The FBO has a very diplomatic report regarding the local USFS closing some pre-existing trails under an umbrella known as the “Fort Valley Restoration Project.” The closure was labeled as “an effort to protect” the Mexican Spotted Gray Owl (TMSGO). A bird that seems to have survived until now without the “desperately needed crutch of human intervention”. Generally speaking, this is a continuance, to a certain degree, of the conflict between environmentalists and Off-Road Motorcyclists of the 70’s and 80’s; only this time, instead of a Desert Tortoise, the device is a Spotted Owl.
The blunt reality of the policy in regards to bicycling, is that it has obliterated a segment of trail that was created by, and specifically used by, cyclists of both types (motorized and non). It had absolutely minimal exposure to hiking or horseback’ed recreationalists and has been around since well before anyone coined the terms “System & Non-System Trails”. And it was routed straight through some beautiful Aspen groves and if I were an owl, I’d want to live there. And even though it’s appropriate to concede some select wilderness in the name of preservation, I find it hard to believe that out of 1,821,495 acres of land, The USFS picked a location that conveniently included one of the hallmark MTB/Moto trails of Flagstaff while in seeming paradox, less than a mile away, there is a massive logging project underway; also under the unbrella of said resoration project. At the least, this closure only continues to set a precedence of an increasingly selectively-restrictive land management policy, and we as cyclists, will be caught in the middle with the present mindset.
The fact of the matter however, is a bit deeper than the obvious Spotted Owl debate. The fact of the matter is that we non-motorized BICYCLISTS, are lumped into the same “mechanized” category as motorcyclists by federal law. That law was written in 1964 and roughly dictates that mechanized transportation is one in the same with motorized transportation. We are not the later and this division is more critical now than ever. The reality is that we make as much noise as any other NON-motorized user, and we are equally low-impact while being a very hip ‘Carbon Neutral’ activity. Yet, we are barred from recreation in certain areas of the wilderness largely because of outdated ignorant policy and those who adhere to it.
In addition to federal policy, Flagstaff off-road bicyclists are unwittingly forced into close association with off-road motorcyclist because of a dictatorial representation that mandates we are to be associated with motorized recreationalists in an attempt to sway by numbers. Bicyclists, as a collective group, have had no ability to voice objection to this dictatorship largely because we are left unaware of the circumstances, and/or we just don’t care, and/or we don’t know to know. This is simply a complication of communication, but it serves conveniently, an agenda set primarily by one individual who essentially writes the rules for our future without any type of broadcasted effort to include core members of the mtb community in the discussion. Of course, it takes more than an opinion to have an effect. It takes hard work and he’s been the hard worker while we all ride, so I give him credit for that. The anticipated excuses of course will be something like: “hey, you want to be involved? Then get involved”, or some passive comment that “we meet in the forestry basement every month to discuss, so if you want to be involved, be there” and that’s just HALF ASSED. Learn government. You are the rep, we are the public. You put the effort in to both inform us, while at the same time representing our collective goals… not only yours. Few have to be involved beyond a democratic vote. You know who we are, and you have the communication channels and tools to measure your constituency’s view. You have the responsibility to be an advocate of both cycling, and communicating with your members, regardless of their actual affiliation with your Club.
Think about it long term: motorized recreation is a dead man walking, and mtb will follow suit to a lesser degree just as Marin County has shown without redirection. “Saving the planet” is the new Socialist Movement. Why be associated with the damaging sect as public opinion continues to sway? The reality is that cycling can be included in the public discussion while it’s relatively retarded to think that motorized recreationalist will be able to share the same.
As Bicyclists, we are not Motorcyclists. Other than two wheels, we share little in common with our Moto brethren in terms of public opinion. And I LOVE MOTO. I was born & bread on a motorcycle romping around the high deserts and motocross tracks of California. I became a fast expert at places with 100′ table tops and 40 foot step ups. And it was the shit. I have a love for the sport that will never fade, but I also know that separation from it, is crucial to long term mtb viability.
In an ideal world, we would have it all. Moto, bicycles, hikers hugging trees… all of it. But we don’t. The screws are only going to get tighter for those of use who are viewed as more damaging than others and now is the time to establish separation from motors in order to preserve our existence as we know it. Fundamentally, the ride is the same. I never thought I would think it, but times are what they are and if we, as cyclists, are to maintain a clear voice in the process, we must be counted as an independent group, and not as a collective of compromising associations.
