Will your child (or grandchild) have the same opportunity?

DashRiprock

Active Member
There is another discussion here which prompted me to consider the experiences that I have had both politically and socially over the years in another sport, offroad motorized recreation (my favorites being single/dual seat atvs and then UTVs in 2003).

I take the time to pen this because I feel that the discussion is important, not often approached and frankly because I am old enough to have witnessed first hand where we've been, where we're going and the parallels between emerging ebikes, some of the other groundbreaking machines that I have been blessed to ride and the people who control our 'right' to do so now/in the future.

The discussion really isn't the title thread (navel-gazing-feel-good mush) but whether you care that a recreational/transportation legacy ('equal opportunity' for your future family to enjoy/access any resource) is your responsibility. For illustration, I would offer the following using the above fact:
Your parents and grandparents (me) have created a society where the latter ('caring' about legacies) was rarely a goal in the process of creating what you see...and the former ('caring' about your kid's opportunity to manage/enjoy future opportunities) was merely a false slogan to mask our indifference to anything legacy related.

I'll leave it there with some facts for discussion below and in hopes that others will dispute what I have offered. I hate to be negative yet I have at least some experience with exactly how the older generation thinks and operates (through experience) and the parallels here reach far beyond the scope of this forum:

#1 and most importantly...whatever we build or maintain today will be YOUR responsibility tomorrow. Let's face it, we're broke and even worse beyond imagination. Whether you're a teenager or a senior citizen and you haven't come to this conclusion already...quit reading this now and for heaven's sake don't vote. Wherever you ride today won't look the same to your children tomorrow (if they can still ride there) by leaving it up to someone else you (cough) 'trust' to safeguard/maintain the resource.

#2...If those safeguarding your resource presently were doing such a bang-up job of doing so...we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Lobbying for the past century has been an 'access' issue as well. If you don't keep your rabid dogs away from me, make certain that they are not privy to our conversations, keep them dumb and informed on only the most basic concepts of what is actually going on up here affecting the issues they sent you up here with (and oh, see my staffer as to where their money should be sent)...then forget about your access (to me).

#3 (and I'll stop here yet could go on)...your kids and grandchildren, for the most part, have no idea as to what is going on in terms of their very near bleak future, could care less what that actually entails and will be slapped in the face with "...gosh, why didn't anyone take the time to at least explain what is about to happen well before my kids likely blame the whole mess on me...instead of them?

Basically, the kids of today won't maintain the trails of the future for whatever reason..it doesn't matter. 'Non-profits' are the single most inefficient way of accomplishing this task short of hiring a government employee to do so. Trail legacies are born through two crazy concepts: capitalism and tort reform.
If you are committed to legacy driven action, you will work right alongside the private firm who competitively bids the work needing to be done...as opposed to our public maintenance taxes or user fees (pay-to-play) being grossly diminished through a bureaucratic grant process involving just as inefficient non-profit involvement. Less hands on the money=more bang for the buck. Tort reform involves simply passing laws which exempt all related potential liability involving volunteerism in the public sphere (which should apply to all activity on the trails as well).

Just my $.02
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ChrisD_

Member
These really are early days in adoption and recognitions of e-bikes. Basic law regarding e-bikes is unclear and sometimes unfavorable. Here in California e-bikes may not use bike paths distinct from paved roadways (though local ordinances can permit it), and some (like NY) apparently don't want them to exist at all.

We recently saw a bill AB 2173, which began life as a way to relax e-bike restrictions on bike path access and had manufacturer support, evolve into a restrictive form that lost all support, and was ultimately neutered to be harmless. So an opportunity lost, and perhaps a lesson that we could learn regarding the nature of the resistance that resulted in unfavorable amendments.
 

DashRiprock

Active Member
"..We recently saw a bill AB 2173, which began life as a way to relax e-bike restrictions on bike path access and had manufacturer support, evolve into a restrictive form that lost all support, and was ultimately neutered to be harmless. So an opportunity lost, and perhaps a lesson that we could learn regarding the nature of the resistance that resulted in unfavorable amendments."

