|
Post by seenvic on Jan 19, 2006 14:47:21 GMT -5
Recently, a rider in his mid 50's said to me....I am getting concerned that all the trees are being cut off the trails. He asked me if I could do anything about it. I see it came up again in the trail reports thread.
I brought it up at the SORBA ride on Sunday. And a good discussion followed.
I thought I'd try to get folks to say here what they see as being reasonable standards.
I'll start.
I think we have one trail that should have every tree removed. This is the Bartram Trail. It is flat, is easy and it should be. It is a great place to take kids, older riders or new riders of any age or condition. It should not have trees across the trail. I also know for a fact the above statement is the desire of the Army Corp - and they manage the land
I think the Bartram Trail is the only trail that should have every tree removed.
I think ALL the other trails should have a minimum of 8" trees left - almost 100% of the time. If too many come down, some should be removed. 4 per mile is too many. If one or more is at a really poor angle and/or is that super slick exposed pine - it should be removed.
I'd like to see Modoc have a 12" standard. Modoc has several natural technical features and IMHO is the "most" technical of the old USFS trails we ride.
I'd like to see the parks (HKSP and BCSP) have larger trees as well.
This leaves Turkey Creek, Horn Creek, and Wine Creek as the 8" standard trails.
I have not opinion in the Canal Loop. I never ride there.
I'd like to see 3 loops of the FATS have the 12" standard and the other three have an 18" standard. The three 12" standard are the 3 loops that can be ridden close to the parking lot. The 3 loops with 18" standards can only be accessed by using one of the other loops to get to it. On the 18" standard loops, I'd like to see some even larger logs left across the trail. The FATS has some big hills, some rock gardens. It should be our "advanced" trail.
I appreciate the efforts of the volunteers working on the trails. But in this case, perhaps less work (cutting fewer trees) would be better. There are many things we can do to the trails during this time instead of cutting trees that many folks would rahter see left alone.
As for the riders making routes around the downed trees - I hold you in low regard - about the same as the folks that ride in the mud. If I can't ride something, I don't ride around it. I usually practice a cyclocross dismount and jump over it off the bike. Or I just stop, dismount, step over and get back on the bike on the other side of the obstacle.
Please, step up an discuss this here.
|
|
Homer
Gear Masher
Posts: 47
|
Post by Homer on Jan 20, 2006 17:06:22 GMT -5
I say leave them if they do not pose a bigger issue, ie. in a turn, in a trough (like the one at HKSP), etc. Logs 8"-12" pose no more of a problem than the nice rock at mile 3 at HKSP. I'm not to fond of a log that bounces or rolls when you cross it though. I'd like to see a few logs on the course for the Bakers Dozen, not ramped though.
|
|
|
Post by rayandtrish on Jan 22, 2006 17:18:08 GMT -5
I agree with most of what was discussed about trees down on the trails and leaving them there. The sizing for the most part is reasonable, I have cleared up to 12" with out to many issues, 18" would be interesting ... I removed the tree on HKSP at the 3 mile because is sat right in front of fairly good sized ravine. I am trying to coordinate and get the work parties scheduled this year on our local trails, so I really appreciate as much information and standardization on this topic for all of our trails. On the canal trial, which I kind of claim as my main trail, only because I can ride over there from my home in N. Augusta. Unless anyone has any major objections, I would like to keep it fairly clear of trees, Main reason, there is a lot of 1st timers that start out there, because it's the closest and easy to find, plus when most of the trees fall on that trail they bring a bunch of vines down with them. Ray WPC...
|
|
|
Post by wooglin on Jan 22, 2006 18:04:02 GMT -5
I like the 8" standard and the something less than 4/mile standard. Going over logs all the time is a pain, and 8" is high enough that even just wheelieing over you probably won't smack your chainring. Beyond that I'm at a complete loss. I can clear up to about 15" in ideal conditions I think, but when there's a slope or a turn involved things get a lot more dicey. So I think the run up and follow through areas need to be considered, not just the size of the log.