If no change occurs, it’s realistic to think that our recreational freedoms may be whittled down to narrow corridors of congested trails in lack-luster locations similar to The Cinders and what’s become of my home town romping grounds. It all starts somewhere and the spotted owl is the new messenger. Now that the urban/wilderness interface has become one of the “new blacks” of environmental concern, we cyclists are caught in the middle of the compromise. We’re not motorized. As much as I love Moto, I am a bicyclist first. I believe it is appropriate that we have our own definition as non-motorized users of public land.
Comments
29 Responses to “Coconino MTB Forest Closures”
Leave a Reply
David P. on July 4th, 2008 5:45 pm
Everyday users=liability. Natural resources go to highest bidder. That was some interesting food for thought. Happy 4th to all of you, cheers!!!
flagstaffist on July 4th, 2008 6:29 pm
ooh boy, i’m looking forward to watching this grow.
big jonny on July 4th, 2008 6:58 pm
I can remember when Secret Trail really was secret and all of maybe six people knew where it started. It was basically an old sheep herding trail that got ridden in to something beautiful. You had to hand your bike over a barbed wire fence will standing on a downed log. It took two people to do it, really. Going solo was problematic. I can remember when the connector was put in towards Moto with a rake because someone, who will remain nameless, didn’t want to ride all the way over to (I think it is/was) Chimney Springs Road, down to the Pipeline, and then back on the Pipeline to Moto. Lazy ass bastard. You gotta earn your turns, baby.
It is all going bye-bye. There will be a re-alignment of the trail to protect the habitat of Mexican Spotted Owls. Because bikes make noise. There is, of course, a dirt road that runs parallel to the trail that will remain open to cars, motorcycles and quads. It may close to cars someday, but as well all know, the car is almighty. That roadway delivers SUV’s full of hikers to the Katchina trailhead each summer. And I imagine it will continue to do so for years.
And, because, apparently, cars, motorcycles and quads do not make noise.
As Gnome already mentioned, the Flagstaff Biking Organization has a post on their website explaining their involvement with the Forest Service on this issue. I read it. I disagreed with it. I posted a comment on their website. A response from the post’s author, Anthony Quintile, followed. I posted a second comment, and it was pulled. So much for participating in a discussion on the FBO website. I will not bother in the future. Anything I have to say, I will say it on Drunkcyclist.
Full disclosure - was a Board Member with FBO with Anthony Quintile for a year or so. I resigned. Mr. Quintile was also my direct supervisor at Absolute Bikes for the nine months I worked there. He is the General Manger, I was the Inventory Manager. Until last Friday. I stepped down.
I was the fourth employee to do so in nearly as many weeks. First was Big Gay Randy, then Pineapple a few days later, and then the Gnome two weeks after that.
Then it was my turn.
Some of us left on good terms. Some of us did not. Me? I’m Ok. Better than some, not as golden as others
It’s up to them to tell their stories themselves. Gnome already has, in a post he titled Dark Lord. It pretty much lit the world on fire and made my last few days a bit less comfortable than they would have otherwise. But, again, it was his story. And it was up to him to tell it.
More over at Handlebar Sandwich on this subject.
CJ Eder on July 4th, 2008 9:12 pm
From the sounds of it, the Forest Service’s ideal world would have been to close both the trail and Freidlein Prairie road. That alternative was defeated by angry motorists. Sure, the resulting plan looks like a futile bureaucratic compromise, but whose fault is that? You could either blame it on the motorists or on the riders and their representatives for doing a poor job advocating to keep the trail open. A Forest Service/Spotted Owl conspiracy seems to be the least likely option.
In the end, when faced between aligning with motorists or spotted owls, always go with the owl. For an endangered speices those buggers carry major clout on capitol hill.
Gnome on July 4th, 2008 9:26 pm
Word. That ideal doesn’t sounds any better than mine. I can only define my position on the subject as one of wanting more voice as a separate entity from motorized recreation. The reality is that we are a more sociable activity in mixed company which should include nature. It is difficult to understand a logic that the owl argument has any viability when logging & burns, while well intended, are within the same vicinity. Because I have a 14 year history with the trail, and the owls have been fine, I’d like to hear a more reasonable basis for bicycle limitation. Unfortunately, I cannot hold the same opinion of moto. This is not intended to demonize moto. Rather, I simply think as a cyclist, I am a separate number and the differences between are obvious.