You've captured the intent of my post. My generation and those recently preceding it rarely bothered to analyze the time that they had just wasted on any cause or who had effectively wasted it. I don't mind losing...I just want to know exactly why I lost and/or who/what was the immovable force in my way that I (hopefully) realized from the start.
Most of the individuals that you meet along the way simply desire the bumper sticker and (again) the constant inference as to how much better they have made the world for their children's children by going up against Goliath win or lose.
Most can't name who the primary candidates are right now in their local or state election.

And that's sad for those expecting to ride their ebike anywhere that those controlling the election don't necessary want them to.
 

Brambor

Well-Known Member
I see eBike MtnBiking to start a new trend of Earning Your Run, similar to ski touring. Many of the same mtnbikers who will scoff at ebike will go to a ski area with their mtn bike and take the lift to the top to ride the trails going down. With eBike MtnBike you can plan your approach by first earning the summit and then ride it down.
 

DashRiprock

Active Member
I see eBike MtnBiking to start a new trend of Earning Your Run, similar to ski touring. Many of the same mtnbikers who will scoff at ebike will go to a ski area with their mtn bike and take the lift to the top to ride the trails going down. With eBike MtnBike you can plan your approach by first earning the summit and then ride it down.
Again, the parallels between my experience with atvs/side-by-sides and the rest of the off road community on private/public lands is strikingly similar to the electric/non-electric biking attitude (not necessarily yours):

1) Why put forth the effort to become involved with 'public' policy involving where we are able to recreate today (and hopefully leave a legacy for our children to enjoy tomorrow)...when a 'private' enterprise is presently filling OUR immediate needs...yet not necessarily our children's?

2)For public policy makers, the maximum amount of private enterprise involvement in ANY land based sport (remember, this is their land) is the ideal. Less 'public property rights' activists on their land at any given time...WAY less of a chance that riders will ever have an inclination to demand that public spaces be not only public...but multi-use managed.

3)Their is no desire for thoughtful discussion on the internet involving (maintainable) trail legacy building for our children in the areas of low/high impact wheeled sports...and there hasn't been since the forum mode of discussion was brought to the table.

The point of this thread is to illustrate exactly why cooperation among groups with the same exact goals is so rare in ALL wheeled sports.

When you become a society that has absolutely no desire to leave behind anything for anyone else...you can't really complain about the generation before you (us) who wrote the book on it.
 

ChrisD_

Member
August's issue of Bicycle Retailer & Industry News will include an article considering the question, Do electric mountain bikes belong on the trails? and reviewing the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) plans to discuss the question at next week's World Summit in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. The IMBA Agenda includes this item:

E-bikes and Trail Access: Electric-assist bicycles are a fast-growing category. This discussion will examine the evolving management strategies and best practices for e-bikes on natural surface trails. Facilitated by IMBA Communications Director Mark Eller; panelists include IMBA Executive Director Mike Van Abel; NICA Executive Director and Recreation Planning Consultant, Austin McInery; Randy Neufeld, SRAM; Larry Pizzi, Currie Technologies; Samuel Benedict, Specialized Bicycles.

According to Bicycle Retailer & Industry News,

Mike Van Abel, IMBA’s president and executive director in the U.S., was reluctant to include the topic at this year’s biennial World Summit, but concluded that IMBA needed to get in front of potential conflicts now rather than later.

“We’re crystal clear that mountain biking is human powered,” Van Abel said.
 
D

Deleted member 803

Guest
There is another discussion here which prompted me to consider the experiences that I have had both politically and socially over the years in another sport, offroad motorized recreation (my favorites being single/dual seat atvs and then UTVs in 2003).

I take the time to pen this because I feel that the discussion is important, not often approached and frankly because I am old enough to have witnessed first hand where we've been, where we're going and the parallels between emerging ebikes, some of the other groundbreaking machines that I have been blessed to ride and the people who control our 'right' to do so now/in the future.

