(Photos © J. Maus)
In light of the discovery of an unauthorized bike trail in the northern reaches of Forest Park, I spoke about the situation this morning with Tom Archer, President of the non-profit off-road advocacy group the Northwest Trail Alliance.
Archer was clearly disappointed by the discovery and expressed hope that attention on this incident will not distract from the ongoing effort to increase off-road trail riding opportunities in the region. (Archer is a member of the Forest Park Single Track Cycling Committee formed by City Parks Commissioner Nick Fish.)
“It’s obvious we condemn it; but the question remains, what are we doing in trying to solve the larger problem? Forest Park is not going to be the panacea to this problem…
I think it’s a reflection of a lack of facilities that are oriented toward this type of riding experience. It doesn’t justify it in any way, but it’s a symptom of a larger problem and that’s what we’re doing in our work with the Committee and also some other initiatives in the Parks bureau.”
Archer is referring to a broad-based effort to find more local trails to ride on in other areas like Powell Butte and within the yet-to-be-built Gateway Green project.
Archer also said he and the NWTA are committed to the process for identifying new trails to ride in Forest Park that has been set up by Commissioner Fish.
Asked whether he felt this rogue trail reflects poorly on off-road advocates, he said, “Yes, I do, but I hope there’s a distinction between these few ne’er do wells and the NWTA. I think Parks recognizes that and it’s a point we’ll continue to make.”
NWTA has to balance their condemnation of this act with individuals in the community who are fed up with the lack of trails and who aren’t afraid to take things into their own hands. There is an underground community of freeride and downhill riders that are known to work outside the process. NWTA is actively trying to engage with these individuals. I asked Archer about this balance:
“I do think as a group we have to be careful about alienating certain people within the biking community. That said, I’m not going to use that lack of progress [on more trail riding opportunities] as an excuse for this type of thing — furthermore, it’s only working to slow the process down…
… I just don’t see how any civil — or uncivil — disobedience will help the situation. It’s not going to help.
To the extent they [whoever built this trail] might take offense to us… Well, that’s just the way it’s going to be. We’ll reach out to people and hopefully be able to engage them in a way that is much more productive. But I hope this is clear — we’re not going to tolerate this sort of activity at any level… it’s not going to fly.
We’re walking a fine line, we have to work with our partners and also engage these people [who built the rogue trail] over the longer term. It’s difficult for us when we don’t have any alternatives for them in the city… We need to create an outlet for these people and that’s just going to take some time.”
How will NWTA continue to respond to this situation in the coming weeks?
“We’ve committed to Parks and we’ll help them deal with the situation on the ground and also use it as a platform that people have to work within an acknowledged process. We’ll have a more detailed statement ready in the next few days… we just haven’t had time to do it.”
What are your thoughts going into Thursday’s committee meeting?
“Our message is, let’s not get distracted here. This is not an issue that the committee needs to deal with. We’re not using it as justification in moving the process forward. It’s simple; we condemn it, we can help, and let’s move on.. I hope the committee doesn’t get bogged down in it and that it can be a learning experience for everybody.”
Some people say this action reeks of a mindset of entitlement. How do you respond to that?
“I don’t think I have an inherent right to ride my bike in Forest Park. I think it’s a privilege. Entitlement hasn’t worked before and I really don’t want to go down that road again.”
Stay tuned for more. Also, browse the BikePortland archives for complete coverage of mountain biking in Forest Park.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
As a regular rider in forest park I really question the sincerity of this “discovery”. There are dozens of homeless encampments and associated trail improvements throughout the entire park. There are also a number of grey trails in the park. Why is it now at a “sensitive” part of the negotiation that this trail is discovered? Was it really constructed in just the last month? I can’t help but wonder if this issue has been selectively released to skew the public opinion and keep the park “safe” for the pristine habitat crowd and angry old hikers. Politics as usual.
Another point is the “pristine quality” the park staff keep referencing. The area in question is mid-succession re-growth after the area was logged and burned in the fifties. In the future the area could be an important part of the City’s future plans for the area as a wildlife reserve and transit corridor into the coast range. We need to ask ourselves the ultimate purpose of our parks. Are they meant to be wildlife reserves or places for public use?
In case you were wondering, I have never built an illegal trail, although I regularly ride the fire roads (including the ones that are supposedly off limits to bikers ?!?) and clear seasonal deadfall. When you make most of the park offlimits to everyone, everyone becomes an outlaw.