Rusty Sanchez on July 4th, 2008 9:59 pm
So, if it were possible to exempt bicycles from the Wilderness Act (which would require another “act of congress”), how would public lands management agencies deal with the user conflict issues that would result from having cyclists, hikers, and equestrians all on the same trails? Not unlike trails outside of wilderness areas, some trails would have to be closed to some users to reduce conflict. So who gets what and when? I think the biggest issue with bikes in the wilderness is so-called “wilderness” or “primitive” character. Hang Gliders are a very low impact, “carbon free” form of recreation, but it’s illegal to use one in a designated wilderness area. Why? I guess it doesn’t fit into what some would consider a “primitive” experience. Apparently, people have been walking and riding horses longer than they have been flying hang gliders and riding mountain bikes. There is no right answer. When it comes to public lands management, somebody’s always going to get fucked, and it changes with every administration. Good luck.
CJ Eder on July 4th, 2008 10:52 pm
Cyclists desperately need to forge a new, independent identity in the politics of forest management. To paraphrase what you said, moto is on its way out and there is no reason for us to circle the toilet bowl with it. That said this new identity needs to realistically understand the Forest Service’s goals in managing the area.
From the sound of the plan, the Forest Service seems primarily concerned with increasing volume of use putting sensitive areas at risk. Trail closures, they must think, are politically viable ways of at making modest inroads towards that goal. Either way the type and amount of impact presented by a user group seems less important to the Forest Service than where that impact occurs. True, in its current expression it seems hardly rational, but I think it best to view this as a precautionary measure in the face of increasing use, not as an affront to the cycling community.
That said, mountain bikers best bet is to pick up the torch of environmentalism and start supporting the efforts to protect and restore the forest, starting with an organized effort to close roads to motorized travel. This will accomplish two things. First, it will establish cyclists as a “sympathetic” user group. While we won’t quite rise to the untouchable level of sierra club member, we can at least carry some of the same swagger.
Second, and more importantly, road closures would reduce the stress on the Forest better than trail closures or use restrictions. My guess, is that the Forest service prefers to limit close roads rather than manage users, after all it is far cheaper to put up a gate than patrol trails. The only bump in that path is finding the political support to get behind the restoration rationale.
So rather than try to discredit the environmental bent, I think cyclists would be better served by using it as a tool to restrict use in areas that are uniquely bicycle accessible: primarily trails more than five miles away from the nearest parking spot.
As riders, our best bet in this climate is not to make the argument that we present less im
-dan on July 5th, 2008 7:32 am
Virginia tech did a study a few years ago (you can get it from IMBA) where they showed a bicycle does equal to or less damage to a trail surface than pedestrians. The total impact of a bicycle is the smallest of all user groups, barring downhill/freeride-but you know what I mean.
Gnome on July 5th, 2008 10:42 am
@ CJ Eder - Excellent logic.
@ Rusty Sanchez - It all would be served by redefinition: motorized vs non vs truely “primitive” areas.
@ -dan: indeed, huckers need not apply. List of Impact (and otherwise) studies from IMBA: http://www.imba.com/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?Terms=impact+study
Mikey on July 5th, 2008 11:12 am
Guys-
A thoughtful and extremely relevant discussion. I see two essential nuggets here:
1) the spotted owl in NOT okay. If nothing changes, they will be GONE FOREVER in a few years. And let’s not lose sight of why that matters. The spotted owl sits at the tip-top of the food chain, and if it dies, the entire ecosystem tilts a little. It would be our fault and it would be permanent and irreversible. In the discussion up here (northern spotted owl) we tree-huggers use the term “indicator species,” and I think it’s a good one.
2) lumping bicyclists in with moto riders as “mechanized” is the REAL ISSUE, as several have clearly pointed out. This is an anachronism that needs to die. Up here, I find it distressing how many MTB advocates are willing to go along with it, simply because the moto lobby is very strong and they believe it will open or keep open more trails. I argue with our local MTB club, the BBTC all the time. In a perfect world, we cyclists would police our ranks and ostracize irresponsible riders, but we have only to look over to moto to see that doesn’t actually happen. A few assholes can do a lot of damage and give a whole mess of equestrians, hikers, tree-huggers and bureaucrats plenty of fodder for their non-mechanized agenda.