The discussion really isn't the title thread (navel-gazing-feel-good mush) but whether you care that a recreational/transportation legacy ('equal opportunity' for your future family to enjoy/access any resource) is your responsibility. For illustration, I would offer the following using the above fact:
Your parents and grandparents (me) have created a society where the latter ('caring' about legacies) was rarely a goal in the process of creating what you see...and the former ('caring' about your kid's opportunity to manage/enjoy future opportunities) was merely a false slogan to mask our indifference to anything legacy related.

I'll leave it there with some facts for discussion below and in hopes that others will dispute what I have offered. I hate to be negative yet I have at least some experience with exactly how the older generation thinks and operates (through experience) and the parallels here reach far beyond the scope of this forum:

#1 and most importantly...whatever we build or maintain today will be YOUR responsibility tomorrow. Let's face it, we're broke and even worse beyond imagination. Whether you're a teenager or a senior citizen and you haven't come to this conclusion already...quit reading this now and for heaven's sake don't vote. Wherever you ride today won't look the same to your children tomorrow (if they can still ride there) by leaving it up to someone else you (cough) 'trust' to safeguard/maintain the resource.

#2...If those safeguarding your resource presently were doing such a bang-up job of doing so...we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Lobbying for the past century has been an 'access' issue as well. If you don't keep your rabid dogs away from me, make certain that they are not privy to our conversations, keep them dumb and informed on only the most basic concepts of what is actually going on up here affecting the issues they sent you up here with (and oh, see my staffer as to where their money should be sent)...then forget about your access (to me).

#3 (and I'll stop here yet could go on)...your kids and grandchildren, for the most part, have no idea as to what is going on in terms of their very near bleak future, could care less what that actually entails and will be slapped in the face with "...gosh, why didn't anyone take the time to at least explain what is about to happen well before my kids likely blame the whole mess on me...instead of them?

Basically, the kids of today won't maintain the trails of the future for whatever reason..it doesn't matter. 'Non-profits' are the single most inefficient way of accomplishing this task short of hiring a government employee to do so. Trail legacies are born through two crazy concepts: capitalism and tort reform.
If you are committed to legacy driven action, you will work right alongside the private firm who competitively bids the work needing to be done...as opposed to our public maintenance taxes or user fees (pay-to-play) being grossly diminished through a bureaucratic grant process involving just as inefficient non-profit involvement. Less hands on the money=more bang for the buck. Tort reform involves simply passing laws which exempt all related potential liability involving volunteerism in the public sphere (which should apply to all activity on the trails as well).

Just my $.02
Let me just say, and with all do respect, that you have significantly over-inflated the value of your opinion.....Let me see if I understand you.....kids and grandkids are stupid, non-profits are worthless, and (very near bleak future) is a new oxymoron I will add to my collection. Tort laws are not intended to exempt individuals from potential liability but to offer remedy to those that are harmed by the action of others. I sincerely doubt that mountain biking guidelines would be considered by any court as injurious to others. I'm guessing that English is not your native language as the following makes no sense and is certainly not a coherent sentence: "Let's face it, we're broke and even worse beyond imagination."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DashRiprock

Active Member
Let me just say, and with all do respect, that you have significantly over-inflated the value of your opinion.....Let me see if I understand you.....kids and grandkids are stupid, non-profits are worthless, and (very near bleak future) is a new oxymoron I will add to my collection. Tort laws are not intended to exempt individuals from potential liability but to offer remedy to those that are harmed by the action of others. I sincerely doubt that mountain biking guidelines would be considered by any court as injurious to others. I'm guessing that English is not your native language as the following makes no sense and is certainly not a coherent sentence: "Let's face it, we're broke and even worse beyond imagination."

"...Let me just say, and with all do respect, that you have significantly over-inflated the value of your opinion..."
I wish that I could use the above widely held view amongst those older than me to 'rally' those younger than me to truly 'wake up' in so many ways that are about to negatively affect them and their children (frankly) forever (if the country as they think they know it indeed lasts that long).

