Just another example of the payback you can get when you get in tight with land agencies. Around here there are lots of bikers who spend lots of time with the parks people making sure they understand what bikers like or don’t like and we coddle and cajole them into keeping us in mind when there is talk about changing existing trails or creating new trails. I can’t say that we are successful all the time but I know that it is a lot better than it would be if we weren’t engaging those people on a consistent basis. Bottom line: Get involved in the process. That is a lot more effective then whining about it after the fact.

I think a good alternative to dumbing down trail systems is more signage warning riders of what they are getting into and stating rules telling new riders to not make their own reroutes and get off their bike and walk over the obstacle if they cannot ride it.

Whenever I ride in Southern VA (Richmond and Williamsburg mainly) their trails have such good signage that you never know if you are biting off more than you can chew before entering each loop. This should be in place at all high traffic mtb trails. And yes, I understand it costs money…but so does renting the equipment or paying a contractor to turn that awesome rock infested downhill into a boring gulley.

/rant

“Per the USFS, there were three options at Bull/Jake: do nothing, do the work that was done or close the trails to all traffic, permanently. They have standards for the amount of degredataion that can occur on an inventoried trail over a period of time and for the level of impact that it can have on the environment and the Bull/Jake trails had never been compliant with either, so option number 1 wasn’t feasable. That just left close them or rehab them and I’m glad they chose the latter.”

this was from the second post and was only part of it.

http://www.sorba.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=38456

One thing that might be driving the rock removal and other smoothing is the trail classification. In the NF, trails are classified with numbers 1-5 and I think Bull proper is supposed to be a 3, which means when it was first surveyed, it was a 3. 5 is basically paved. 1 is like the Pinhoti up on Dug Gap mountain. I don’t know all of the details in between, but the contractors do. Reclassifying a trail is a big deal. The contractors may have been tasked with restoring it to level 3. I’ll find out though.

The big cut in that first photo wasn’t executed well. It should at very least be outsloped with a channel on one side with rock in it and a nick at the bottom. Looks like something we’ll have to fix. Ditto for the second photo. It will be a lot of work.

The work in the third photo at least makes sense. Water won’t follow the meandering trail, but will instead make its way into those rocks and slow down. That’s the photo that makes me think that they were attempting to restore the trail to a level 3 classification. Fully exposed rock would have done the same job re. erosion, but if the intended line was through the rocks, then it probably wouldn’t qualify as level 3.

Same deal with the rock removal in the next photo, though they couldn’t meander the trail there because of the spring on the upslope.

Bull was once an old timber extraction route and the roadbed had rolling dips up by the intersection with Lance Creek Road (babyheads). The majority of the work that was slated to be done up there was restoration of some of those dips. Anybody notice how successful that was?

Not sure what this will be like as it’s the first year.

Jared said it best- Yeah there are parts of the trail that sometimes wins the battle- and then sometimes you win the battle. That’s what makes it awesome and fun to ride IMHO.I know when I get close to those tricky sections that the fun is going to start- and I love that. The feeling that I might not make it but I’m going at it full steam anyways. Even if I have to ride it all the way to the ground !!!!!

@element22, exactly. This “trail maintenance” isn’t going to help much in the end.

@dgaddis, exactly. However, as far as I’m aware, the volunteers involved in this area weren’t consulted when the changes were made.

@ckdake, Yeah totally a tricky issue. Dave Muse’s response was very enlightening (great guy, has his head on straight). However, I wonder if he’s even referencing this trail work up on Bull. Like I said in the original article, if some of these sections had been rerouted like the trails lower down, I would have understood that.

However, as element22 and dgaddis have both pointed out, these are horrible examples of sustainable trail work. Much of the work they have done doesn’t improve the sustainability at all, and some of the work has no impact on sustainability either way. In the second to last picture, that is a section that has suffered no ill environmental effects, and was delightfully rocky and just a pleasure to ride. The only maintenance that was done to the section just removed the rocks, dumbing down the trail and making it “as smooth as a baby’s bottom.”

Like element22 mentioned, rocks are natural armoring. They help hold the trail in place, help prevent the dirt from getting washed away. Removing rocks accelerates erosion in most circumstances.

@schwim, That’s probably part of it. But trails around the nation are getting changed because they are too difficult, and the majority of new trails being built, especially here in the Southeast, are incredibly groomed, catering to the beginner and intermediate rider because many people don’t want to get out of their comfort zones and challenge themselves on tough trails.

@schell21, Great point! I love that Big Creek has embraced the rock and has embraced all types of riding. I think Big Creek is a great example of a trail-system-done-right. I wish they had more trails there, but there just isn’t room.

But like you said, Big Creek has tons of rock, some advanced riding, but they ALSO have some beginner trails and a pump track that is accessible to beginners. Great variety.

@joetutt, Amen.

@Jared13, great points. And I agree with you: when the trail is built unsustainably, then doing something to fix it is necessary. But as I’ve argued above (and I think you agree), most of this “maintenance” doesn’t actually address any of the environmental issues!

@maddslacker, Amen! I love that there are a few places that seem mostly immune to the issue. Dakota Ridge is a beast of a trail, and I love it.

I hear you on the variety: that’s exactly what I’m advocating. Like you said, removing the difficult trails removes half of the equation.

A couple of trails here have had the fun “fixed” out of them, but for the most part technical trails stay as they are. (Think Dakota Ridge and Deer Creek) Recent trailbuilding work at the otherwise mostly tame Buffalo Creek system actually added some black diamond level trail.

1) I agree that work should be done to mitigate erosion, BUT that does not mean turning it into something a cyclocross bike can handle. In fact, I would think that some well placed obstacles would serve the dual purpose of preventing erosion and making the trail more challenging.

2) I also don’t mind a mix of technical and more tame trails. Some days I like to roll over the gnarly stuff, other days I like to spin and daydream while watching the scenery .. it just depends on my mood. But to take away all the gnar ruins 1/2 of that equation.

I would agree that ride-arounds/trail rerouting are almost always the answer. It takes more work (both muscle and brain) to put the ride-arounds/reroutes in but I think it makes the trails so much better.

Expert trails should stay expert, intermediate should stay intermediate, etc etc.

We did some ‘dumbing down’ at my local trail. There was a root that crossed the trail at about a 50 degree angle. As riders hit it, it pushed them to the outside of the trail and was wearing away the benchcut.

We took out the root, smoothed out the ruts, and opened the trail up a bit where the root was.

Is it easier to ride? Yes.
Is it faster to ride? Yes.
Is this section of the trail now sustainable? Without a doubt.

Had the removal of the root done nothing for sustainability, we wouldn’t have done it.

One thing I dislike about ‘dumbing down’ a trail even when it is for sustainability is you are taking that challenge away from someone. Finally clearing that one obstacle that was kicking your butt is an AWESOME feeling. However, if it’s for the betterment of the trail, i.e. sustainability, and not for the betterment of the rider, i.e. clearability (it’s a word) then I see it as a good thing.