I believe we cyclists’ highest priority is to divorce ourselves from motorcyclists. If we can convince the tree-huggers this is the case, then the possibility exists of opening MORE trails to MTB. We don’t have to worry about what happens to moto users and sledheads… even if by doing so, we also divorce ourselves from a large and venerable off-road consituency.
Mikey
Anthony on July 5th, 2008 12:05 pm
To set a few facts straight:
-I AND/OR FLAGSTAFF BIKING ORGANIZATION HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORT VALLEY PROJECT’S INCLUSION OF MOTORIZED RECREATION. Please, everyone read that, absorb it and recognize it. All of that decision making happened long before my involvement in anything having to do with trails in Flagstaff. Even if I had protested inclusion of motos on the trails, the decisions had been made and the lawsuits had been fought. None of us could have affected any change after that. Write the Coconino National Forest and request a copy of the Fort Valley Restoration Project Decision Notice and EA or EIS. I worked with what was already in there. Maybe some of you who have been here for so long should have made an effort to be at the table in the late 1990s when these things were being decided?
-I enjoy riding bicycles and motos, which is why I became involved heavily in this project. If I, (and some others, by no means am I trying to take credit for other’s input and work), had not been involved, the way the decision read before I became involved would have certainly lead to the obliteration of most of Secret and all of Newham. Oh yeah, and Upper/Super Moto would probably look like the Lower Fort Valley Trails.
-This will be my only statement to this effect, because I do not want to become embroiled in a pissing match with you guys. I worked hard to try to affect the best outcome for mountain bikers in this project, to reiterate, after it was decided, by others, without my input, to include motos. I don’t need a medal or even much recognition, but the public excoriation by people who really are not aware of the facts is not really fair to me or Flagstaff Biking. I DO encourage more people to be involved. I think those more involved would have a far greater appreciation for what FBO, and I, have accomplished. As a side note FBO’s only affiliation with the motos is this project.
And an opinion, because I do appreciate the discussion:
The discussion of where mountain bikes sit politically in the recreational use continuum is a good one. Nationally there are strong lobbies lumping mtb with motorized. This stems originally from very early battles that were fought in Marin County between the progenitors of our sport, the Sierra Club, the land managers there and others. To this date, bicycles are in line to be kicked off of currently legal, albeit non-motorized, trails in many areas throughout the West. My opinion is that realistically we will need to seek allies where we can, and motorcyclists have empathy for us in our fight, and often experience that we lack on how to handle these situation. By no means should this statement imply that I think we should share every trail with dirt bikes, but we are being handled by the agencies many times as a similar use, at least in the types of closures and restrictions we face. IMBA has been fighting the fight for separation from the “mechanized” moniker and inclusion with other quiet uses. Realistically, we are getting shut out, often permanently, because not enough land managers are buying that argument. When is it time to pick sides for us?
Jon- I didn’t pull your post.
Gnome on July 5th, 2008 1:04 pm
@ Anthony: Nice response and I believe you did a commendable job with regard to the “re-alignment” (aka - closure) all things considered.
About your comment: “Maybe some of you who have been here for so long should have made an effort to be at the table in the late 1990s when these things were being decided?”
That’s just a bit too hind sighted and is an excellent example of the rift. Information about any government policy development is, at best, difficult to distinguish or even know about, for the gen-public. That’s where your advocacy of the issues (as an FBO agent) comes into play. Simply recommending to occasional, local-customers at your shop, to “get involved” doesn’t cut. You are in the position, and have the ability to provide mass-education and you need to embrace it if you want to remain.
Again, “Write the Coconino National Forest and request a copy of the Fort Valley Restoration Project Decision Notice and EA or EIS.”
Again, give me a break. I pay a membership to you & the FBO, and this is what I get in addition to a free pair of socks? A board-member telling me where to go? Nice. At the very least, your idle efforts with regard to the publication of this type of material can only promote a general reluctance to support the FBO. And the FBO is the most viable advocacy group Flagstaff has. All ya’ll have done an excellent job… and you need to do better.
As it stands, FBO provides publicly broadcasted subject matter (via their site)primarily centered around the warm-fuzzy volunteer work they provide such as; Kid rides & rodeos, trail grooming or volunteer request. While this content is a valid representation of some of FBO’s soft-efforts, how about full disclosure of all FBO activities on your public forum? Make us feel good about what you are doing. I generally think your direction is appropriate and balanced, but I wont assume, and I will establish my free speech here.
As with any government or body.
Melissa Dunstan, Executive Director, FBO on July 5th, 2008 1:16 pm
Flagstaff Biking Organization (FBO) was asked by the United States Forest Service (USFS) to help educate the public about the recent closure of Secret Trail. FBO works with the USFS to recruit volunteers to maintain and build trails in the Coconino National Forest. The decision to close this particular trail was the USFS, based on the hopeful restoration of the Mexican Spotted Owl and the Endangered Species Act. If you disagree with this recent closure, I encourage you to become involved in your government. I would bet that our political leaders are not reading blogs, maybe they should be, but I bet not. Write your congressman, your senator, your president, or attend a Forest Service meeting. Stay involved, or you get the government you deserve.
Gnome on July 5th, 2008 1:25 pm
Who doesn’t read this? Represent. Clarify issues. Blog. How can I help?
big jonny on July 5th, 2008 1:55 pm
Anthony,
I doesn’t matter if you pulled my comment or not. What matters is that the comment area on the FBO site is not where this conversation is going to occur.
Also, I fear you have mixed interests between bicycle and motorcycle advocacy. I am not concerned with keeping motorcycle trails open. You are. I do not think it is of any benefit to align with motorized trail users. You do.
Anthony on July 5th, 2008 2:35 pm
Dave-
I am a volunteer. I do the best I can. Sorry if it isn’t up to your standards. Just more “half-assed shit” I guess.
Jon-
I still support that motorcycles ought to have a place to ride on this National Forest.
I still support that FBO should support responsible trail opportunities for ALL users, certainly if those trails might also benefit cyclists.
The FBO board voted against the above mentioned direct support of the CTR proposal. I have abided by that to the extent that I verbally preface my opinions in public meetings with, “this is not the opinion of Flagstaff Biking Organization,” and the like. (After concerns were expressed by other board members, of which you were not one expressing concerns at the time interestingly enough, I ended up attending that meeting NOT as a “formal FBO representative”). That puts FBO’s stance pretty far left.
Both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Diablo Trust, primarily conservation minded groups, have recommended that the Coconino NF work with the Coconino Trail Riders on motorized travel management in formal written comments to the USFS. I was asking that FBO do something similar.
My reasons are varied; from personal desire for a place to ride my motorcycle legally to to the goal of having more mountainbike-able singletrack to the recognition that increased user conflicts will occur if the legal motorized trail system was reduced to Fort Valley and Munds Park. I am not a Board Member of CTR, but I support their endeavors wholeheartedly and work as a representative of theirs on occasion, separately from FBO. Should FBO not allow participation of a Board Member who had a Sierra Club, equestrian club or trail-running club affiliation?
It is because FBO is not an appropriate outlet for my motorized leanings that I participate with CTR separately from FBO.
You could call what I am doing a conflict of interest, or you can call it a leveraging of my involvement. I am in regular conversation with avid conservationists, Sierra Club members, US Fish and Wildlife representatives, wildlife biologists, etc. who constantly reaffirm that my approach is the right one. I make no apologies for any of the above.
As my opinions pertain to my representation within FBO, I have taken the stance always that FBO should support a pro-cycling agenda. Sometimes being pro-cycling means that we might be pro-motorcycle, sometimes it might mean that we are anti-motorcycle. To date, we have not even been in a situation where being anti-motorcycle would further a bicycling agenda. We have worked with CTR on Ft. Valley. That has only provided for a net increase in bicycling opportunities. If CTR and FBO wind up in truly conflicting roles, I’m out and y’all can figure that out on your own.
At least any of you who might really get involved, show to a public meeting, (I emailed the whole FBO list and posted to the FBO website on Forest Plan Revision), work on a trail, (I’ll be on more trail work days this year than most people will work in their whole lives), write a comment letter, (see Forest Plan Revision mention above, similarly for Travel Management comment notices I posted), call the District Ranger and try to keep Snowbowl Road open for bikes during the next fire closure, compose a proposal for a skills park for the County, work on a proposal for downhill trails, schedule an IMBA visit to explain “freeriding” to the local land managers, etc., etc., etc.