Another way to handle the whole debate is to focus not just on the log size, but on how long they get left there. Something like: leave 8" logs in for 6 months, logs up to 18" for 3 months, and anything bigger gets cut immediately. One of the great things about MTBing is that the trail is constantly changing. I think that needs to be allowed for, and even encouraged.
|
|
|
Post by wooglin on Jan 23, 2006 17:05:20 GMT -5
I thought about this some more today, and I think I was getting too complicated. So for simplicity, cut everything out once a year (maybe in the spring?) then wait until there are 5 (8? 10? Pick a number) logs down on a given trail and cut _them_ all out. If there's not that much annual deadfall then you're only cutting once a year.
Basically, clear the trail annually and then let it be until it gets ugly, then clear it again. Maybe impose a height limit on a trail-by-trail basis as seenvic proposed to go along with the cutting schedule.
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Jan 25, 2006 15:16:41 GMT -5
My standards I put out there are not based on my ability at present. Would I struggle with logs 18" and larger - YES. But how else will I learn to ride them? In the meantime, I don't mind trying them when I feel it and walking over them when I don't feel it. Riding off the trail and creating a new trail around them should not be an option. Makes mountain bikers look bad - trail braiding is frowned upon by every land manager I know.
I appreciate the efforts of the chainsaw certified folks, but think we could lighten the work load by leaving more logs to ride over.
I agree that more than the size of the log should be taken into account. There is one down right now on the HSKP Lake Loop that I could ride if it was not at the angle it is at. If I had a saw with me at the location - I'd cut it.
Good discussion so far - would like to hear more.
|
|
|
Post by xcgene on Jan 26, 2006 12:57:56 GMT -5
Hi all, Weighing in on this topic from KY so I can not really add a like or dislike on certain trails and logs. Generally in KY we try to leave logs that are not rotten too bad and are laying flat on the ground, that being said on larger < 12" we will try to incorporate an option to miss it if you would prefer to and there are times that the terrain does not allow this either. I can speak about the log pile at the BD 13hr race, it did get tough to muster the energy to get over it at about hour 10
|
|
|
Post by ted on Jan 26, 2006 16:40:46 GMT -5
After observing all of the great ideas, I thought I'd put in my two cents. Each of our trails can be rated by a level of difficulty. Canal being easiest and future FATS being most difficult. Why don't we set tree cutting standards based on the trail difficulty level. For example: Canal= cut all trees (It's a entry level trail any way) Lick Fork= cut all trees 6" and up Turkey/Wine= cut all trees 6-8" and up Modoc= 8-10" and up (Maybe bigger?) FATS= 12" and up Also, cut all trees that aren't lying on the ground, aren't perpendicular to the trail or are located at a spot that is inappropriate. ie in the middle of a dip at FATS. It's maybe a standard that could be figured out at the next meeting with input from all attending members. Also, trees larger than 12" can be "notched" to make them rideable as demonstrated in books available through the IMBA website. In most cases, it's probably a judgement call to be made once you're on the trail during a work party.
|
|
|
Post by rayandtrish on Jan 26, 2006 19:51:59 GMT -5
That's what I like about MTB'rs we discuss the topic with finding a workable solution as the goal instead of just ignoring it. The standards based on the the trail rating sounds appropriate and finding ways to discourage people from riding around the log vs riding it or carrying it needs to be part of the plan.
Ray
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Jan 28, 2006 0:23:04 GMT -5
Personally for me as a person who has done more than my fair share of trail work over the years (and I note that I personally have never cut a tree off a trail - but the folks I've swamped for have periodically left riders along the way based on their judgment at the time) it sounds as if it is getting mighty complicated to me.
It is a royal pain to pull a bob several miles into a trail wiith all the gear you have to take and constantly be lifting a bike and bob over large downed trees. Now you add the complexities of okay is that the third or the forth tree that has been down in the past mile so should we cut or not. Lets stop and measure and consult our chart for whatever trail this is after we make sure it isn't near anything that would complicate things such as a gully or turn and of course we must we must check both sides to make sure it has great entry and exit points.