I respect Tom and have worked with him on these issues in the past. But I think he needs to be more honest about the whole solution (maybe he was and didn’t get fully quoted here).
This incident highlights merits of the joint position of the Forest Park Conservancy, Portland Audubon and the Northwest Trails Alliance that the single-track issue is not just a demand problem.
http://forestparkconservancy.org/fpc-s-position-statement-on-mountain-biking-in-forest-park
The White Paper calls for improved single-track access in appropriate places, with professional design and installation to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. But it ALSO calls for more resources for enforcement and education to address illegal use and abuse of Forest Park, by any individual including cyclists…. long neglected elements of the Forest Park Management Plan.
It is precisely now, as the Park faces growing recreational pressures, that we must honor Portlanders history of stewardship and do more to protect the values for which everyone and future generations benefit, not JUST provide more access to new user groups.
Jim Labbe
Jim,
As with almost all interviews you’ll read on BikePortland, this is a paraphrase of comments made during our conversation. Obviously Tom has a lot more to say about this issue than is captured in this relatively short interview.
After talking with Tom (and I tried to make this clear in the article), I was impressed by his balance in sharing his disappointment and frustration in this incident while also sharing that it’s a symptom of a larger problem. He and the NWTA have always been dedicated to the idea of self-policing and stewardship. Your comment seems to infer otherwise.
Sorry
A workable link to the Forest Park Conservancy Off-Road Cycling White Paper is actually through Bikeportland.org:
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/fpc-mtb-white-paper-final.pdf
It boggles my mind that Forest Park is still (mostly) closed to MTB’s. The mountain bike community, in general, has had a history of fantastic forest stewardship. If MTBers are let into Forest Park, that will mean MORE hands to help with trail maintenance, invasive species eradication, etc. All we (responsible MTBers) want to do is help and preserve, why won’t Metro, or P&R, or whoever let us do that?
Committee talk is just that…TALK. It’s hollow and empty until the self proclaimed “bicycle friendly” local leadership we’ve elected over the past decade gets off the sideline and does something. Tom says it will take time, but more than enough time has passed. They, our local leaders, need to act! We, the public, want to see plans, timelines, action. Stop with the pandering and pick up a shovel. A little manual labor may serve to stengthen thier backbone.
You see it all over the west, illegal trails are popping up on public lands at a record rate. This is due in large part to the glacial pace at which public agencies are responding to the demands and needs of recreational users. Groups and individuals who were once respectful of the process have now gotten fed up with unresponsive agencies and incessant delays. They are taking matters into their own hands and moving the process forward without official sanction. Public land managers should take note that they are not keeping up with the needs of their users. What harm is there in adding a new and “quality” MTB trail every now and then. I have no doubt that any number of local MTB groups would take over the maintenance responsibilities of this trail and “adopt it” as responsible users.
Public land managers simply cannot afford to ignore, to waste the availability of ready volunteers in these hard budget times. They will also find that they do not have the resources in the long run to stop illegal trail developement entirely. The more they try and quash new trail developement, legal or illegal, the more resources they will have to put into rehabilitating these unauthorized trails.
Working within the process is fine, but when the process stops working this sort of thing will happen. I hope the relevant agencies take notice and respond in a constructive way to the needs of the community.
The attitude of the mountain biking community is “sanction what we want, now, because we’re going to do it anyway.”
The film of the mountain bikers “improving” the trail clearly shows who did this. The NWTA knew about it, they probably know who did it, and they are protecting them. That is not outrage at the damage being done, that’s supporting it.
Here in Victoria we have similar issues with riders building illegal trails in parks despite the fact that the local mountain biking advocacy group works wonders in a park north of the city.
However, I personally have zero tolerance for crap like illegal trail building is largely undisturbed areas. My father is a biologist and we have had many conversations about this. Human presence in these places aggravates the issue of loss and degradation of habitat in the rest of the are.
“Are they meant to be wildlife reserves or places for public use?”
Both! And there won’t be nice bits of nature for public use if they aren’t carefully preserved.
“they probably know who did it, and they are protecting them.”
PDX1111 #8
That is a really big assumption. Remember what they say about assumptions…”they make an a$$ out of you and you.”