...."....Let me see if I understand you.....kids and grandkids are stupid, non-profits are worthless, and (very near bleak future) is a new oxymoron I will add to my collection...."

I've never met anybody younger than me who couldn't comprehend the meaning or concept of 'trillions' and/or 'debt'...yet I have met plenty who (a)...don't know how these two terms truly became the single most damaging/descriptive words in our nation's short history or (b) how the 'non-profit' model (today) has contributed mightily to same (i.e.. if every American's dollar had truly went to the cause that they had intended as opposed to the wages/tax write-offs of those who would not spend their money without the former 'first').

"...Tort laws are not intended to exempt individuals from potential liability but to offer remedy to those that are harmed by the action of others. I sincerely doubt that mountain biking guidelines would be considered by any court as injurious to others..."

Most bike paths and trails are on public land. One of the favorite ploys for those continually seeking to keep as few people as possible off of all public property (their property) is to claim 'liability' (again, THEY are the owner)...especially in terms of insurance that they should never have to take out in the first place over being sued in regards to property that 'should be' litigation free. When the 'public good' and 'safety' arguments run their course..out comes the liability and 'extra' insurance costs related to 'mixed use' recreation.
You might not consider the introduction of simple mountain biking guidelines (expanded access) as "...considered by any court as injurious to others..." yet I believe you may fail to understand that this is indeed their argument (to keep just as many off of 'their' public lands as possible) in more ways than one.

I believe that the communication problem here is that at least 'my' generation could possibly be considered public enemy #1 in terms of explaining the above and offering the shared sacrifice or pay-to-play solutions (the savior of bike trails or any other).
We're old enough to know personally those presently giving a rip less about their grandchildren's future....yet young enough to point out to younger people that this is the same older generation (us included) who have been descending-age-responsible for destroying it.
 
Last edited:

DashRiprock

Active Member
August's issue of Bicycle Retailer & Industry News will include an article considering the question, Do electric mountain bikes belong on the trails? and reviewing the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) plans to discuss the question at next week's World Summit in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. The IMBA Agenda includes this item:

E-bikes and Trail Access: Electric-assist bicycles are a fast-growing category. This discussion will examine the evolving management strategies and best practices for e-bikes on natural surface trails. Facilitated by IMBA Communications Director Mark Eller; panelists include IMBA Executive Director Mike Van Abel; NICA Executive Director and Recreation Planning Consultant, Austin McInery; Randy Neufeld, SRAM; Larry Pizzi, Currie Technologies; Samuel Benedict, Specialized Bicycles.

According to Bicycle Retailer & Industry News,

Mike Van Abel, IMBA’s president and executive director in the U.S., was reluctant to include the topic at this year’s biennial World Summit, but concluded that IMBA needed to get in front of potential conflicts now rather than later.

“We’re crystal clear that mountain biking is human powered,” Van Abel said.
Thanks for the information, Chris.

"...Mike Van Abel, IMBA’s president and executive director in the U.S., was reluctant to include the topic at this year’s biennial World Summit, but concluded that IMBA needed to get in front of potential conflicts now rather than later. ...“We’re crystal clear that mountain biking is human powered,” Van Abel said...."

Isn't that three conflicting statements...in one interview?

"I was just plain 'dumb' (or politically motivated enough) to incompetently/politically ignore an access issue grossly affecting my (supposed) job responsibilities for a LONG time...then I 'graciously' decided to (finally) do my job as defined (give Larry a seat at the table with 'conditional statements' beforehand)...yet I''m approaching said job/process/'enemies' of mtbing in general...with a ridiculous public statement of heartfelt belief/mission which not only conflicts with all reason but more mirrors my earlier attempt to bury the whole mess for another 2 years (if I could've gotten away with it).

These are the folks that you are going up against, folks. Don't expect them to look you in the eye (with sincerity) any differently than they will Larry if you ever (finally) decide to exercise your access-related rights involving electric power 'in the flesh' (sorry, I forgot, Americans don't do that anymore...save Larry, Mr. Benedict and whoever else on the panel who dares diagree with VanAbel leading off any 'summit' in that fashion).