If this is a big issue and obviously it is to many people, I am in favor of a dedicated chainsaw crew made up of those folks who really want all these trees left on the trail and then you won't have to worry about whether your favorite tree is going to be cut off the trail or not or have a dedicated tree watcher who will go in every time a tree falls down and mark or flag it as one that gets left on the trail the next time the crew comes through. With the dedicated crew made up of the folks who like to ride the 12 to 18 inch trees I feel certain they won't mind the hike-a-bike-and-bob over umpteen downed trees to reach the one or two that will need to come out since they are the ones that will get the pleasure and thrill of riding those same trees they have to deal with during trail work.....heck I've watched one of our more accomplished riders ride those large trees pulling a bob so there would be a grand challenge for those riders.
In addition to the above considerations you must consider whether the tree is easily ridden around because if it is you will have folks riding around it no matter how much you talk about what slimy slugs they are by riding around it. With a three trees per mile allowed you could have 21 trees down on a trail like Turkey Creek - isn't it going to be a total blast trying to mow that trail in the Spring!!
A member suggested we "place" trees down where we want them - make sure they are anchored well so they aren't rolling around - maybe even notch them so riders who have no desire to won't have to "learn" to ride an 18 inch log - kind of like the trees that are placed on the trail at Blanket's Creek.....everyone would know where the trees were and that they are "placed" trees and leave them alone when they are cutting the others out.
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Jan 28, 2006 6:08:33 GMT -5
I don't think we need a chart. I don't think we need to measure the trees. I know the people that are chainsaw certified and I think each one is of high enough intelligence to understand what we are shooting for. I think the mowers are used in teams of two people and lifting them over trees is not a problem. That's one reason we send two people. There is a handle on the front of the mower that can be used to lift the machine over the tree. I've turned the blade off and driven the mowers over trees in the size range we are talking about leaving. Leaving some trees on the trail to ride is not complicated at all. It does not present challenges outside the norms of mountain biking to riders or to folks doing trail work. IMHO, lifting a bike and bob trailer over a 12"-18" tree is not difficult. If the tree is bigger - cut it. Again, for safety there should be at least two people out there and this should not be difficult. Have you ever put a bike on a roof rack? That's a whole lot higher. But to me the question is will the people cutting every tree off the trail now please stop doing this and leave a few for a brother to ride? No one has come on here and said they like every tree removed. If people want every tree removed, why can't they go ride the Canal and Bartram most of the time? Should every trail be made to accomidate these desires? I don't think so. I'm not saying leave every tree on every trail, but leave some trees on some trails. Mix it up a little. Variety is the spice of life.... Finally if 21 trees ever fell across Turkey Creek, we'd need to cut about half of them.
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Jan 28, 2006 9:07:34 GMT -5
Trees are constantly falling on all the trails around here - we have at times had 20 trees go down on one trail during some of the storms we've had - and sometimes it takes weeks to get a crew in to take care of it. On the trails I ride there are normally riders at any given time as well as others. I have worked with three or four of the chainsaw certified folks in the forest and every one of them have been cognizant of any "riders" that might be left, have they left all the trees that "someone" might can ride - probably not but they haven't taken the attitude let's make this like the Greenway or Bartram so my granny can come ride it either. Again I think some folks need to get themselves chainsaw certified and be the ones who leave what they want to leave and if the trails become full of trees that I don't feel like constantly lifting equipment over to work on I will - without complaint - bring my loppers and just do other trail work that suits me better! It's cool either way......... I actually would prefer this response posted by Wooglin in an earlier post over what is being suggested: I thought about this some more today, and I think I was getting too complicated. So for simplicity, cut everything out once a year (maybe in the spring?) then wait until there are 5 (8? 10? Pick a number) logs down on a given trail and cut _them_ all out. If there's not that much annual deadfall then you're only cutting once a year. When I was president I did my best to establish a trail committee that would make the call on what work would be done on the various trails and then tried to establish trail advocates who would go out and champion a particular trail and make decisions with the trail committee on what would be done - basically with the exceptions of the Drawdy's on Horn Creek, Ray Shively on the Canal Trail, Chris Foreman on Issaqueena, Dale Parrott on Keg Creek and Tom Austin & Milo Metcalf on Long Cane - folks haven't stepped up and frankly I am in awe of the work those folks do on those respective trails and am 100% satisfied with the calls they make on any work that needs to be done. Again just an opinion!
|
|
|
Post by rayandtrish on Jan 28, 2006 20:43:56 GMT -5
Again, this is obviously a topic that brings out a lot of ideas, options and concerns. As we get closer to the growing/ cutting work party time of the year, these discussions should help when I coordinate some work parties on the local trails.