Have you ever even gone to an NWTA meeting, seen the work that they have and are doing?
Jacob # 5 It’s because hikers are a powerful lobby with deep pockets.
“Jacob # 5 It’s because hikers are a powerful lobby with deep pockets.” SkidMark #12
SkidMark…well maybe the answer you need lies in what you’ve said there…have mountain bikers become a “…powerful lobby with deep pockets.”, a lobby that would certainly be more powerful than the “…hikers…lobby…” you seem to imagine exists.
If you’re correct about ‘deep pockets’ being such a factor in determining mode of travel access or type of activity allowed in the park, all off-road bike enthusiasts need to do is hook up with some people having ‘deep pockets’; that will allow them to overwhelm the great influence over access to the park you figure that hikers have.
If they aren’t already such, one reason for that may be that the mountain bike ethic is not supported by people with deep pockets. There most likely are rich people that enjoy off-road riding. Are we hearing of efforts made on the part of these people to work with groups like the NWTA to acquire…buy land for mountain bike specific riding? Are they making any such efforts?
Eileen #10…good point…I agree. Last week on OPB’s Oregon Field Guide, the story was about a PSU Grad that’s been studying the pygmy owl for the last year or so. It’s a very small, inconspicuous, elusive critter. He was able to rather easily devote hundreds of hours to study of the these owls because their one of their habitat areas was located somewhere within Forest Park’s 5000 acres.
This reminds me of the situation with off-leash dogs in Portland. Even though numerous off-leash areas were introduced, a large number of owners just do what they want in any park.
When there are pressures for a resource from many user groups, it is very common that they cannot all be met (or met fully). I suspect that the nature of Forest Park makes it a tough place to lace with riding trails, at least while achieving the preservation goals that are at the heart of the place.
The half-hearted condemnation of this rogue trail will not win hearts and minds. I’d suggest NWTA sending their members up there to do the restoration work that is now needed.
I’m over riding in Forest park. You guys can fight over it. I’ll be out riding world class trails. NWTA…Don’t waste time on FP. Move on to areas with real possibilities. It would be nice to have good trails out my back door, that’s everybody’s pipe dream. NWTA hasn’t accomplished much in the last 20years in FP. At least nothing worth talking about unless you like riding poorly built trails that are like mile long. Thanks for that. Get over it and go to hood river.
One of my big gripes with those who want to limit local trails is that they often say off-road riders can always ride in places further away (the coast, HR, etc.). The problem here is that it forces us into our cars… a much bigger impact to the environment than trail riding. I just love it when I ride my bike to FP only to get hard stares from some hiker driving up in an old vw spewing out crap…. That asphalt you’re driving on is a thousand times worse than any single track.
This whole thing reeks of a group’s sense of entitlement where there really isn’t an entitlement. The park is a park. There are rules governing its use. The trail shouldn’t be there and the scofflaws who built the trail presumably knew what. What part of this is so difficult to understand? The trail is wrong, it should be removed/reclaimed and the vandals who built it persued and prosecuted. Anything less simply allows a window for further abuses.
It’s like the old flower in the meadow argument: If I just pick one wildflower, then no one is really harmed. But if everyone picks a wildflower, soon they’ll all be gone and no one will be able to enjoy them. Didn’t we all learn this as small children?
Rob and dcufan…see this post on another thread on bikeportland. You could ride to Scapoose or take a shorter drive there than it would be to Hood River or the coast range:
Unauthorized bike trail damages “pristine habitat” in Forest Park – UPDATED/..Charlie, comment #164, off-road bike trail in Scapoose
Scapoose blows!
It’s a well-known fact that the Sierra Club was heavily involved in the trail closures that took place after the first mountain bike boom. Go ahead, look it up.
RMH, you are right about the sense of entitlement, the idea that hikers and equestrians should be the only people should have access to singletrack nature trails.
There are mountain bike specific parks and riding spots everywhere but in “America’s Best City for Bicycle Riding”.
In fact in Seattle there is one that was built ILLEGALLY under the elevated I-5 bridge. It was allowed to stay because there was such a demand for it.
Tom,
keep up the good work! Be sure to refer anyone asking what the ‘proper’ construction of a mountainbike trail should be, they should take a look at Firelane 5. It was planned and built by bicyclists for all park users, and it was 100% legal. Yes, it’s only 1/4 of a mile long, but it is in better shape year round than any hiking only trail.