As with anything, you are only as good and well intentioned as those representing you. Mr. Van Abel is obviously the poster child for that fact and we are obviously lucky to have representation who understand that responsibility rather than attempting to bury or blur any (long ago) needed dialogue.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 803

Guest
DashRiprock: I must admit you are right:

My son is a professor of philosophy and serves on numerous humanitarian boards and runs a foundation to provide college fees to those who cannot afford to do so. His son (my grandson) is is studying for his bar exam and will specialize in child abuse. Neither of them care anything about mountain biking but they are actively involved in issues they believe will impact society for the greater good. Each successive generation is better educated and better motivated to leave the world a better place. Where in the world did you get the silly idea that "access involving electric power" is a right?
 

DashRiprock

Active Member
DashRiprock: I must admit you are right:

My son is a professor of philosophy and serves on numerous humanitarian boards and runs a foundation to provide college fees to those who cannot afford to do so. His son (my grandson) is is studying for his bar exam and will specialize in child abuse. Neither of them care anything about mountain biking but they are actively involved in issues they believe will impact society for the greater good. Each successive generation is better educated and better motivated to leave the world a better place. Where in the world did you get the silly idea that "access involving electric power" is a right?

Just so we're both on the same page (and I have to say that I am intrigued by the fact that one can be accused of having ".significantly over-inflated the value of your opinion.." and somehow have "...silly ideas..." in a simple conversation between two 'equals'...a concept which you obviously enjoy putting to rest from 'the get-go')..here is what I have offered previously in response to Mr. Van Abel's "crystal clear" contention that "Mountain biking is (indeed) human powered" :

"..These are the folks that you are going up against, folks. Don't expect them to look you in the eye (with sincerity) any differently than they will Larry if you ever (finally) decide to exercise your access-related rights involving electric power 'in the flesh' (sorry, I forgot, Americans don't do that anymore...save Larry, Mr. Benedict and whoever else on the panel who dares diagree with VanAbel leading off any 'summit' in that fashion)...."

Putting aside your (debatable) contention that each successive generation is 'better' educated and 'better' motivated to do anything...let along judge the overall condition of the world we all eventually leave...there is no debate as to who public lands belong to. My comment reflects the fact that Mr. Van Able obviously believes that public land (cough) 'belongs' to whoever any particular segment of same it was initially designated to serve...forever.
Fortunately, your sons were obviously privileged to be educated in a publicly funded (as they all are) atmosphere...just as public lands have been funded (supposedly) for the benefit of all of us.

If you are having a hard time understanding why others (ebikers) would dare challenge Mr. VanAble's definition of a bicycle...or why ebikers should have access to the same trails that MTBers indeed have never 'owned' in the first place...would it be a stretch to assume that you only want electric bikes....where?
 

MarcD

Active Member
Dash, I don't understand what your proposal is. It sounds like you are advocating private control of what are now public lands and right of ways. I fail to see how this benefits any recreational goal. Recreation is about the least profitable use of land. It is a key driver for the nearly 115 year old policy of reserving certain public lands for conservation, going back to Teddy Roosevelt.

Private enterprise in control of public land will develop them, mine them for resources, or use them for agriculture, which are all far more profitable than recreational use.

Privatization of public lands also implies more limited access, as payment for use of these lands moves from a shared taxpayer burden to pay-for-access, which clearly excludes large parts of society.

Maybe I misunderstand your contention, but I fail to see giving Yellowstone to a company like ADM would solve anything. It would merely mean we lose a National Park so it we can mine aluminum or frack it. But ADM certainly isn't going to build recreational trails.
 