When I schedule a WP this year I will try and get a consensus on the trail based on the conditions/ location/ prior to going in. Ray
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Jan 29, 2006 9:43:12 GMT -5
I actually would prefer this response posted by Wooglin in an earlier post over what is being suggested: I thought about this some more today, and I think I was getting too complicated. So for simplicity, cut everything out once a year (maybe in the spring?) then wait until there are 5 (8? 10? Pick a number) logs down on a given trail and cut _them_ all out. If there's not that much annual deadfall then you're only cutting once a year. When I was president I did my best to establish a trail committee that would make the call on what work would be done on the various trails and then tried to establish trail advocates who would go out and champion a particular trail and make decisions with the trail committee on what would be done - basically with the exceptions of the Drawdy's on Horn Creek, Ray Shively on the Canal Trail, Chris Foreman on Issaqueena, Dale Parrott on Keg Creek and Tom Austin & Milo Metcalf on Long Cane - folks haven't stepped up and frankly I am in awe of the work those folks do on those respective trails and am 100% satisfied with the calls they make on any work that needs to be done. Again just an opinion! First of all, I appreciate the time folks take to go cut unpassable trees off the trails. But I think there is a middle ground between cutting every tree off the trails and not cutting any. I'd take Wooglin's suggestion over the status quo of cutting every tree that falls no matter how big or small it is. IMHO, it seems that is the standard we have now. I'll gladly be the person that doesn't cut the "rider" trees at the FATS. What I can't reconsile is how my being this person that doesn't cut some "rider" trees off the trail is magically going to stop someone else from coming out and cutting these trees that I didn't cut. Which to me is the crux of the issue. Are the people that are presently cutting "almost" every tree off the trails now willing to cut only those that need to be cut and leave a few to be ridden? Or are they going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and go to the other extreme and not cut any trees? Again, I appreciate the time and effort to cut these trees off the trails. Especially the ones that are hanging about headset high! There can be a middle ground, IMHO. It doesn't have to be cut every tree or cut no trees.
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Jan 29, 2006 10:34:24 GMT -5
I'm through commenting on this subject period after this but will say that I have swamped for nearly every chainsaw certified sawyer we have and although all have slightly different ideas on what constitutes a rider or not ALL of them have left riders on the trails.
Did they leave all the riders you or someone else might have wanted left, probably not. Are there other folks going in and cutting other trees out? Probably so.
I think at least with the SORBA group if you are the official chainsaw person for the FATS you won't find other SORBA chainsawyers in there cutting uninvited. We know who handles Horn Creek and unless he asks for help or a work party as far as I'm concerned he makes the calls there....the same can be true of the FATS.
I still say determine where you want those riders on other trails, make sure they are properly situated to the trail and not rolling around, flag them - it will be obvious to all that those are placed trees and to be left alone when a crew comes through.
|
|
|
Post by milo on Jan 31, 2006 8:38:11 GMT -5
Well, Needless to say, we up here on the northern part of the district feel pretty strongly about this one. If a log falls on a trail that is where God intends it to be.... it is pure blasphemy to cut it off!
Seriously, logs are a part of the trail. I know that not everyone has mastered the art of crossing a log. However, part of the experience of riding is learning new trick. But here is the kicker, if one cuts a log off the trail, nobody can enjoy it. If you leave the logs on, there is always an option for those that don't want to ride it, they can cyclocross it or take the opportunity to catch their breath.
Frankly, I don't buy the argument that it takes away from the trail experience for those who don't or can't cross them. After my shoulder injury it took 6 months to get up the courage to cross logs again. During this time I (gasp) carried my bike across the logs but it gave me an opportunity to watch my friends gracefully arc their bikes across the top of the logs. I can tell you that there is nothing quite like a string of 10 - 12 bikers crossing a log one after another. My advice, if you can't cross a log, take some time and learn. Yes, you will fall. It will intimidate you at first. However, like we say on the LC, if you can cross it in your mind you can cross it on the trail.