John Neff on July 5th, 2008 5:29 pm
Dave and Jonny, you guys have no idea how gruelling it is to argue with the government year in and year out. To tell your congressman he’s not doing enough is crude, but expected — after all s/he gets $140K a year and a better health plan than you. But Anthony gets paid what? Thirty bucks sent to FlagBiking (I made it fifty) is worth how much at Late For The Train?
Flaming out over Secret Trail is so typical of the MTB community. It wasn’t made by cyclists and it has never been a system trail. It is being realigned, not erased, to include Newham, one of the sweetest lines on the mountain, also a bootleg line and never system. Do you guys remember in the early nineties the USFS announced that Schultz Creek Trail would be closed to bicycles, because one hit a horse? Then it was decided that it would be uphill only for bicycles. At that time Onceler had come into existence, ask around who built it, and we were warned that we would be ticketed for riding it. Things calmed down, but the current exuberance with which mtb-ers are throwing in trails is not the norm and will not persist. Could it be that the gummint is fighting its way through the TMR and is too busy? No, Tritle’s bike is not a decoy.
The argument over affinity with motorized users versus treehuggers is not new. I stopped sending money to IMBA when Hasenauer decided to get chummy with the Sierra Club, and resumed when he got betrayed by them and pledged instead to revisit the 1964-era, decidedly non-ecological, administrative-not-statutory exclusion of bicycles from Wilderness. Your personal sense of who butters your bread is your own business, but the best example locally is Anthony! If mtb-ers have any sway whatsoever with enviros around here, here’s the guy who went to the meeting. If you really think he’s not pure enough to speak for you, the seat is open.
Y’all need something to worry about. Years ago the “Friends of Walnut Canyon” proposed that the Monument more than double in size, include Fisher Point, and become a Park. We elected Rick Renzi, which drove it underground. Rick is now dead meat, and the NP is spending a $couple hundred K of USFS money to study the land transfer. In six months we are going to resume electing Democrats, and by 2012 you can say goodbye to bicycles south of Little America. Remember I told you so.
I won’t be going to those meetings, but Anthony probably will…
Disclosures– I am vice-pres of CTR. It’s a commitment I am willing to see through to the end of next year, when the TMR comes down. It has cost me hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars and ten pounds around my belt, should have been riding like you guys. Without the presence of Anthony and a couple others it would easy to blow off the citizenship crap, go ride the bike of my choice on the trail of my choice, and tell the government where to stick it.
Both of you are unusually intelligent and articulate. Want to piss away a couple nights a week and a couple weekends a month endlessly rolling proposals uphill, with no expectation of accomplishment or appreciation? CTR and FBO welcome you! I am also a member of the Arizona Antelope Foundation and the Arizona Wildlife Foundation and the Diablo Trust, from turning out for their work days. Will I or my fellows ever get anything from my effort? Man, adulthood is bleak.
big jonny on July 5th, 2008 7:54 pm
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Welcome to the Anthony Quintile Brute Force Argument Technique. Reminds me of why I quit FBO in the first place.
For a post the gnome wrote I’ve already had to deal with a phone call with a friend of mine in town, and a personal visit from another. And several comments posted by people who were directed to comment by AQ. And both are people I know pretty well. Both are well aware of this websites existence. And neither have ever posted a comment or emailed me regarding an ongoing conversation such at this in the history of Drunkcyclist. And that’d be eight years if you’re counting.
Whatever. I’ve got better things to do. You can say you don’t want to make this a pissing match, AQ, but then you post a few thousand word rebuttals and get a few buddies on the horn so they post as well? Great. You win. You can have it. All of it.
And believe me, in a few days when my head clears from all the shit I’ve been dealing with on a personal level, I might come back up in here guns blazing. Gimmie till Thursday or so, when I have to actually walk into the shop and get my last paycheck.
After that, nothing is off the table.
Neil on July 5th, 2008 11:58 pm
All of this makes interesting reading. There are some very good points along with juvenile bickering and posturing. Since my baby is asleep and it’s still more than 10 hours till I’ll be engaged in the “soft-effort” of taking kids mountain biking (teaching them how to ride, how to behave on the trail and represent mountain biking responsibly, how to be cooperative, self-confident individuals, etc.), I’ll take a while to weigh in.
One thing that strikes me is the personal nature of so much written here. I know almost everybody who’s in this string, and each one has what I see as strengths and weaknesses; there are things I respect greatly about each and other traits I’m less impressed with (just as you all know my weaknesses and hopefully can find some things in me you approve of). Each of you has helped me out in significant ways both personally and with my efforts as the director of FBO’s Youth Mountain Biking Program. Re: Anthony in particular, I too have been on the FBO board with him AND worked at Absolute Bikes; he knows my feelings about motorcycles and some of my opinions about Absolute. I’m going to try to make a few big-picture points without getting involved in the cat-fighting. But I confess I take some of the complaints about FBO personally.
First, everybody on the FBO board works hard — and many, many, many hours — to advance bicycling in Flagstaff and its surrounding areas. We all have things we’re gung-ho about and things we don’t much know or care about, and we all have things we’re good at and others we can’t do worth a damn. We’re only a handful of people. The effectiveness and impact of FBO can only be increased if talented people get involved and help out. We’re all pretty easy to find by phone or e-mail or in person. As it stands, Anthony is the main voice for FBO on trail issues because the rest of us are less knowledgeable and/or are doing other things. But there’s a Trail Committee that meets pretty regularly, and we welcome those with knowledge and energy to weigh in on and contribute to FBO’s efforts… and quite possibly change our direction on some issues.
Second, blogging is a cultural phenomenon with a limited demographic. It is incredibly effective for spreading information and generating enthusiasm within that demographic… but there are large segments of FBO’s constituency and society at large who don’t spend a lot of time on the computer and wish they could spend even less. The individuals who make up FBO’s board, by chance, tend to be in that latter category. Some of us put hours each week into updating the FBO web site and posting photographs, but others are content to leave up content from 2005. Maybe that’s partly because they’re too busy away from their computers running kids’ rides, planning bike rodeos, attending boring government meetings, doing trail work, or trying to find money for our efforts and for advertising and publicity to reach non-bloggers.
If we’re falling short in spreading the word of FBO’s exploits online, please feel free to work with one or more of us to do a better job. While it would be nice for FBO to have comprehensive information posted for anybody anywhere to see, I still feel the best way to find out about what we’re doing is to come out to our events, participate in what we do, and talk with us in person. Every time I work on trails or take kids riding I see people we know — and who get our e-mails and posts about upcoming events — riding by on their mountain bikes, usually without stopping to chat. Are these people logging onto our web site as soon as they get home to find out what they missed? I, for one, post well over a thousand pictures each year just in case they do.
Re: getting only a pair of drab green socks in exchange for a membership….. FBO membership dollars go to supporting the wide range of programs and efforts FBO undertakes to promote cycling. It’s a donation to benefit your community and your sport/pasttime. There’s always the option of earmarking a donation to a particular program. I bet that some of the people mentioned above donate to FBO to support those of us who volunteer on trail days and kids’ rides and public forums or spend endless hours planning Bike-to-Work-Week in part so they can enjoy their free time going on long bike rides and riding past trail work without feeling so guilty. If we’re not living up to expectations in some area (sharing information, for example) or seem to be mis-spending membership dollars, please let us know and/or offer to help.
I’ve read above something of a dismissal of the “if you don’t like it, come help” argument… but I don’t buy it. Commenting and making suggestions are an excellent place to start; we all learn from that and make improvements. The Secret Trail issue stands where it stands for now, be that good or bad… but there are plenty more decisions yet to be made. Only active participation by mountain bikers in the public and government spheres can steer those decisions our way. I personally feel that a united (if not entirely unified) front has the most impact. If you feel FBO is an organization that can unify mountain bikers and promote their interests, please help us to forge our positions and fight for them.
No offense, Jonny, but I check out Drunkcyclist about once a year. I appreciate the occasional e-mail I get in response to your postings about my YMBP rides; sometimes it’s been the only response I’ve gotten, even if I’ve splashed the plans all over the FBO web site and Biopic and any other outlet FBO has. I’m very impressed with your far-and-wide readership. But I probably won’t remember to log on anytime soon, so if anybody wants me to see a response to what I’ve written, please send me an e-mail or call me.
Ty Bob on July 6th, 2008 6:48 pm
wow, i just started riding on the mountain up in Flag again after a 9 year hiatus (lived other places).
On the forth I slept in the dirt and woke up to ride newham…… I remember it well….. to point put to the guy that claims it (Newham) was never part of the system….well he is wrong. maybe it was not part of the official system, but to the sheep herder that had his camp there in the 60’s, and to the one who put in the 3/4″ metal pipe at the bottom of the cliffs(same guy?) and the 40 year old trail blazes that were on trees on the original newham trail…..well sorry to twist that guys balls but its always been in the system.
i came across it one day, moved some rocks and used a branch to sweep the dirt. A really good bro helped that same day. At least i am glad he thinks its one of the sweetest.
let me also add, i was part of this original flagstaff political bike group in the 90’s. A good friend of mine was killed on bike ride. Allot of people tried to use his death as a political statement for bikes in flag. I got suckered into this “city group” that was like a patsy for everyone. I put allot into but quit after i told a city counsel women that her idea of putting in a northbound bike lane on southbound beaver was completely ridiculous! the finally was a northbound lane on San Francisco st was finally agreed to.
What happened to it? when I was up last weekend it was not there…..
Oh ya, if remember right, everyone who was so gung-hoe on bike issues then (1996) were either continuously stoned in their life or they were absolutle ly interested in how the new political group would help business stature in the community.
John -I remember (when we worked together) trying to build up a wheel and not having the right rim and the lame shop wouldn’t loan us one. There were some lame folks then, not sure why anyone thought things would ever change.
You guys should try cock fights instead of cat fights, they are better ( i am talking about roosters)
FYI Newham is Newham because it was Trail Day on Oldham so my friend thought it appropriate. We were never good in organized activities. We grew up using shovels.
Fire at Will on July 6th, 2008 9:13 pm
Oh my,
After living in Flag for 3 years being around the edges of FBO, I’ve always had the desire to participate more with FBO and the cycling community. Given life and what it is, 2 kids under 5, working spouse, and Flagstaffs poverty reputation I’m trying not to be a part of. My ability to participate has been limited. I have discussed the vibe and attitudes given off by the people running FBO with several of my friends and we agree that things could be more inclusive and less holier than thou. Even with that said, they get my full support. The discussions I’ve had about FBO always include how glad we are that someone is willing to put the time and effort in my town to advance the bicycle agenda. The path may be different but the destination is what matters.
Gnome on July 6th, 2008 9:59 pm
They get my full support as well.
Neil on July 6th, 2008 10:15 pm
Thanks.
Prescott Lobo on July 7th, 2008 8:12 pm
As a relocated CA. mtn biker of 20+ years, I have seen/had the
same thing happen time and again despite heroic effort and
generally good intention. As such I stopped participating
in the trail issue arena. Sure I kick down to IMBA yearly, but
overall I just ride where I want. Sounds “evil” I know. The simple fact is I want to ride my bike in the woods, deserts, and mountains. If you can stop me or catch me then bully for you, and
I will pay the price. I am polite to all trail user’s, get off my
bike for horses, and smile a whole bunch as I pedal. Is this the
answer? Probably not, but life is to short and the riding days to
limited for all the drama. See you all on the trails.
jojo on July 8th, 2008 6:46 pm
… it is justing riding a bike on a piece of dirt. some people love it some people hate it… I love it and as long as that piece of dirt is there/anywhere I will ride it…
just shoot the owl?! on July 9th, 2008 10:10 pm
i know, shoot the owl and save the trail?!
Dom on July 10th, 2008 7:41 am
You have to find the “owl” first.
mtb on July 10th, 2008 11:51 am
man they did a really good job of combining orion/lower secret and Newham into one bitchen trail. It is sooooo sweet. Flowers and ferns are going off this year.
We road the “jaws trail” which is the end secret almost to Chimney Springs Road and picked up “Your Mama Trail”. More people need to ride “Your Mama” Trail. She needs to be cleaned out….
Gnome on July 10th, 2008 12:02 pm
They’ve done a super good job on the reroute. It’s ashame to see the old go, but that’s life and flagstaffbiking.org gets the props for that… which didn’t get enough credit through this rant.