DashRiprock

Active Member
Dash, I don't understand what your proposal is. It sounds like you are advocating private control of what are now public lands and right of ways...Maybe I misunderstand your contention
Hello, Marc.
You're right, I believe you simply misunderstood my facts regarding pay-to-play or relying on 'government' to build legacies for our offspring as opposed to doing it ourselves in partnership with private enterprise. Here it is again:
"...Basically, the kids of today won't maintain the trails of the future for whatever reason..it doesn't matter. 'Non-profits' are the single most inefficient way of accomplishing this task short of hiring a government employee to do so. Trail legacies are born through two crazy concepts: capitalism and tort reform.
If you are committed to legacy driven action, you will work right alongside the private firm who has competitively bid for the work needing to be done...as opposed to our public maintenance taxes or user fees (pay-to-play) being grossly diminished through a bureaucratic grant process involving just as inefficient non-profit involvement. Less hands on the money=more bang for the buck. Tort reform involves simply passing laws which exempt all related potential liability involving volunteerism in the public sphere (which should apply to all activity on the trails as well)...
"

Here is the solution again in a nutshell:
1) Come to the realization that we are forever broke and that 'trails' will never be a funding priority for our children given the overwhelming challenges that we face (nor should they given the cost of freedom's toll on our economy/budgets).
2) If we want to keep the trails/access that we thankfully already have (and hopefully create more) trail maintenance will have to be continually quantified. America is great in regards to building things..not so much on making certain that what we do build actually forever stands through maintaining it. If a trail cannot be continually and properly maintained through a fixed cost method (private enterprise competing for the contract every year) then it needs to be closed until said priority rises to the public's consciousness, stomach for individual responsibility and/or the creation of a volunteer force working beside a contractor minimizing those annual fixed costs. Again, one has to be on board with point #1 above (which very few of us evidently are) to grasp the concept.
3) If you don't put the lawyers out of work, you'll never keep them away from your grandchildren. Tort reform/personal responsibility is generally one of the top 2 or three ingredients involved in solving any issue that we face. If one believes that Mr. VanAbel's statements are self-serving...try a government employee with the best lawyer in town (he can afford him or her with your money) fighting to keep the day-to-day maintenance of your trail out of his budget while keeping as many 'off' his trail as possible at the same time through 'liability' related nonsense.

I'll stop there and hope that you see my point. Our children have absolutely no idea as to what they are in for in terms of the taxes they will soon pay to fix much more pressing problems than (unfortunately) 'trails'. I simply don't have any problem informing them of this fact, who is responsible for where they are today or how to prepare for preserving even the simplest publicly offered joys that they will be left with (and there won't be many due to simple math).

Then again, if this younger generation takes its cue (i.e., 'the easy route') from my generation (and older) in terms of valuing legacies to begin with and ignoring point #1?...forget about what I just offered above ('the government' will take care of it). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Brambor

Well-Known Member
I'd rather maintained less trails (if necessary) and leave the rest of the park wild...accessible only to wilderness bushwacking or winter backcountry skiing, than lose the public ownership. Privateering natural resources has seldom resulted in something I enjoyed.
 

DashRiprock

Active Member
I'd rather maintained less trails (if necessary) and leave the rest of the park wild...accessible only to wilderness bushwacking or winter backcountry skiing, than lose the public ownership. Privateering natural resources has seldom resulted in something I enjoyed.

Nobody has spoken to (unless I've missed it) 'losing' public ownership of anything to date, as well as "Privateering Natural Resources" (private for-profit entrepreneurs have been well entrenched in American public spaces since the very first lands were set aside and are critical to their survival in today's debt-laden).

The points seemingly lost here are the concepts of 'legacy'...'access'...and how to achieve these ends (sustainable legacy-driven maintenance programs).

I'm guessing that this confusion is rooted in the same roadblocks that we faced in higher impact off-road trail discussions..."...give me trails...just don't ask me to think too hard in regards to how to keep or maintain them for the sake of my children's opportunity to enjoy the same experience..".