Here is how we decide what is a rider and what is not. If any of our group can cross it, it is a rider. Once deemed a rider, we fiercely defend and preserve it. In fact, we finally came to an agreement with the FS that although we would not necessarily cut them off ourselves, we wouldn't cry, scream and throw a fit like a 17 year old girl who gets grounded and has to miss prom if the FS cuts logs off the trail that are over 12". Literally, that is a true story… Ask Libby how we feel about our logs.
Finally, it is very rare that we cut a log completely off the trail. First of all, we try to make it into a rider. The objective is to have a log we can cross, not remove it. We will remove it altogether if: It is too big to ride; this is very rare because Ernest, Pepe, Sean and Ashby can ride about anything. There are multiples down in a very short distance (2 trees within 10 ft) It is a tree top and not a tree trunk. That is about it, notice we talk anything about 'off the ground', “at an angle”, “rolling”, “I’m scared of it”, “I fell on it” or “it interrupts the flow” …those just add interesting twists to otherwise routine log crossing. Sorry for the sarcasm but there is really only one reason why anyone doesn’t want logs on the trail… Because they can’t cross them. Furthermore, there is only one reason they can’t cross them, they are afraid of falling. Face your fears, or at least let 'um lye, somebody loves them.
|
|
|
Post by biglog on Jan 31, 2006 10:27:04 GMT -5
I agree with what milo says. The logs do add some variety to the trail...they even become iconic, as we tend to name them according to who gapes on them. What a great feeling to have a log named after you....year after year new riders begin calling it by name. Brings on chill bumps! When I first started mtb (former roadie), I quickly learned that one of the ways that I could keep up with the faster riders (or at least have a chance) was to become a good technical rider....if you can cross a log they cant, you can really gain some time, plus it gives you the confidence you need to keep pushing yourself. I also remember two guys (Tom and Milo) forcing me to ride a log in wine creek about a hundred times until I got the feel for it.....once it clicks game over! MTb are the best group out there for helping other riders. Most of us have probably given away more tubes to fellow riders than we have actually used. Point is, if you want to learn to cross a log ask someone. We are not a shy bunch! Save the logs!! My .02 cents. Designate a trail rep. Someone who rides the trail a bunch, experienced, respected, and has knowledge of logs etc. Let them decide what stays and what goes. I think we are fortunate up here in the northern section, that we spend a lot of time riding together and discuss the trail often....we also hang any one that starts cutting!
|
|
|
Post by type1troy on Jan 31, 2006 14:18:10 GMT -5
I do think some of the trails (lake trail) mentioned need to be clear for beginning or "untechnical" riders. I do think that we need more advanced trails in our area as well. Logs can help keep things advanced and challenging. I remember a time when someone decided that their daughter could not ride over the logs at Modoc and they cut them "all" off the trail. To be quite honest, I've always thought Modoc was one of our more challenging trails (not in a Pisgahesque way, but in a creek crossing/ log jumping way). How often have you ridden up in the mountains only to be flying down a fast downhill and all of a sudden a log hops in front of you? Your instincts guide you and you either hop it, flip over it, or slam on the brakes and erode the trail. I vote to leave the logs on most of the trails. If you don't want to jump the, climb over them, if you don't want to get off your bike, ride the easy trails where there are no logs. To keep the interest of mountain biking going I feel the new trend of trail building we have going is in the right direction. The sweet flowing berms with some kickers is what we need to spice things up. Why not throw a few small ft. to 2 ft. drops on the downhills? May not be my call but just some ideas. It gives those new to the sport something to shoot for, those who have been doing it awhile it really gives that challenge we've been missing for some time. Why not have stuff out our back door that pushes you in a similar way the mountains do in certain aspects, maybe we cannot have the climbs but we can certainly have some natural obstacles to keep you on your toes.
|
|
|
Post by wooglin on Jan 31, 2006 21:15:48 GMT -5
Perhaps we should defer an explore the trails or two in favor of an informal skills session? tuktok.com/loghop/
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Feb 1, 2006 1:40:20 GMT -5
I rode about 10 miles of the SM 100 with the guy riding that log in the pics. He was on a SS then too.
|
|