A small start, but it is a good start.
wsbob,
I ride Scappoose, but I’d much rather not have to drive to ride (and, considering it’s about 20 miles from Portand, I’m not about to put in another 40+ miles of asphalt on my MTB). Despite the assertions of many of the FP single-track opponents, the issue regarding appropriate new trails isn’t about protecting the environment, it’s about excluding other users.
“Jacob # 5 It’s because hikers are a powerful lobby with deep pockets.” SkidMark #20
“…It’s a well-known fact that the Sierra Club was heavily involved in the trail closures that took place after the first mountain bike boom. …” SkidMark #20
SkidMark, if you intended a connection between those two remarks, would you care to explain to everyone reading here, what it was?
Rob…I can understand you not wanting to drive extra miles to Scapoose to ride you off-road bike, but as other commenters have pointed out, that location is closer than some others.
The other portion of your comment:
“Despite the assertions of many of the FP single-track opponents, the issue regarding appropriate new trails isn’t about protecting the environment, it’s about excluding other users.”
“FP single-track opponents” as you refer to them…whoever you’re specifically referring to…are just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours. They have their own sense of what protecting the environment means, as I imagine you do.
Listening to comments people have posted expressing caution about introduction of single width trail for use by off-road bike riding in Forest Park, and reading numerous news stories featuring the same, it seems protection of the environment is very much the issue.
Exclusion of or limitation of various types of use in the park is a practical means of protecting the environment that people come to the park to enjoy.
wsbob,
People are definitely entitled to their opinions, but I think one should look at the studies done regarding the impact on the environment and not just be ruled by their gut. Opinions are one things, objective studies completely another.
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html
Hmmm.. this is such an ironic discussion considering the forum. So many here proclaim to ride their bikes in an effort to protect the environment and there is such self-righteousness about it too. I’m sorry, but we aren’t talking about your right to share roadways with cars so that you can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re talking about recreation here! You don’t have any guaranteed rights to ride your bikes through public trails so your self-righteousness in this conversation is severely misplaced.
I’ll tell you what I know. I know enough about ecology to know that I don’t know enough about ecology to say I know more than the experts. These are extremely complex and delicate issues. Small changes can have huge impacts. I highly recommend watching the OPB special on invasive species if you want to be overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of what we are dealing with. I also recommend before you decide to go head to head with experts and question their decisions about our delicate environment that you BECOME an expert. I’d say a masters degree in biology and environmental science might be the start of the credentials you’d need to really be able to voice a worthwhile opinion in this conversation. Or the equivalent reading material if you’re really anti-establishment.
No wsbob, I won’t explain it again. Google: mountain bike trail closure Sierra Club and see what comes up. Maybe for fun throw in Marin Country. Watch the movie Singletrack Minds.
http://www.poisonoakproductions.com/movies/
What went on there is exactly what’s going to happen here.
One persons illegal trail is another persons direct action, or is direct action now a euphemism for terrorism… Anyway, I’d argue one persons patriotism is another persons terrorism.
This is the kind of “can do” attitude that makes America great and keeps Portland weird.
Nobody asked permission to build the legendary Burnside Skatepark, and now people come to Portland from around the Globe to skate it.
Gas on the fire.
SkidMark…and I offer the suggestion that you do a bit of study on the Sierra Club’s website, and others, to determine to what degree your statement:
“…It’s because hikers are a powerful lobby with deep pockets.”
….represents the values and efforts of that group. Maybe I and many other people have an incorrect impression that the Sierra Club is something considerably more than a ‘powerful lobby of hikers with deep pockets’. Perhaps you have information to prove that we are in fact, incorrect in that impression.
………….
“… People are definitely entitled to their opinions, but I think one should look at the studies done regarding the impact on the environment and not just be ruled by their gut. ….” Northwest Boy #26
Northwest Boy…In general, I agree with you that relying on a single approach…guts or studies, to determine the best approach to a course of action often may not be the best way to proceed.
If you’ve have in mind a ‘who’ or ‘what’ that this rule of thumb applies to regarding provision of single width trail for off-road biking in Forest Park, by all means, specify for everyone reading here.