I would offer that my generation vehemently demands that public land access be denied to their grandchildren 'now'...because God has already blessed them with the opportunity to 'been there, done that' on the same piece of land..at the same age. Think about it.;)
 
D

Deleted member 803

Guest
Dash, I don't understand what your proposal is. It sounds like you are advocating private control of what are now public lands and right of ways. I fail to see how this benefits any recreational goal. Recreation is about the least profitable use of land. It is a key driver for the nearly 115 year old policy of reserving certain public lands for conservation, going back to Teddy Roosevelt.

Private enterprise in control of public land will develop them, mine them for resources, or use them for agriculture, which are all far more profitable than recreational use.

Privatization of public lands also implies more limited access, as payment for use of these lands moves from a shared taxpayer burden to pay-for-access, which clearly excludes large parts of society.

Maybe I misunderstand your contention, but I fail to see giving Yellowstone to a company like ADM would solve anything. It would merely mean we lose a National Park so it we can mine aluminum or frack it. But ADM certainly isn't going to build recreational trails.
 

JoePah

Well-Known Member
Use of public lands is always changing. IF baby boomers are very interestrdin in off road ebiking and they spend likewise there will be some compromise on use.

The trend in this country is to buy private land and make it public so that it can be preserved. That is what The Conservancy attempts to accomplish here and worldwide. And I fully support them.
 
D

Deleted member 803

Guest
Dash, I don't understand what your proposal is. It sounds like you are advocating private control of what are now public lands and right of ways. I fail to see how this benefits any recreational goal. Recreation is about the least profitable use of land. It is a key driver for the nearly 115 year old policy of reserving certain public lands for conservation, going back to Teddy Roosevelt.

Private enterprise in control of public land will develop them, mine them for resources, or use them for agriculture, which are all far more profitable than recreational use.

Privatization of public lands also implies more limited access, as payment for use of these lands moves from a shared taxpayer burden to pay-for-access, which clearly excludes large parts of society.

Maybe I misunderstand your contention, but I fail to see giving Yellowstone to a company like ADM would solve anything. It would merely mean we lose a National Park so it we can mine aluminum or frack it. But ADM certainly isn't going to build recreational trails.
Well said
 

MarcD

Active Member
Dash, I think everyone here agrees that trail use rights are important to e-bikers and that people that share Van Abel's views are misguided. I don't, however, believe that non-profits and government are inherent evils in the conservation legacy. The Pacific Crest Trail/John Muir Trail is one of the most successful and best maintained trails on the planet. And it is wholly done by a 501-(c)(3) non-profit. The National Parks system is one of the best in the industrialized world.

Rails To Trails is a non-profit that has helped more than double the number of accessible trails since 1993, and supported them with maintenance plans. Of the 117 trails surveyed in their latest report, only 13 use any contractor resources. I ride trails all the time that have strong non-profit maintenance programs, and they are beautifully maintained. We just had about 10 miles of the Little Miami Scenic Trail (part of Ohio Bike Route 1) repaved by, yes, a non-profit and volunteer entity. Meanwhile, just a short drive away, Hueston Woods State Park had to cancel a contract for Mountain Bike Trail maintenance because the private contractor pocketed the money and didn't invest in the trail.

As to tort reform, of those 117 trails, with an average age of 20 years and an estimated uses of 136k users per trail per year has only resulted in 11 law suits. Average insurance costs for the trails are about $2,000 per trail per year. That is the single most irrefutable fact that liability is not an issue: insurance would be much, much more than that if the threat of liability were high.

I encourage you to read the report.

We all want better trails that are sustainable. I don't think tort reform has anything to do with that, and there is no evidence that non-profits or government management is unsuccessful or unsustainable.
 
D

Deleted member 803

Guest
Land is purchased by the government as a means of preservation (which means keeping it in a state of stasis). Policy regarding public lands is governed by local or federal boards/committees/agencies assigned to create rules for use. These policies are in effect to prevent reckless use of the land by those whose behavior subjugates the benefit and joy of the populous as a whole. Policy on use of public land is a social contract not an individual contract. As communities whose values evolve over time and from generation to generation, so too will public land policy.

I fail to understand how the concept of "ours" gets so easily translated into "mine."
 
Last edited by a moderator: