isn’t the new Forest Park biking initiative a win for bikers? I was pretty happy when I read that the Tualatin Mountain committee approved a biking plan. In all honestly, I want everyone to enjoy what they love to do. I’m simply mystified why RVNA is the major focus right now. When it was owned by RV Cemetery, it was private property and we were ALL trespassing, so the argument about being back there for 10-20 years is pretty irrelevant for us all whether on foot or bike. I know I felt guilty when I found that out. I’ve been walking back there for about 10 years or so. In reality, none of it was ever allowed. Also, foot traffic will be banned in the interior forest region where most people walk now, so walkers are going to lose out in that respect and, if dogs are banned, the foot traffic will diminish to a great degree. I feel, in the end, that the real sentiment “minimal human impact” is being lost in this battle of pro vs oppose. If it were up to me, no one would be allowed back there until it recovers from all human impact over the years. That sentiment has been totally lost in this debate. I think it’s kind of sad.
Let’s remove all the human impact and let the invasive ivy have the place all to itself.
There is no Forest Park biking initiative. It’s as prohibitive to mountain biking as it ever was.
If you want minimal human impact, then all humans should be banned from the parcel. Unless there as part of an official “clean-up” day.
All dogs should be banned– along with the humans who don’t pick up after their pet, and pack out the waste. The Poop Bag Fairy isn’t going to do it for you, and the Urine Fairy isn’t going to magically disappear your dog’s pee. Dollars to donuts, a lot of those dogs are not on-leash, and are off-trail.
In regards to the logs and what-not: The update to the story indicates that some of the logs had been dragged from their original locations off-trail and placed on-trail. Whatever human did this doesn’t care about the “purity” of the landscape, or they wouldn’t have gone off-trail and disturbed the natural area. That says to me that the human who did this wants to keep outsiders from recreating on the trails they consider their own. By disturbing the ecology, they’ve done more damage than the mountain bikers have.
“…The update to the story indicates that some of the logs had been dragged from their original locations off-trail and placed on-trail. Whatever human did this doesn’t care about the “purity” of the landscape, or they wouldn’t have gone off-trail and disturbed the natural area. …” KristenT
Good guess, would be that before, somebody cleared land for trails in Riverview, some of which apparently was cleared and converted into trail specifically for mountain biking…there was plenty of branches and logs strewn randomly about.
So in essence, the natural material being brought back onto the trails, are effectively a restoration of sorts, towards the lands original character. Not a problem at all, for people walking through the woods. Stepping and crawling over logs and other fall down is routine on many forest trails in Oregon and elsewhere.
Incidentally….GillyGirl: generally decent effort on your part in comments you’ve posted in this story’s comment section, all things considered. If nothing else, you get points for trying, as others have, to help people understand that mountain biking has for the present, been ‘curtailed’ at Riverview natural area park; use of the land for riding bikes on the trails, has been suspended. As such, there’s no justification whatsoever, for objections to trails in this park not being maintained in a condition suitable for mountain biking.
That is not restoration. You are more hate-filled than I ever imagined if you are saying that. Way to stick up for potentially causing injury to people – keep it classy.
“That is not restoration. …” Alex
As I said, effectively, it is restoration.
Interesting. I guess you were in the area before the trails were built and remember every tree that ever fell there. That must be how you know the logs and brush were returned to their original resting places.
All hail WSBOB, omniscient steward of Riverview!
It isn’t even effectively restoration. Way to try to justify your hate though.
If I go drag a log across Leif Erickson Drive can I say I effectively restored it? If so, I’m starting there and then falling trees across Ankeny, the Esplanade and Clinton. Cyclists who complain about my restoration efforts will be turned into our new omniscient leader for judgement. People, you’re either with us or against us.
Restore the city!
Are you _sure_ you don’t know Mike Vandeman?
Debris of any kind on a trail can cause water miss-direction leading to erosion or standing water (these are poorly designed, if at all, trails). True, this is not the rainy season. But eventually it will rain and small debris can pile up. Many sections of these trails need year long care, that’s when I meet others there and clear the blow down, raking and such, cutting felled trees so no one has to walk off trail and around. These obstacles need to go, period.
Oh sweet, I’m going to go ride the Forest Park initiative with my kids.
I JUST read that the tualatin mountain committee approved a biking initiative. Don’t talk to me like I”m stupid, ZImmerman. And, regarding your SNOTTY comment above, really? What does invasive ivy have to do with ANYTHING being discussed here? Workgroups to remove ivy have nothing to do with hiking or biking! Where the heck does this stuff come from? Un freakin’ BELIEVABLE!
Do the work groups somehow hover above the ground when they do their work or do human feet have to desecrate the hallowed earth in order to “save” the area?
The Tualatin initiative is not in Forest Park, hence its not a “Forest Park Initiatve.”
No need to yell.
You know what, Kristen? It’s not me. The agreement specifically references minimal human impact. Did you even read what it says? Hmmmm? It’s ALL about mountainbiking. EVERYTHING is about mountain biking. Did you even read what I said in my post? This is NOT about mountain biking for me. Maybe, if people started actually educating themselves about what is it in writing, a lot of what is being said and most of the accusations that are being flung would be rethought. READ THE AGREEMENT. And, like I said, I’m all for no human impact in that area until it recovers. Maybe you didn’t see that? Lastly, until I see someone moving something, I’m not convinced that ANYONE is doing anyting but STILL RIDING IN AN AREA WHERE THEY ARE PROHIBITED AND TAKING PICTURES OF THE AREA WHILE ON THEIR BIKES COMPLAINING THAT THERE ARE OBSTACLES IN THE ROAD THAT IMPEDE THEM RIDING THEIR BIKES. Is that LOUD enough for you? HONEST enough for you? TRUTHFUL enough for you? I’M not back there. ARE YOU?
I have. The Conservation Easement does not prohibit mountain biking. “Recreation” is mentioned multiple times as an acceptable form of use at RVNA. Mountain biking is a form of recreation that we feel is compatible with the other desired outcomes for RVNA.
I am confident that the ban by two City Commissioners will be overturned.
Oh, so it’s cool to try an injury people on a trail because the activity they happen to be doing is prohibited? If that’s how things work I’m heading down to Ladd’s addition with a paintball gun. Anyone running those stop signs is in for it.
Brian: I know it. I’ve read it over and over to understand it. Seriously; it’s a poorly written agreement at best. It’s vague and lacks clarity. All I’m saying is, I feel my statement was once again turned into a MTBing conversation. All I want is for RVNA to be a minimal impact area. That’s it. Nothing more; nothing less. To me, this isn’t about mountain biking. It’s a human thing, not just about something with two wheels. I stopped walking back there for a reason.
They are NEVER going to kick all of the people out. They need to be able to walk around in there so they can take pictures of birds.
That’s good, because mountain biking has a very minimum impact on the land.
Zimmerman: I get it about the alleged obstacles. I’m not back there so I can’t honestly comment. I’m only seeing the pics posted here. However, you’ve got two dynamics going on, (1) prohibited activity which has been proven and admitted and (2) allegations that obstacles are intentional. I can only “see” that people are still riding by pics posted, admitted confirmations by riders and reports of fresh tracks by neighbors. I can’t confirm the alleged harm in the form of obstacles.. Sorry. I need more proof.
Well, when someone is seriously injured, paralyzed or dies due to the booby traps you’ll he able to sit back with your arms crossed, satisfied.
Oh yes. That’s TOTALLY what I’m aiming for Z. Death and destruction is my motto. Stop riding where you’re not supposed to and you won’t get hurt. For now, I’ll let you all go back to thinking the WHOLE world hates you. When you realize it’s NOT about MTBing, you’ll see where I’m standing. I’m neutral. Temper tantrum over now? Oh wait, let me give you your binkie. Better?
There is definitely someone flying off the handle in this discussion and it’s not me. You keep saying that this article about sabotaging trails used by the mountain biking community isn’t about mountain biking. That’s very curious. Even after repeated, emphatic FULL CAPS outbursts from you, I don’t believe it to be true.
I do have a suggestion for a place you can plug with your binkie, but you might not like it.
Caps lock is on the left, carry on passionate eco-soldier. I’ll try not to park in your neighborhood when I’m checking for sabotage in Riverview.
The city has been working in Riverview recently, spraying stuff and marking stuff, traipsing around off trail throughout the interior. At this point, the rules don’t really mean much because the city and parks is prepping for the official “reprogramming” of this wooded parcel: kick everyone out, decommission all trails, and put in a sidewalk. I hope we can still bike there eventually, but in the meantime, I will enjoy what I can how I can.
People like you hurt the sport. It’s not all about you! Your inability to follow the posted rules hurts the chances of community support for riding in less sensitive areas. Shame on you.
When you start at zero trails, there’s nothing to lose.
Actually, if you look at the history, much of the progress has been because people created and rode illegal trails. I mean, I know you are just trying to be holier than thou, but you are historically very far off base.
Sorry I was not clear. I meant I will enjoy what I can (existing trails), how I can (hiking around keeping it clean). Come on out and join me. It’s actually more difficult for me to hike these trails than ride…they are so steep! I’ll be going to Sandy tomorrow, though, and spending my money there.
Thanks for volunteering, Mark. Much appreciated.
I love dropping in to see the vibe in hopes that collaboration will overcome Portlandia’s recent affinity to division. So, how about Knoxville winning that nice trail grant?
https://youtu.be/z0xmLY16M_w
If a branch falls on a trail and no one is there to ride it does it cause a high pitched whining sound emanating from a MTB community that apparently cannot even hop small branches? Yes, yes it does.
If a mountain biker rides a trail and a “friend of river view” isn’t there to see it does it cause them to violently lash out? Yes, yes it does.
MNBikeLuv at: http://bikeportland.org/2015/06/04/trail-sabotage-seen-river-view-143940#comment-6412244
“…@wsbob, while you and I see mountain biking very differently, …” MNBikeLuv
Probably, we don’t see mountain biking differently, except at the point to which federally designated wilderness parks, and long term designated nature parks are sought for vehicular recreation by people seeking places to mountain bike.
In Portland, Forest Park is a long term designated nature park. Riverview, is a considerably different situation, and I’ve written time and again here in comments to bikeportland, that I initially more or less assumed that the city would make that land available to the public for mountain biking; and that I didn’t particularly object, because that land doesn’t have the long standing established purpose, function and legacy that Forest Park does.
The city though, after buying the land and studying conditions attached to the purchase, apparently came to feel far different about what range of activities would be appropriate for this land. Charting out how city officials’ feelings about this came to change, is what the Friends of Riverview managed to do on their website.
I don’t think we agree on what a vehicle is. Horses are vehicles to me and are often considered that under law, yet they are allowed in Wilderness.
Forest Park is a city park with no status as a “nature park” and there are no rules about “vehicular” recreation regarding it (other than the rules you continually make up and spout here). In fact, bikes and horses are allowed, just on limited single-track. Mountain biking is not in conflict with the uses/intentions of Forest Park – I have not seen anything cited by you, Houle or anyone else that would lead me to believe that it is. Cycling is allowed and currently it is allowed in the areas where the highest speeds and most user conflict can arise. I say we change that so the experience can be better for everyone involved.
“The city though, after buying the land and studying conditions attached to the purchase, apparently came to feel far different about what range of activities would be appropriate for this land.”
This seems more like a lawsuit issue – i.e. perhaps the city was bullied into it by some outside user groups. We certainly don’t know the reason for sure because they have been tight lipped on the subject.