Relying on studies alone won’t cut it either. I suspect that consideration of many kinds and sources of information…and not simply gut sensibility…is involved in the discussions amongst members of the Forest Park Single Track Cycling Committee
I guess your google is broken
sierra+club+trail+closure+mountain+bikes+marin+county
May 17, 2001
Board of Directors
Sierra Club
85 Second Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-5799
Re: The Sierra Club’s Mountain (Off-Road) Biking Policy
Gentlepersons:
You will soon be presented with the following resolution passed by the San Francisco Bay Chapter (SFBC) on Monday, May 14, 2001: “The San Francisco Bay Chapter urges the Board of Directors to initiate a review of the Park City Accord in order to determine whether it should be modified or rescinded.” While it sounds equivocal, that was only due to the usual compromises undertaken to get it passed as easily as possible. Obviously, it was passed because the majority agrees that something in the Park City Agreement, and the policy on mountain biking that it gave rise to, has to change!
Here is the original resolution passed by the Wildlife Committee of the SFBC:
“Wildlife Committee Resolution
Whereas:
1. Mountain bikes greatly increase erosion, particularly, creating narrow ruts that make walking difficult, widening trails, removing top soil and vegetation, and making trail treads slippery and dangerous; this is due to their knobby tires, additional weight, and increased speed, momentum, acceleration, and skidding;
2. They make it much easier for people to get farther into wildlife habitat and travel farther in the same length of time, thus posing an increased threat to wildlife;
3. The speed at which they travel makes it more difficult to notice small animals and plants in the trail and avoid crushing them;
4. Bikes, especially on the narrow trails that mountain bikers prefer, and at the speeds that many mountain bikers travel, intimidate, displace, and endanger wildlife and people;
5. Mountain biking is bad role modelling, because children who see people on mountain bikes learn (non-verbally) that rough treatment of natural areas is okay;
6. The Park City Agreement with IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association) was to gain support for Wilderness designation from mountain bikers; however, IMBA and mountain bikers have been opposing Wilderness designation because Wilderness by definition is off-limits to machinery such as bikes. They have instead been lobbying for “protected” areas to be administered under designations that allow mountain biking. They are also asking for new wilderness areas to be “gerrymandered” to exclude trails that they want to remain open to mountain biking. In addition, the process by which the Park City Agreement and mountain bike policy were created was undemocratic and thus violated Club policy: input from Club members opposing the changes was ignored, and some were even excluded from meetings where deliberations were conducted!
7. Its support of mountain biking is an embarrassment for the Club, since it is so obviously an anti-environmental activity, akin to the use of motorized ORVs.
8. The presence of mountain bikes negatively impacts one’s experience of tranquil nature, because they remind us of the urban environment and its associated stresses — exactly what we are trying to escape from!
Therefore be it resolved that:
The Sierra Club actively oppose the off-road use of bicycles, mountain boards, and all other off-road vehicles;
The Club eliminate its separate mountain biking policy, and subsume mountain biking under the ORV policy, as it was before the Park City Agreement — in other words, rescind that agreement.”
There are 7439 more results if that is not enough proof that the Sierra Club is anti-mountain bike and has actively tried to get and keep mountain bikes off trails.
You guessed wrong. I’ve read this long ago. Everyone should notice that this Sierra Club statement refers to a San Francisco Bay Chapter (SFBC)resolution addressing a “…Park City…” situation (Utah?)…not a Forest Park, Portland, Oregon situation having to do with mountain bike access to single width trail in that park, as you implied earlier.
It’s certainly good that you posted it though. Everyone reading here can be reminded of discussions the organization had 9 years ago in response to off-road biking activity back then, and decide to what extent those expressions of concern are still valid today, particularly, since it’s a big issue today, in reference to the provision of single track for bike use in Forest Park.
If you have any hope of making truthful claims that ‘hikers as a lobby with deep pockets’ (re; your remark: “…It’s because hikers are a powerful lobby with deep pockets.”) were responsible for excluding mountain bikes from Forest Park, do some research that provides direct information showing this. Sierra Club has an Oregon Chapter. If you’re seriously interested, try the people there.
Who else would be responsible for getting mountain bikers kicked off of trails if it wasn’t hikers?
Really, WHO ELSE?
I think a horse is a little heavier than a bicycle.
Because the Sierra Club was being objective when they wrote that, they didn’t have any agenda. Totally impartial.
And you’re right it is good to be aware of the enemy’s tactics.
“Who else would be responsible for getting mountain bikers kicked off of trails if it wasn’t hikers?
Really, WHO ELSE?” Skidmark
SkidMark…good question. Try: ‘the public’. That’s everybody, from all walks of life, having many different interests including outdoor interests of many types…not just, as you more or less put it…’hikers with deep pockets formed into a powerful lobby’.
Wouldn’t even be surprised if some of them were off-road bikers that got screwed over on park trails by a number of yahoo mountain bikers from the day. Off-road biking advocates should not be surprised it’s taking so much time, effort and thought to recover from that debacle and formulate new management policy of single width trail provision for bikes in Forest Park.
By the way…’Park City’ in reference to the document you copied an pasted in comment #31 refers to the following Sierra Club statement on an agreement made between Sierra Club and IMBA in 1994:
Sierra Club Conservation Policies/Off Road Use of Bicycles
I’d suggest reading the entire thing, but pay particular attention to sections II and III. An excerpt:
“… The Sierra Club recognizes that bicyclists can be legitimate users of many non-Wilderness backcountry trails and supports responsible off-road bicycling. …”
Jonathan
Let me back up and say that it is great to see NWTA taking the leadership in condemning this act. It was excellent to see (on site on the KATU news report) that NWTA posted their own sign on site condemning this affront to good work by many caring individuals (including mountain bikers) to care for the park.
But yes Tom has spoken vaguely to the need for more resources for education and enforcement (although I don’t think he appreciates that this can NOT just be hikers and bikers policing themselves and volunteers building trails). I was disappointed that he did not hear him point out the lack of management resources as critical to a long-term solution.
The fact that so much of this destructive trail got built without being discovered and halted is only one indication of the lack of on-the-ground resources to manage Forest Park. But this is an opportune moment to point that out to the City Council.
If we are really talking about sustainable and enduring stewardship of the Park in face of growing use and, sadly, cases of willing abuse like this, we need sustained funding for more on-the-ground staff who are attuned to the short and long term goals and priorities of public Park management. And they must have the means and authority to enforce Park rules.
Yes we need self-policing and volunteers but sustainable management ultimately means paid, professional staff with the authority to inform the ill-informed and to cite the willfully lawless, before the damage is done.
That’s essentially what the Forest Park Management Plan in 1995 called for in its high priority recommendation for a dedicated Forest Park Ranger.
This is probably the wrong place to expect all of Tom’s views to be aired. But I hope NWTA joins Audubon and others in seizing this opportunity to really address a long-term problem not just call for more single-track. Because that should only be PART of the solution.
I want apologize to Tom Archer for my word choice in my first post (#2) above. I did not mean in any way to impugn Tom’s integrity by writing that I believe “he needs to be more honest about the whole solution.” In re-reading this I can see how some one would read my comment as questioning Tom’s honesty which was NOT my intention.
I apology for my sloppy choice of words.
I think my previous post (#36) makes clear what I was trying to say.
There is a nice article in the march issue of outside magazine explaining the origins of banning mtb in wilderness areas. Forest park may not fall under a wilderness area designation but there has been so much misinformation spewed regarding the damage created by riding a mountain bike. It was the hiking and equestrian groups that originally pushed to keep mountain biking out. wsbob, alot of hot air but little facts.
What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if it were bikes-only on singletrack trails? Would that be fair?
This thread has disappeared into the archives, but I’m posting a response to the following remarks for the record.
“…It was the hiking and equestrian groups that originally pushed to keep mountain biking out. …” mike #38
mike, whatever are you talking about? What are these “…hiking and equestrian groups…” you’re referring to? The conclusion you’ve drawn about how mountain bikes have been restricted from natural areas is incredibly simplistic thinking.
I posted a link to the Sierra Clubs agreement with IMBA, indicating it supports responsible off-road biking. Many off-road bikers seem to have chosen not to be responsible in their use of natural areas. That is how they came to get the boot. Off-road bike enthusiasts, not that they haven’t done some…need to do more to get their fellow riders to clean up their act before the public welcomes bikes on single width trail in nature areas.
“What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if it were bikes-only on singletrack trails? Would that be fair?” SkidMark #39
SkidMark, seriously…do you think Portland residents would support this? Where? Except for quite a small faction, Portland residents seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of foot travel only on single width trail in Forest Park and most other nature trails within city limits.