Mtn.Views & News

"... the park is a treasured piece among the district’s natural areas. “We don’t have that many wetlands,he said. That’s for sure, we just don’t have them. ~DNV's Trails and Habitat Coordinator, Graham Knell, told the North Shore Outlook (DNV polishes Mackay Park Jul-10-2008):

Mountain View Park wetland and upland area is an

"urban crown jewel" on Mt. Fromme.

Formerly called "Twin Lakes",  Mountain View Park was dedicated in 1999, in a referendum vote during the District of North Vancouver election.

This section will include items of interest about Mtn. View Park, "urban" parks and wetlands, in general, and how mountain biking activities are detrimental to the ongoing ecological health of these natural places.

Nature vs. Mountain Biking:

What can make nature education and outdoor exploration  more enticing than mountain biking for our children and young teens? You would think a nature walk couldn't compete with such adrenaline sports like mountain biking. Think again! 

Let your children lick slugs. Why slugs? Because slug slime is an anesthetic! One lick and your tongue goes numb. Very cool! And stream dipping!  Many children will find that a wild ride on a mountain bike can't compare with the thrill of catching a salamander with your bare hands (and then letting it go free, of course).

Our children need to get up close and personal with nature, in order to appreciate and respect it. They will learn to reinforce their five senses and powers of observation to really get to know the natural world.*

Our young people cannot learn that kind  respect and care for nature on the backs mountain bikes, while wearing  full-face helmets, racing down trails in the forest. They cannot learn to respect the natural world if they continue to learn to conquer nature via indiscriminate off-road mountain biking and off-trail digging habits.

How can we instill real appreciation and respect of the natural world in this day of adrenaline producing extreme wreckreation? Don't send them to mountain bike camps, take them to the Lynn Canyon Ecology Centre, Maplewood Flats Conservation Area,  etc. Sign them up for the Mt. Seymour Eco-Adventure Camps

And, please, teach them to keep the wheels on the pavement and not on the forest and park trails. It will go a long way to preserve what still remains of our natural places. Thank you.

(* Info and excerpts,  from Leah Kostamo's, "Planted: A Story of Creation, Calling and Community", pg 71-72 , Cascade Books Publishing, 2013)

2 Chronicles 7:13-15

view:  full / summary

It's a Keeper!

Posted on December 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM


"The Truth" has an uncanny way of coming out, sooner or later... ;)

North Shore Mountain Biking Forums (

- The Shore (

- - rockslide @ twin bridges ( (on page 11)

Duncan 12-13-2014 03:08 AM



Originally Posted by D(C) (Post 2850627)

It's pretty cool how we spend all this time playing in the woods and making our little routes, then in just one act, nature comes and tells how it's going to be.


Monica was right! It is the Lord's vengeance. God hath smote the mountain bike community, and in an instant turneth its beloved trails into new frog habitat. Repent, sinners!



Monica's response :D

Take care, folks...

--Monica Craver--

From the Horse's Mouth

Posted on October 12, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Mountain Bikers as Wilderness/Conservation Advocates? No evidence so far!

Mountain bikers speak out against "their own" -  People need to wake up to the damage mountain biking wreaks on our natural areas and parkland.

"One hears that mountain bikers appreciate wilderness and wildlands as much as others. Yet we do not see supporting behavior."

(I don't see MTBer/NSMBA support of conserving sensitive habitat that is Mountain View Park wetland and upland area, either. Instead, they want it all, and more. Selfish brutes! It only all about their trails and thrillride, and not much more.)

Comments to the article, from an ex-pro mountain biker, and a mountain biker - The truth comes out...When will DNV listen?!

Oliver Starr says:

October 10, 2014 at 2:44 pm

George, as a lifelong conservationist first, a resident in places where mountain biking is a primary form of recreation second, and finally as a former professional mountain biker, I couldn’t agree with you more.

In spite of the fact that they aren’t motorized, bikes are far more damaging than snowmobiles.

Further, I have yet to see even a single mountain biker ride in a way that doesn’t significantly degrade the environment.

Mountain bikes aren’t quite as bad as motorcycles but they’re not far behind in terms of the way they tear up the ground. The new bikes with beefy suspension make much terrain that would be inaccessible to few, more accessible to many.

No mountain biker can resist exercising the limits of their skills on beautiful trails. The result is rutted, torn up and consistently degraded terrain. And don’t even get me started about what happens when the ground that they ride on is wet.

I have also seen little restraint with respect to keeping ON the designated trails. If there’s a more extreme route pioneered by one, that track soon becomes a trail and then a permanent scar.

In my backyard poaching of closed trails is rampant and there’s zero enforcement. Even when it’s posted and trails are covered over, people simply ride across the unbroken earth to avoid the obstacles. The short-cut hairpins, slide around corners and in general exhibit little awareness of what’s really around them.

Worse, many feel empowered to simply disregard the rules. I have run into the two coaches of one of the top high school mountain biking teams in the country, riding together, with three unleashed dogs on a trail that is posted as illegal for both bikes and unleashed dogs.

Not only are they brazen in their disregard of the rules, but overtly hostile when gently corrected.

If this is the example high school coaches that live in a rural community are providing, I think as a whole this (MTB) community is far too immature to be gifted with access to such a precious resource when they have so far shown complete disregard for it where access has been granted or even legally withheld.


tom bradley says:

October 11, 2014 at 7:18 am

As a mountain biker since the early 1980s, I totally agree with the author. What use to be a way to see more of our beautiful forests has become a sport for adrenaline junkies with little understanding of their impact on an already strained ecosystem. I felt that opening our ski areas to mtn bikes might limit the impacts elsewhere, however I’m concerned that trashing these ski area trails has only made mtn bikers more likely to abuse the non-ski area trails. Its time for cyclists to wake up and see what just 30 years of impact have done to our forests.



The Next Stealth Wave? E - Mountain Bikes

Posted on September 25, 2014 at 11:20 PM

In the Wall Street Journal...

The Fight to Ride Electric Mountain Bikes on the Trail

Older Adventurers Tangle With Preservationists Over Battery-Aided Bicycles


Frederick Dreier

Sept. 24, 2014

Don Kelley, 65, rides his Haibike electric mountain bike on a trail in Chatsworth, Calif. He rides at least three times a week near his Winnetka, Calif., home.  <photo caption>

Michael Kelley has jumped on a mountain bike almost every weekend since off-road bicycles were invented in the late 1970s. This year Mr. Kelley, 71, purchased a new one powered by an electric motor, which pushes him uphill when he gets tired.

"It takes me so long to ride to the tops of the hills now that it wasn't that fun anymore," says Mr. Kelley, who lives in Berkeley, Calif. "I've been riding for decades and I hope to be riding for decades more."

Electric mountain bikes—commonly called e-mountain bikes in the cycling industry—are relatively new to the U.S. market. Manufacturers say the bikes will attract new participants and help older riders like Mr. Kelley stay in the sport.

The bikes, however, have ignited a dispute between manufacturers, mountain bike advocacy groups and riders. The argument hinges on whether the bikes should be allowed on the same trails as traditional mountain bikes.

The debate hasn't slowed early adopters from purchasing the bikes. According to Larry Pizzi, chairman of an industry group called the Electric Bicycle Committee, at least nine companies plan to sell e-mountain bikes in the U.S. in 2015 to meet demand, up from five in 2014.

"They make mountain biking accessible to people who don't want to work hard or can't work hard," says Mr. Pizzi, who also sells e-bikes through his company, Currie Technologies. "It's a huge opportunity to get more people on mountain bikes."

E-mountain bikes carry a hefty sticker price. Felt Bicycles' Lebowske model retails for around $5,800, while Haibike's Xduro line ranges from $4,000 to $9,500.

Whether the bikes crack into cycling's mainstream depends on trail access. In many states, the bikes aren't permitted on many trails because they are considered motorized vehicles, similar to motorcycles.

The bikes have yet to win the support of the International Mountain Bicycling Association, mountain biking's lobbying group, which has persuaded land managers such as the National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to allow traditional mountain bikes on trails.

Steve Hall, a BLM spokesman, says the agency views e-bikes as motorized vehicles, so they are prohibited from trails designated for foot traffic, horses or mountain bikes.

"If there is significant public interest, the BLM could consider changing the designation," he says. "It's safe to say the consensus in the recreational community right now is that what we regard as mountain bikes don't have motors."

The mountain biking association also has regularly battled with the Sierra Club and other hiking advocacy groups that want to keep mountain bikes off trails. Many land managers now use the distinction "motorized" and "nonmotorized" to regulate trails.

Association representatives recently said the group wouldn't lobby land managers on behalf of e-mountain bike manufacturers or riders. "We remain true to the position that mountain biking is a human-powered and nonmotorized sport," says Mike Van Abel, president of the association.

Electric bicycles have been popular in Asia and Europe for decades. U.S. distributors have advertised e-bikes as environmentally conscious commuter vehicles since in the mid-1990s. Fueled by heavy lead-acid batteries, earlier e-bikes often weighed more than 50 pounds and suffered from a lack of power.

Recent advancements in lithium-ion batteries have trimmed weight and new pedal-assisted motors have added oomph to the bikes. European manufacturers began producing e-bikes four years ago that used strong motors, fat tires and shock-absorbing suspension. Unlike their utilitarian predecessors, these e-mountain bikes were designed specifically for recreation, not commuting.

The Haibike, from Germany's Winora Group, was one of the first e-mountain bikes to hit the market, in 2010. They reached the U.S. in 2014.

Susanne Puello, the company's chief executive, says some manufacturers laughed at the concept. Elderly riders were first to buy e-mountain bikes, she says, but they quickly attracted younger buyers.

"We saw right away there was a huge interest from cyclists, so you really can't make fun of it," Ms. Puello says. Sales of e-mountain bikes generate 40% of the Winora Group's total annual revenues of $256 million.

It's no surprise that U.S. distributors see an opportunity to jump-start flat bicycle sales, which have vacillated between $5.8 billion and $6.1 million since 2005, according to the National Bicycle Dealers Association.

Lifelong motorcycle rider Don Kelley, a general contractor in Winnetka, Calif., who isn't related to Michael Kelley, says the e-mountain bikes hooked him on mountain biking. He disputes the argument that e-mountain bikes are similar to motorcycles. "People think you hit the gas and the bike just takes off and that's not even close," he says. "It assists you when you pedal. It slowly picks up speed."

Still, opponents remain concerned about everything from trail damage to safety. "There are trails for ATVs and motorcycles that would be very appropriate for e-bikes," says Emil Walcek, a 65-year-old advertising executive who mountain bikes near Atlanta. "I suspect with the additional power, e-bikes will have a greater impact on the trails."

The trail-use debate has kept some manufacturers from jumping on the e-mountain bike bandwagon. Giant Bicycles, one of the world's largest bike manufacturers, sells an e-mountain bike in Europe but hasn't brought the product to the U.S. Andrew Juskaitis, senior product marketing manager for Giant, says he will do whatever he can to keep the bike away from U.S. riders.

"All you need is one rider to get busted riding an e-bike on a restricted trail and it will set off a maelstrom of anti-mountain biking sentiment," Mr. Juskaitis says. "It's going to create access issues that are already tenuous."

Mr. Pizzi of the Electric Bicycle Committee has proposed a compromise. At a recent IMBA meeting in Colorado, Mr. Pizzi presented a plan for discussing e-mountain bikes with land managers. Under the plan, bikes powered by pedal-assist motors that travel no faster than 20 miles an hour would have the same trail access as traditional mountain bikes.

Michael Kelley also attended the IMBA meeting to promote the bicycles. Mr. Kelley helped found the group, served as an original board member in 1988 and still works as a local policy advocate in Northern California. He admits he is in the minority on e-mountain bikes, but believes age could persuade others to change their views.

"I'm not in favor of restricting mountain biking to a small demographic of limited age range," Mr. Kelley says. "If explored prudently, I think these bikes could expand our population."


You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

 Electric-Powered Mountain Bike Riding on the North Shore


Electric mountain bikes have the power to harm

by Carlton Reid

Monday, September 22nd 2014

Could e-MTBs damage trail access for all mountain bikers? Suppliers need to take care.

It’s been apparent for some time that Eurobike could knock out the “uro” in its name and rebrand as Ebike. The number of electric bikes in Friedrichshafen would certainly allow the Messe to organise a standalone “pedelec” show. Eurobike started as a mountain bike expo, and adding motors to MTBs has created a product category that’s highly lucrative – some parts of the European bicycle business are making an awful lot of money out of e-MTBs. It’s not a category that’s impacted in the UK yet. Sales of any electric bikes remain small beer compared to sales of non-electric bikes but here’s a prediction: e-MTBs have the potential to do a great deal of damage to mountain biking as a whole.

Let me get something straight – in this column I’m talking about electric mountain bikes not electric bikes used for transportation. Many e-bikes are perfect for some consumers, and the biggest thing holding them back in the UK (apart from the price) is not demand per se but infrastructure. Countries with lots of separated cycling infrastructure – such as the Netherlands and Germany – have very strong markets for e-bikes. Power-assisted bicycles can bring many new people into cycling or, just as likely, attract back those who felt cycling was no longer for them. The worries I’ll expound on here do not concern cycle-to-work e-bikes or those used on asphalt recreational trails.

Electric mountain bikes are a whole different kettle of coconuts. They currently have access to off-road trails that are meant to be used by non-motorised users. Many of the e-MTBs on display at Eurobike were powerful beasties, motorbikes in all but name. (Fat bikes were everywhere at Eurobike, too, and, of course, there were electric fat bikes as well. Next year at the show we’ll probably see a folding electric fat bike.)

Years of diligent land management diplomacy, by organisations such as IMBA, could be wiped out by overnight by a few twats on e-MTBs. In Germany, epicentre of e-mountain biking, hikers complain of being spooked by mountain bikers riding uphill, fast, on heavy DH machines. They also complain about mountain bikers on XC machines but at least XC MTBs are human powered.

Perhaps Germany has enough mountain trails to please everybody, but in countries where trail access for cyclists is more fragile, the appearance of motor-powered mountain bikes could lead to blanket bans for all bicycles, electrified or not.

Mountain bike magazines will come under increasing pressure, from publishers and consumers, to increase coverage of the e-MTB sector and it’s likely we’ll see editorial rifts appearing as “traditionalist” human-powered stalwarts kick back against commercial pressures to give more editorial space to batteries and the like. Such rifts are already appearing. In America, veteran editor Jimmy “Mac” McIlvain resigned his long-time editor’s post at Mountain Bike Action due to his publisher’s insistence that more space had to be allocated to e-MTBs. (On his Facebook age Jimmy Mac wrote “The publisher is expanding the magazine’s coverage to motorized mountain bikes and I just can't go along with his logic. Mountain biking is a human-powered activity.”;)

My beef with e-MTBs isn’t just their speed – if it was I’d also fret about bans for whippet mountain bikers, and on descents, let’s face it, e-MTBs won’t go quicker than DH machines – it’s the possibility they will sow land-management confusion. E-MTBs will be conflated with MTBs. Down the (off) road this could lead to access restrictions for all MTBs. Suppliers with shed-loads of e-MTBs to sell will no doubt dismiss my concerns but, at the very least, I hope they will be careful how they market these machines.



When the next stealth wave of silent E-Mountain Bikes takes wheelhold inside our forests -- does anyone really believe any of the above concerns will matter anymore? Our politicians and public land managers  sold out to the mountain bikers long ago, when they handed the "keys to the forest" to the mountain bikers (NSMBA, etc.) It won't stop because E-Mountain Bike advocates insist on inclusion on and off the trails. It will only get worse... Pure insanity.

Plus, the original renegade mountain bikers are getting older...

The Spread of an Invasive Species

Posted on September 21, 2014 at 4:00 PM

“Unsanctioned trail building and rogue lines have been growing in the Park like an insidious mold.”

“Any off-trail activity is detrimental to the ecology … it prevents the indigenous species from growing in these areas and allows invasive species to come in and take over, it also fractures the habitat for wildlife, and this all happens very quickly.”

We wouldn’t give our children a reward for bad behaviour, so why do so many private and public sector funders, and the like, reward the ongoing bad behaviour of free ride mountain bikers in our midst? It’s ignorant!

According to the “Fromme Mountain Trail Maintenance Service Agreement”, signed by DNV and NSMBA, DNV is has doled out up to $50,000 to the NSMBA’s “volunteerism” on the MTB trails, between July 2013 and July 2014. It is called a “pilot program”. But, we know it is a permanent program, no matter what the NSMBA and rogue mountain bikers inflict on our forests and wetland environments, both “sanctioned” and unsanctioned! There is no merit to it, at all.

Serious drainage and erosion problems are rampant, with so many mountain bike tires indiscriminately slicing and dicing the forest floor like pizza cutters, rain or shine, day and at night, four seasons a year.

Vernal seeps and underground springs are tampered with; exposed tree roots are a problem. “Gold dirt” pits are dug up, off-trail, by the wheelbarrows and buckets full. Both the MTB riding and trail building habits are irreversibly damaging our natural environments (natural capital), to accommodate a cheap “abusement park-like” thrillride

Too many mountain bikers riding on steep rainforest trails are the problem, etc. Too many mountain bikers are cutting their own unsanctioned “lines” because they don’t like the present “sanctioned” trails, they say. The favourite “remedy” of politicians and public land managers has always been to try to appease the mtbing scofflaws, right down to the last cent – yours and mine.

If too many mountain bikers on trails is an erosive problem, then why is DNV considering building a large parking lot or two on Fromme to encourage more mountain bikers coming to ride and build on this mountain -- “sanctioned” and unsanctioned?! It lacks total common-sense! It just doesn’t work, and only creates bigger and very expensive problems in the long term. But with all this freeride mayhem in the mountains, only a few of us seem to be barking up an empty tree voicing complaint, these days. Off-road Mountain “dirt” biking, an invasive species, has taken full wheel-hold of our forests and parks, and continues to spread, unabated, and aided by some most unusual partners in "ecological crime".

We not only have private corporations jumping onto the mountain bike trail building bandwagon, but also funding from the public sector, with BC Parks now contributing to the spread of this  off-road freewheeling "invasive species". This is even more shocking!

Provincial Trail Academy

"Thanks to support from BC Parks Park Enhancement Fund and Arc'teryx, the North Shore Builders Academy hits the road this month, starting with Vancouver Island. In October, the Academy will make its way to the Interior. The Academy is focussed on sustainable(?!) solutions, care(?!) for the environment and a positive user experience. The NSMBA is proud to partner with other trail associations in the Province to expand opportunities for the sport and create a culture of stewardship(?!).

The NSMBA will travel to Nanaimo, Campbell River, Victoria, Kamloops, Vernon, Hope and Barriere this fall."

"Mountain biking is simply an activity that has been determined not to be compatible with our society’s values..."

Mountain BIKING is WRECKREATION at its worst, because it is flying under the radar of so many – “out of sight, out of mind”. We can’t do anything but inform the general public, so they will understand how a forest is suffering the slow death by 1000 cuts on Fromme Mtn., and elsewhere on the North Shore. The NSMBA “invasive species” roots run deep, from being constantly “cultivated” with funding and sponsorships -- rather than being “pulled out by the roots” -- and still spreading its damning “seeds” of deceit.

We have BC Parks to “thank” for it, among others without care, nor scruples.

What has become of all the forest and wetland protectors?

"Dear Father, hear and bless

Thy beasts and singing birds:

And guard with tenderness

Small things that have no words."

~A Child's Prayer

"Kayla's Art"

The Last Word: “I was just listening and looking at the facts and thinking: Wow, we are really screwed here. We are not going to stop this from happening... I will have a glass of wine now and try not to worry about it.” ~Paul Kingsnorth (The Dark Mountain Project)


The Aggressive Mountain Biking Agenda Hegemony

Posted on September 20, 2014 at 4:00 PM

 "Guerrilla" MTBers are making monkeys out of everyone, even themselves...


"The aggressive mountain biking agenda hegemony required a more organized, consistent and sustained pushback, perhaps from a newly created and supported provincial or national organization to umbrella an effort to counter this mountain biking agenda creep... that threatens the peace and quiet of our greens and commons, our wildernesses and other public lands... at huge public costs and environmental impacts. Perhaps, it is too late...

This is the price of hikers,(conservationists/environmentalists/),equestrians being asleep at the wheel for the last 20 years, while the mountain bikers worked like termites..."

~Randall Knox, Open Space Planner (retired),

Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space, California, USA


MEC Capacity Grant


The NSMBA would like to acknowledge the continued support from MEC with the recent granting of funds to increase our capacity as an organization. The NSMBA will be using these funds to hire our second employee to focus on administrative tasks to manage the heightened work flow that has increased as our success and growth have flourished. A portion of these funds will be directed towards partnership development.


NSMBA announces new Administrator

The NSMBA is proud to announce the addition of Christine Tetrault to our team. As our newest employee, Christine will manage the Administration of the organization. The NSMBA has grown by leaps and bounds over the past five years and so too has our administrative work load. With support from MEC's Capacity Grant funding, the position will support the goals of the organization to expand opportunities for Mountain Biking on the North Shore.

Christine brings with her a wealth of managerial experience and a unique skill set that includes budgetting, forecasting, marketing, strategic planning and a wealth of positive attributes that will 'spring-board' the organization to the next level. Please help us welcome Christine to the team. She can be contacted at [email protected]

The NSMBA would like to thank MEC for their continued support.


Of course, the installment of an "avid" mountain biking advocate, Mayor Richard Walton of the District of North Vancouver, greatly helped the aggressive mountain biking agenda hegemony along its selfish-entitlement to do whatever they damn well please, not just in North Vancouver, but far beyond common civility and common sense. Willful blindness at its worst!

We have been "gobsmacked" by this growing brand of ignorance and stupidity around us, not just among our politicians and public land owners -- but also by those unscrupulous corporations (like "MEC", among others like "TD Friends?! of the Environment") that jump on the "MTB ecological vandal brand" bandwagon, furthering the selfish entitlement and political clout these dirty off-road wreckreationalists in our midst. Who are they kidding? Not Friends of Mountain View Park Wetland, that's for sure.... It is all a crying sham...

It is a sad,sad legacy being left behind... A literal slow-motion "clear cut" going on....

There is no merit to extreme freeride mountain biking!

MTBer "ripping and shredding" through a clear cut on Sumas Mtn., BC. Does it look like MTBers really care about where they ride? Nope! Let them ride in gravel pits, for all they care...




The Dangerous MTB Politics of Appeasement

Posted on September 12, 2014 at 1:45 PM

The insanity of appeasing wily mountain bikers never seems to end...<sigh>

Appeasement never works! It just opens a fine can of worms. Hikers, environmentalists, and others have already compromised away their ideals and rights to enjoyment of  our public forests --- and now, private property owners may end up compromising away their precious rights, in order to appease these scofflaw mountain bikers in our midst? This is downright scary!

The following article is a real cause for concern, and could set a dangerous precedent against inherent private property rights in the long term…


Mountain bike trail insurance issues linger

SORCA working with private land owners

Rebecca Aldous [email protected] / Squamish Chief

September 10, 2014


Removing liability issues from the backs of landowners’ with mountain bike trails running through their properties would help secure the future of biking in the community, the president of Squamish’s largest mountain biking group says.

In 2011, the District of Squamish unveiled its Trails Master Plan. One of its main recommendations was the creation of a land use agreement that could be implemented between the municipality and landowners with mountain bike trails on their land. The policy’s aim would be to alleviate liability issues for the property owners, taking the risk out of landowners’ hands, Squamish Off-Road Cycling Association (SORCA) president Jeff Cooke said.

“It has been something the district has been very slow to proceed with,” he said.

SORCA has focused on building relations with property owners. Currently, the association is in discussions with BC Timber Sale regarding a block near Half Nelson.

“I think the outcome will be something really good,” Cooke said. “I think we will end up with some new trails and better access.”

The Trails Master Plan (TMP) continues to support a variety of municipal initiatives underway, from ongoing improvements to the Corridor Trail to furthering the connectivity of neighbourhoods, Mayor Rob Kirkham stated in an email to The Squamish Chief.

As district staff explore the intricacies of insurance provider policies, legal ramifications and the positions of private landowners, it’s become increasingly apparent that there is no easy solution to the issue of safeguarding public access to recreational trails located on private property, Kirkham said. The municipality’s insurance provider — Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia — will not indemnify third parties from liability.

There’s a delicate line to walk, Kirkham stated. While the district recognizes the value of Squamish’s trail network and improvements upon its infrastructure, it’s also imperative the community recognizes the rights of property owners to their land, he noted.

“At the heart of this discussion is how private landowners, user groups and the [district] can live in harmony to achieve the various objectives of each party. At the same, the Trails Master Plan already requires some updating based on today’s reality to ensure it is a future-looking document that takes into account Squamish’s rapid growth and growing stature as an outdoor adventure mecca,” Kirkham stated, noting the document will continue to be reviewed by council heading into 2015 strategic planning.

(Apologies to those who may find the above poster offensive.... but there is only so much mountain biker BS one can stomach...)

Methinks, just charging/fining/jailing? these rogue mountain bikers for trespassing on private property without permission would send a more “succinct message” to them, rather than rewarding them for their crime of trespassing on private property with this inane “insurance scheme”. There is no "harmony" in appeasing any off-road sports group that will not compromise any of their ill-got trails. (SORCA, NSMBA, etc.)

The whole gist of the problem with mountain biking is well summed up, here...

In a US-based mountain biker’s own words:

“I tend to get testy with mountain bikers who act entitled, who think they should be allowed to ride wherever they want, make wildcat trails, build structures without permission and ride trails closed to mountain bicycling. There's a reason for this, and if recent trends are any indication, we need more people to climb up anybody's six who thinks that kind of thing is OK…

... (And) the popularity of mountain biking itself, combined with technological advances to bikes (has created its own set of problems)

As mountain biking became more popular, it took over many trail systems, crowding out other users, especially equestrians who are uncomfortable with mountain bikes on the trail.

As more people came into the sport, trails became populated with more mountain bikers who had no clue as to what it took to gain trail access, and with selfish and rude riders who don't care about their effect on anybody else on the trail.

Even before rear suspension, disk brakes and ever lighter materials mountain bikers were considered the "cougars" of the non-motorized trail users, covering far more ground than equestrians and hikers. Today's bikes can cruise trails once thought impassable to anyone but hikers and equestrians.

Now, with so many mountain bikers on so many trails, and with an unfortunately high number of selfish and irresponsible riders, mountain biking has created a backlash, and the two factors are coming together to create a perfect storm of anti-mountain bike attitudes among land managers and the general public.

~ Mark, from a mountain biking: “Warrior’s Society News” email, October 2009

Rewarding this kind of ongoing bad behavior only hands more such entitlement to a wily off-road sports group that least deserves it…Appeasing scofflaw mountain bikers, whether on private or public land, doesn't work at all.

Appeasement never works. It will just continue to create more trouble than it is worth.

The Dirty Political Face of Mountain Biking Advocacy: "Nature Terrorism"

Posted on September 9, 2014 at 2:10 PM

It is Election Time again for municipalities in BC…

Some pre-election glad handing going on…

Quote from a mountain biker on FB about the following photo op:

Sebastian M F: “Amazing to see the increased interest in the mountain bike community and the NSMBA - North Shore Mountain Bike Association's endless efforts to show we are everything but a bunch of "nature terrorists" - I am proud to be a part of this!”

NSMBA - North Shore Mountain Bike Association

Monday, September 8, 2014)

DNV Mayor Richard Walton met up with Wade Simmons on the trails while checking out all the NSMBA improvements in the Dempsey/Braemar zone.with Wade Simmons.

The NSMBA has simply been given the “keys” to our public forests because of Mayor Walton’s longtime, ongoing love affair with destructive, indiscriminate mountain “dirt” biking inside our forests, four seasons a year, rain or shine, day and at night. It is by no merit of the NSMBA, themselves. Remember, mountain bikers had snuck in through the back door to ride and build, without permission (illegally, unsanctioned, unauthorized) Now they are rewarded for their scofflaw behavior, which continues to this very day.

Canadian Mayor Kickstarts World Conference Build Up in Scotland

Richard Walton, Mayor of the District of North Vancouver, handed over the official proclamation declaring that the “World Mountain Bike Conference on Sustainability”, previously held in Canada, will be hosted by Scotland from 12 -15 May 2009.

The Mayor visited Dumfries to formally hand the framed proclamation to the Convenor of Dumfries & Galloway Council, Patsy Gilroy, who accepted it on behalf of the host partners.

Richard Walton explained; ”My wife and I were inspired to start the Conference five years ago when there was increasing conflict in Canada between the biking fraternity(?), residents and the environmental community. Bikers build wonderful trails benefiting them as users, while wreaking havoc on narrow, vulnerable walks at the same time. I was a councillor then and with political pressure building from all the parties concerned, it was of paramount importance to bring everyone together to resolve the issues around sustainable practices, environmental and social problems.”

Bill Meadows, of Forestry Commission Scotland - one of the host partners - said:

“Winning the bid to bring the World Conference here to South West Scotland came about through our trails expertise and the famous 7stanes centres, which have put Scotland firmly on the world mountain biking map. We are already a world leader in mountain biking and as we pool our knowledge with other, less experienced countries at the Conference next year, we will all benefit from Canada’s willingness to share best practice.”

Delegates at the Easterbrook Hall Conference next May will hear authorities such as Richard Walton. The audiences will include:

• land managers,

• estate owners,

• environmentalists

• and mountain bike businesses, anxious to hear the latest thinking and taking opportunities to network.

This is Google's cache of (The conference was cancelled for mtbers lack of interest, that year… ) Though, the mountain bike riding “festival” went on as planned….hmmmm?

Conference Speakers

Richard Walton - Mayor, North Vancouver, Vice Chair, Metro Vancouver, Co-founder of First World Mountain Bike Conference

Richard Walton, his wife, Celeste, and Richard Juryn founded the first World Mountain Conference held in North Vancouver, British Columbia in 2003. The intent was to bring people together to learn from many of the local trail builders, retailers and enthusiasts who helped shape the development and growth of this sport, whose origins were in Marin County California and North Vancouver. Elected Mayor in 2002 with strong support from the local biking community, he encouraged the development of a comprehensive land management plan for the North Shore forested reserves, and has worked with a supportive Council to ensure that mountain biking has a permanent home on the North Shore mountains. Mayor Walton is a former teacher, businessman and chartered accountant with a love for the outdoors. In 200

he was elected Vice Chair of the metropolitan Vancouver region, and serves on the Region's Environment and Park Committee. He is serving as one of the two Canadian directors on the 2009 Dumfries Conference.


Challenges of Stakeholder Engagement and Partnership Working

An overview of the challenges faced on Vancouver's North Shore, in engaging local residents, riders, media and environmentalists in designing an integrated land management approach. How the politics of mountain biking have evolved within the community and the sport has been embraced as a defining part of local culture. Ideas for engagement and problem solving in an urban/forest interface area, in one of the birthplaces of the sport. North Vancouver’s Fromme and Seymour Mountain areas contain 30 of some of the most challenging downhill trails in the world. The area is within four different land management jurisdictions, which work closely together in providing stewardship and setting standards for long-term sustainability.

Richard Walton, Mayor, North Vancouver,

Vice Chair, Metro Vancouver,

Co-founder of First World Mountain Bike Conference

Public Private Funding Model

Discussion of trail development and funding strategies for building and maintaining trails in a suburban wilderness area. Illustrations of how cautious engagement and building of trust between volunteer groups, retailers, local government and individuals can result in successful funding arrangements for long-term sustainable trail development and stewardship. North Vancouver’s mountains have a century old network of trails, many of them now primarily used by the mountain bike community. Funding the work necessary to ensure their safe and sustainable use is a significant cost beyond the reach of local taxpayers, so alternative funding strategies have been developed to address risk management and environmental concerns.

Richard Walton,

Mayor, North Vancouver

Vice Chair, Metro Vancouver,

Co-founder of First World Mountain Bike Conference

There is very little, if any, care for the natural environment by these Extreme Freeride Mountain Biking “nature terrorists” in our midst. It is all about the cheap thrill of off-road dirt biking! Mechanized or motorized, off-road wreckreationalists are “birds of a feather”. Smooth talking, glad-handing mayors don’t change that fact.

“Mountain bikers only have as much political clout as the politicians and public land managers give them.”


Mayor Walton with NSMBA's paid spokesperson, Mark Wood, looking to do more damage to the forest via MTB Trail Building

(September 17, 2014 photo posted on Facebook)

Now, you know… (and with barely one-fifth of the voting public coming out on Election Day, selfish interest groups like the NSMBA continue to wield their "political clout") It does not bode well for the ongoing health and viability of our Natural Capital...forests, wetlands, etc.

A damaged ecosystem that provides many services "for free", will become very, very expensive if we need to replace these services (damaged by "nature terrorism") with more ineffective man-made inventions that try to mimic the perfection of nature.

Who are politicians like Mayor Walton, fooling?

Mountain biking impacts on bears and other wildlife...

Posted on August 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Guest contribution:

Mountain biking impacts on bears and other wildlife by Brian Horejsi

By George Wuerthner, August 5, 2014 (Activism, Conservation, Wildlife News)

**Updated, August 7, 2014** by Dr. Brian Horejsi,

for "Friends of 'Mountain View Park' Wetland"

Of bears and mountain bikes!

The basic science of human – wildlife interaction solidly supports the general claim that mountain bikers and bikes are displacing bears (and almost all other species), can contribute to their habituation and are consequently adding negative load on human / wildlife conflict. I think it has been conclusively established that most kinds of human activity / presence displace bears, and if/when there are bears that are not displaced and/or become habituated, they die at a disproportionate rate, consequently their reproductive fitness is reduced (as is that of there mothers and fathers). Amongst the leading agents of displacement are industrialized forms of human activity that depend on machines / motors / mechanization to move people great distances, move them often and quickly, and with considerable "baggage" (garbage, guns, trailers, ATVs, dogs, and so on). Mountain bikers fit the general category of industrial users, since they come by vehicle (mechanized means), move greater distances and more quickly than people on foot, (allowing quick approach and surprise encounters), have escalated their use of all public lands, and are a behavioral cult in which a significant proportion of participants exhibits high levels of aggression, partly against the environment, partly against traditional outdoor users, and partly against members of society who identify their activities as destructive.

Cumulative Impacts

Another not inconsequential impact of mtn bikes and bikers is they have forced themselves into landscapes that historically and even quite recently did not have traditional mechanized vehicle access. There are literally hundreds of formerly “mini” security areas (of a wide range in size) in local and regional parks (and this is in additional to what are thought of as traditional public lands - National parks, National or State/provincial Forests, and in the US, BLM lands) that harbored some forms of wildlife because they had limited and low access refuge areas. These are the "homes" of urban deer, coyotes, badgers, even bears and cougars, that are no longer providing day time (high human activity time) refuge and escape (from humans, pets and daytime heat).

I was just in Calgary a bit back and went for a walk in a provincial Park (Fish Creek) inside Calgary city borders that formerly contained some forested refuge lands. These areas were cool, relatively dark, and discouraging to most (almost all) walking and running Park users. I was dismayed to see the extensive mtn bike roads, along with formal support of biking. The dense aspen and spruce/pine stands that I estimate were 5 - 50 acres in size, and functioned as ecological and behavioral "spaces" that provided security and thermal refuge for wildlife, are gone. The bike roads are well used (there are 1.2 millions people in the city, and there ARE bikers) and now bring bike and biker threats to wild animals that formerly had a daytime hideout. One such threat (there are several) is the common practice of bikers who “run” their pet dogs when they bike, dogs that are often allowed off leash (most often illegally), and are not only a threatening presence to wildlife via odor, sound and movement, but can be expected to (not uncommonly) leave the road and, at least short term, pursue wild animals. But it remains the bikes and bikers who are most intrusive. While there are high levels of use of the initially established paved trails the majority of users (walking, hiking, running, just wanting to be outside) stick to them and leave the formerly off trail areas alone. Because of bikers and their roads, this “standoff” no longer exists (to the detriment of wildlife).

And it gets worse! The demand / need for refuge from humans is greatest when human use is highest, usually on weekends. Previously un-biked niches in the landscape are of disproportionate ecological value during these peak periods. So, what happened? These refuge habitats have been dissected by bike roads, which are destructive by themselves, but biker use also peaks on weekends, aggravating loss of habitat effectiveness at a time when demand / need for it is greatest, so the negative impact of biker use is not linear in relation to the increased number of bikes, but exponential given conflict with the elevated need for refuge by wildlife.


Will this result in or increase the level of wildlife habituation? Any activity that escalates contact (space, visual, sound) between humans and their infrastructure and an animal changes the ambient environment for an animal and produces some sort of learning in a wild animal. If the learning modifies behavior by eliminating or altering the strength or frequency of behaviors in response to a given stimulus (human yelling at it from the back yard, vehicle sound/movement, visual presence of human structures, dogs barking) and that initial behavior contributed to that animals fitness (survival and reproductive success), then that animal is subject to increased risk of injury and death and, consequently, life time reproductive success is jeopardized.

It may well be that the invasion of bikes/bikers “forces” contact with humans and leads to a more delicate and potentially explosive conflict. While I cant find any evidence in the scientific literature to support this particular situation, it seems reasonable to consider that an animal forced from its routine and from secure (to what ever degree) habitat, makes for an uneasy state of contact with humans and their infrastructure – a condition that could be more explosive due to the stress level related to the forcing. This contrasts with contact that might be initiated by the animal or other animals – for example, attraction to food, or a bear female with young that wants to avoid other bears and but can still use that habitat other years when she has no young or when other bears are absent. In the case of biker/biking displacement there is essentially permanent displacement and limited, if any, opportunity to reoccupy formerly (more) effective habitat. In other words, the predictability or stability, even strength, of the forced habituation could lead to unpredictable confrontation.

Could local residences and human centers of activity begin to experience use by wildlife that formerly stayed away? I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. The consequences will be / are that fragmentation and use of refuge areas by bikers and bikes will reduce their capacity to harbor animals, displace them and their use/activity to other adjacent landscapes, many of which will be ecological traps, increase conflict with humans (and other animals), and incrementally reduce overall wildlife use of the larger area as well as reduce population size, distribution and movement. All these will unbalance wildlife dynamics and contribute to long term, incremental reduction of population viability.

The social / educational loss of tolerance for wildlife (the deer eating the roses, the black bear “near” the fence, the bear that “threatened” a biker) that some parts of human society can develop are also (generally) unproductive by-products of conflict and association: amongst these are distrust of, anger towards, and fear of “wild” animals, and not just local animals, but generalized attitudes to wildlife on a much larger scale of human perception, as well as resentment and irritation toward, and consequent decline in support of wildlife and land conservation and the people who are supposed to be doing it.

This large scale negative outcome of mountain biking invasion of a landscape is just another cumulative effect of catering to extreme recreation and the shrill political intimidation of mtn bikers. With stunning ease the mtn biking lobby has overpowered citizens and local councils and regulators/managers and crushed, derailed and/or displaced traditional uses and wildlife and land conservation measures and initiatives in urban and municipal Parks and landscapes.

While mountain biking and bikers continue to build a legacy of environmental destruction and social conflict that has been ongoing in a large scale way on National-state-provincial Forests and in National Parks, their invasion of urban and municipal park areas is “new” and threatens to destroy further the already stretched and frayed tentacles that connect the natural world to the majority of Americans and Canadians that now live in Urban areas.

Dr. Brian L. Horejsi

Calgary, AB and Penticton, BC

07 August 2014



Best, and most honest comment on this article, by an ex-mountain biker,

R. Harold Smoot says:

August 5, 2014 at 10:11 am

I have been an avid mountain biker since 1991, going so far as to race nationally for a number of years and currently work in the cycling industry. I’ve seen the full gamut of mountain biking’s impact – both the good and the bad.

I do feel that there is a bit of truth to George’s piece above and some that is a bit of a stretch in some cases. Regardless two points that are crucial to this argument are that 1. Mountain biking is gaining in popularity. 2. Those gains are putting pressure on the environment as more and more trail networks are needed and being developed to support the demand.

I interact with mountain bikers all day long and one thing I’ve found is that they are just as polarized as American politics are today. On the one hand, you have those who realize or at the very least, sympathize with his argument. And those who could care less so long as they get to have fun.

Sadly, those in the second camp are doing the most harm in the form of illegal trail building – often in hidden and pristine parts of the forest. I’ve seen these trails and ridden a few myself. Not only are most not sustainable they actually have a negative impact on the perception of mountain biking as a whole. Unfortunately, this is becoming all too common and moving into areas I and others have enjoyed in peace and quiet for decades.

Needless to say, I gave up mountain biking almost two years ago and now only ride road or gravel. I do still miss the sport but do not miss overcrowded trails, user conflict, startling moose napping in tall grass, getting chased by angry grouse and stumbling across a new and illegal scar on the mountainside by individuals who have no concept or understanding as to what impact they are having.

Like MAD mentioned in their comment, like the wolf debate this one is surely to be just as heated or even more controversial. Tread lightly.


Is anyone listening yet?

Is anyone listening, yet?

"Bear" with us....

Posted on July 28, 2014 at 4:25 PM

In Northern Ontario, this year, near one of the so-called "BEST PLACES in Ontario to Mountain Bike" (the ironically-named, "Killbear Provincial Park"), a home near a well-used multi-use trail, including mountain biking, was attacked by a bear, in Nobel, Ontario --

The nearby trail network connects to "Killbear Provincial Park". Wildlife becomes disturbed. Wildlife also follow "trails"...(and there are just too many mountain bike trails being built on our own North Shore mountains)

We have simply connected the dots, understanding the correlation between mountain biking activities, recreational development (mtbing trails), and the movement of disturbed black bears, years ago -- thanks to the "bear sightings maps" the North Shore News used to publish. It was bad news back then. It is worse news now, with our very habituated bears on the prowl. A habituated bear is a dangerous bear. No longer can we ignore these once shy and reclusive "docile" black bears in our midst. No longer can we continue to coddle the mountain bike freeride without proper containment, management and enforcement.

Meanwhile our own local North Shore headlines scream:

Bear gobbles Great Bear cookies

Brazen bruin breaks into vehicle, steals 'paleo' diet-friendly treats

Brent Richter / North Shore News

May 14, 2014

- See more at:

Black bear killed in West Vancouver

Brent Richter / North Shore News

June 25, 2014

- See more at:

The bear - a healthy, four-year-old male - was highly determined, according to conservation officer Kent Popjes.

"It broke open a deadbolted door on a garage. It ripped it right off its hinges, entered the garage and opened a freezer up and got some food out," Popjes said.

Popjes waited at the scene, knowing the bear would have to be killed.

"We've had a number of reports in that area of bears trying to break into garages and vehicles," he said. "It had done property damage and was quite a safety risk at that stage for re-entering buildings, possibly homes. There wasn't a lot of options. It wasn't a good candidate for relocation. ... There's a 99-per-cent chance if we move this bear, it's going to come back and repeat this behaviour."

Bear shot, senior stitched in Delbrook run-in

Bear in kitchen fridge startles N. Van woman

Brent Richter / North Shore News

July 25, 2014

- See more at:

A 93-year-old Delbrook woman has been stitched up and a 190-kilogram bear has been shot after the two had an unexpected run-in Tuesday afternoon.

The adult male bear apparently let himself in through the open back door of the home on the 600-block of St. Ives Crescent and began rummaging through the fridge.

The woman noticed the fridge open and put her hand on the door to close it, not knowing what was on the other side. The startled bear put his paw over her hand. In her own shock, the woman pulled her hand away causing a gash that required stitches to close.

"We're fortunate she only received those injuries. That bear could have caused some serious or fatal injuries," said Sgt. Todd Hunter, conservation officer.


It just isn't going to get any better until our politicians, public land managers, and the North Shore Black Bear Society pull their "heads out of the sand" and start to address the core problem of our growing "Bear problem".  Bandaid solutions no longer work, and are very unfair to the bears and the residents affected! So, please "bear" with us as we try to connect the dots for you...

Causes and symptoms of bear-human conflict

Distinguishing between causes and symptoms

In a review of literature pertaining to bear-human conflict, Heuer emphasizes the distinction between the causes and symptoms of conflict. Development in and recreational use of bear habitat are the causes, and un-natural bear behaviours – namely human habituation and human food-conditioning and habituation – are the symptoms. (Heuer 1993) Misunderstanding of bear behaviour and biology, and the lack of tolerance often exhibited by humans towards bears, may also be considered causes of conflict. (British Columbia Conservation Foundation 2000)

Human habituation and human-food conditioning


Bear researcher Dr. Steven Herrero provides the following description of human habituation and human food-conditioning in bears, and the circumstances that lead to these behaviours:

“If a bear regularly encounters quite a few people, but doesn’t get food from them and isn’t harmed, it simply gets used to people, will tolerate them at closer distances than before, and sometimes ignores them. Such a bear is habituated to people…

A habituated bear that also eats people’s food and garbage behaves differently than a bear that is only habituated. Such a bear forms a simple association –‘people’ may be followed by ‘food’. I refer to a bear with this expectation as being ‘food-conditioned’.” 2


Human habituated and human food-conditioned bears are more likely to come into conflict with people due to their increased proximity to, and associated lack of wariness around, people. Such bears are therefore at greater risk of removal or being killed as “problem wildlife”. They also have an increased vulnerability to hunters, poachers and to becoming road-kill. (Herrero 1985)

Human habituated bears and human food-conditioned bears have the potential to be especially dangerous to humans because:

they are willing to be in close proximity to people, and in the case of food-conditioned bears, they may become bold in their attempts to secure food from people.

people may mistakenly presume such bears to be “tame” and behave inappropriately around them.

Treating the causes of bear-human conflict

Given that development and recreational use in bear habitat have been identified as the causes of bear-human conflict, preventing and/or reducing conflict necessarily means managing human activity and behaviour. (Heuer 1993)

For example, the rate of serious/fatal injuries inflicted by bears on humans in the Canadian National Parks in Alberta declined with the implementation of careful food and garbage management in the mid-1980s. Most incidents between the 1950s and early 1980’s involved habituated and food-conditioned bears. (Herrero and Higgins In Press B)

Other means of managing human activity and behaviour include: seasonally restricting access into bear habitat, educating people who live, work and recreate in bear habitat as to correct behaviours and practices, and locating trails and facilities away from important bear areas.


So what are we waiting for, people? Our authorities need to deal with the core problem, which is the present mountain biking status quo on our North Shore.  Speak up! Speak out! Something has got to give!

It should not come at the high price of appeasing the extreme off-road mountain bikers in our midst because a few people think that there is some perceived "economic benefit" coming out of fragmentation and degradation of forest habitat, and disturbed wildlife -- namely bears! It should not come at the high price of unnecessary and dangerous human-bear conflict. Contain, control, enforce mountain biking. That will be a good start!

Thank you.

600 "BC (Mtn.)Bike Race"(rs) Doesn't Benefit Our Community

Posted on June 28, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Who does the BC Bike Race actually benefit? Our whole community? NOPE!

Now here is their dirty little "secret"... (so much of what mountain biking is about is "secret"!)

Not our community as a whole! --- Only benefitting the bike shops and bike organizations, while leaving behind a huge wake of damage on our rain-soaked forest and park trails...

Such is the inherent selfishness of the mountain biking "community". Why could we even possibly think it could be any different? It does not benefit our community as a whole to be given back a damaged forest, as they thumb their noses at us in "Thanks!"....

This will surely be the result, X 600 BC Mtn.Bike Racers racing on wet trails, on Sunday June 29th. Many have already been "touring" the very wet trails, during rain, inside Mountain View Park wetland and upland, on "DayZero (Saturday)...

Which will result in more of this...


And this....

600 mountain dirt(y) bikers ripping and shredding our forests for a cheap thrill, leaving behind "negative revenue" to our community via the damage 600 mountain bikers will  wreak inside our forests, parks and wetlands, on June 29th, courtesy of our Mayor Richard Walton, welcoming these off-road mudbogging ecological vandals back into our midst. 

**There is no common sense left.... <sigh>  We especially urge DNV Parks to do their trails assessments on those trails the BC Bike Race has ripped and shredded, ASAP. Then we will have a much better picture of the damage mountain bikes wreak on our forest and park trails....Anything less than that will be considered to be very insincere...**

Campbell River, BC, is not on the BC Bike Race roster, this year. Their trails have taken a real beating over the years ...

"The BC Bike Race’s Campbell River leg had 500 riders from all over the world participating.

However, the numbers of riders and the (inclement) weather have caused considerable damage to the trails in the Snowden Forest."

Mountain biking adds no "substantial" economic value to our North Shore communities...But, it sure leaves our public forests and parks in shreds!

Economic Impacts of Mountain Biking Tourism

Jun 7, 2014 at 20:19

North Shore


The 2007 MBTA study found that 55% of mountain bikers were visitors (counting only North Shore residents as locals). 18,700 riders/week used Shore trails with the majority of visiting riders (47%) being in the 30-39 category and the vast majority being male (85%). Only 12% of riders came from further destinations ie areas outside the Sea to Sky corridor; a reason for that low number commonly cited was the perceived technical difficulty of Shore trails.

Very few riders (9%) overnighted on the North Shore reflecting the fact that the vast majority of non-resident Shore riders stayed in other places in Greater Vancouver. Reflecting this same fact, daily spend was low for visitors to the Shore ($39 sameday/$48 overnight)

There have been no updates to the North Shore 2007 MBTA EIA. While it is possible that the addition of a leg of the BC Bike Race to North Vancouver and the development of easier trails may increase out-of-town ridership that is just speculation at present.


NO kidding?!

Let me reiterate the facts: The 600 participant BC Bike Race only "economically" benefits the bike industry and bike organizations, ie. NSMBA, while leaving a wake of damage to the forest and parks trails behind for the rest of us.)


 We can only shake our heads in disbelief at those who invited these off-road dirty bikers back into our midst. One hand clapping for the dubious "Cheer Zones" who will be vacuously applauding the mudbogging ecological vandals riding by.... We need "BOO Zones", instead...<sigh>

UPDATE: (2 Days after the BC Bike Race in North Vancouver)

Jul 01, 2014 Expresso Trail Report

Variable - High likelihood of mud, be kind to trails



"The increased usage of this trail and BC Bike Race usage is starting to show. Lots more exposed roots and rocks on upper half. No longer a smooth flowy ribbon through the forest..."

No kidding, eh? I guess the NSMBA will be doing some more trail repairs.....errr...... more trail rerouting on Expresso Trail once again...

The MTB Lifestyle Cult (in a Nutshell)...

Posted on June 19, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Public land managers and politicians keep falling for the old mountain biking ruse that if mountain bikers were given legitimate trails to ride, they would stop their rogue trail building. The NSMBA has been doled out way more rewards from the District of North Vancouver, than many mountain biking organizations have in North America.

So has that stopped the mtb scofflaw rogue/secret mountain bike trail building? Nope! Not according to this braggadocious North Vancouver-based "for profit" website, :

(This is really what it is all about, folks...)

The Ten Laws Of Loam

How to Keep Secret Trails Secret

Words by Loam Ranger.

June 17th, 2014

You are a bad person. You ride secret trails? How dare you!

Hang on a sec. This isn’t a morality play. You are big boys and girls and hopefully you are intelligent and informed enough to make wise decisions. Do I advocate riding secret trails? Nope. But I’m a realist so let’s deal with the world the way it is shall we?

Wherever there are trails for hiking, horses, skiing, mountain biking, motos or any other activity, there are going to be secrets. In some places trails are secret because some Dear Leader has bent over to one user group and stiffed the others. In other zones secrets relieve an itch that isn’t being scratched. Many of these trails can’t take much traffic because of the terrain, because they’ll be closed or because of the way they were built. The fact is secret trails exist and will until there is no more wilderness. You can find them in Utah, Tuscany, Alberta, Hong Kong, on Maui and in B.C. – and everywhere in between.

Some of you are going to ride those trails. Right or wrong it happens. It’s a renegade world with few apparent rules, but even renegades have a code of conduct. Even if you want to go rogue like Sarah Palin you probably want to keep those sweet secret lines available and in good shape.

So for the love of Jebus, don’t be a dick. Here are some guidelines to shield you from that phallic moniker.

1. Turn off your god damned Strava. Your ego can rest for a day if you are riding a trail that is best kept under wraps. If you must record how awesome you are then make that ride private. You can still brag to your friends later. I’m sure they could use a reminder about how incredible you are. And for those making Strava segments on secret trails. Seriously. What the hell are you thinking?

2. Don’t uncover entrances like a dick. Maybe Joe Shredder doesn’t understand the situation, maybe he feels entitled to roll into every trail he finds. He’s a bid deal after all. Joe’s as wrong as Dubya declaring victory in Iraq. The best way to conceal a downhill trail is with an uphill entrance. Don’t cut your own line because you are too lazy to climb.

3. Get off your effing bike! If an entrance is hidden don’t lock up your minions and skid in just because you are too lazy to dismount. If someone has taken the time to cover an entrance there is a reason. Lift up your steed and put it down once you are safely past the concealed entrance. If carrying your bike for 30 seconds is too much effort for you it’s time to buy a razor scooter. You don’t deserve to ride a bike.

4. Don’t hang out near trail entrances or exits. Putting on pads or making some adjustments to your bike? You want to sit down and munch a Clif bar? Do it before you get to the walk-in, or out of sight down the trail.

5. Noise. Don’t make any if you can help it. This includes abundant hooting and hollering and squeaky brakes. Obviously you want to share the orgasmic two-wheeled zen you are achieving, but don’t do it at the expense of drawing too much attention to yourself or the trail.

6. Pick your days. If the monsoon is here skip the fall line loamer and ride something that can take a punch. Plush natural trails become ugly trenches if you are locking it up following Noah down the line.

7. Don’t cut corners or change existing lines. This point obviously goes for sanctioned trails as well. Nothing trashes a trail faster than Stravatards and their ilk cutting their own lines to save a few milliseconds or to beat their buddies to the bottom. Some poor builder spent days and days building a line and by creating a braid, you are taking a dump on that work. Have some respect. If the line needs modification to suit your needs then ride somewhere else.

8. Be part of the solution. There are many ways to do this. Somebody has uncovered the entrance to your favourite secret? Don’t high 5 buddy and roll in. Stash your bike and spend 5 minutes replacing the camouflage. If you are in the forest, grab some big branches as a first line and then spread some smaller leaf litter around to make it look natural. If someone is jawing off about a secret or posting on the web call them out. If your riding partner suggests riding some buttery line when the weather is nasty steer him or her in another direction.

9. Be careful about exits. Exits are often what gets stealth lines destroyed, overused or covered over. If you come maching out like you’ve just roped your first calf somebody just might notice. Stop before the end of the trail and have a listen to see if anyone is around. And just like trailheads, cover up those exits if that makes sense.

10. DON’T GIVE DIRECTIONS. Not in person, not on the web. Don’t draw a map or give GPS coordinates. Again, don’t make new segments on Strava and keep your rides private. Those who hate mountain bikers (hi there!) read mountain bike forums and web sites to get ammo to use against us. Don’t fuel their fire. If you have a worthy riding buddy, who can keep a secret, bring them along. If you don’t want to ride with them why would you want to let them in on your secret?

You think you are hardcore because you know a secret? Hardcore means you can keep a secret. One of the worst things you can do is show off by telling people the name of the trail. Smart ninja builders don’t advertise or even name their trails. Don’t mess it up to satisfy your ego.

Bring on the hate. The Loam Ranger uses it as fuel.

We may not always agree with the the Ranger, but sometimes we do. Do you?


Some of the more noteable comments from the mountain bikers:

[email protected] • a day ago


Flashbacks of the great chainsaw massacre run through my mind when I see senseless articles like this. As trails get pushed further and further out of the city by urban sprawl does it really matter what trail is secret. We are here to ride together, not hoard a single trail. Most of these people build these fall line duffers and never maintain them or any other trail on the mountain anyway, the more that know the more help they get.

stravillain • a day ago


First rule should be don't post articles about secret trails.

Also, if you PRIVATELY strava a trail and some douche does make a segment you have the option to flag it as hazardous/illegal which will shut down the leaderboard as well as comment/message anyone showing up on said leaderboard.


It sucks when the nugs get found by the masses but I have to laugh at the builders who put lines in within a stones throw of high traffic legit trails and then whine about them being found or showing up on Strava.

kush • 16 hours ago


Thank you for writing this.


The SDC and secret trail builders



More on "NSMBA-approved" unsanctioned trails....

North Shore Mountain Biking Forums (

- The Shore (

- - - mountain bike trail database focused on BC (


canadaka 06-20-2014 07:16 AM


Originally Posted by metroneck (Post 2827074)

Congrats on the website, but there are trails that are not sanctioned posted.

What is your policy on this?

PM me which trails you are talking about? Some peoples definition of what is unsanctioned differs, there are lots of grey areas. But the general idea is too not have them. But its really up to the local riding association or club. We have been contacting them trying to get them working with the site. We have a regional permissions system, so can give full control over the content under a region to a local association, so they can decided their own policy.


I also have several different levels of for a trails visibility.

- Public info and location, shown on maps.

- Hidden location info and hidden from maps.

- Totally hidden from maps, lists, search. Only viewable to users an association grants permission to view hidden trails in their region too.


Marlz 06-20-2014 05:09 PM

In Vancouver you should reference Wade and Sharon's maps. Or ask the NSMBA.


Publishing user-generated maps is weak. It only calls attention to the sad fact that people are still out there building unsanctioned and illegal trails.


But like you say, there's gray areas. Slippery Salamander and Rapid Transit (Seymour) are all unsanctioned trails too, but they get the nod from (NSMBA's) Mark (Wood) and Sharon (Bader), so their fair game.


This is, after all,  the "fine company" our District of North Vancouver keeps. Every forest user (good citizens, and scofflaws, alike) should be as richly rewarded as the NSMBA and mountain bikers have --- or would this just end up becoming an anarchy in the woods....? Think about it!

Should we continue to allow DNV to inflict such unfair double-standards on its citizens? Or perhaps DNV just needs to seriously rethink the NSMBA's over-entitlement to the woods that they have served on a silver platter to this wily dirt biking group in our midst?

Meanwhile more NEW trailbuilding continues, unabated, on Fromme Mtn. -- all ahead of the promised new Trails Assessment. This defeats the purpose of such a "Trails Assessment". Sooo disingenuous of DNV...You think?

Frankly, taking away the dubious privilege of the NSMBA's "Trail Maintenance Service Agreement" (which is a total farce) would be a good start at clipping the wings of this Extreme Freeride (on the backs of DNV taxpayers) group. It only serves to make DNV look pretty foolish in light of the all the ongoing NEW trail building activities of the NSMBA and corporate cohorts. (None of which can be realistically described as "maintenance or repair")

DNV is, once again, placing the cart in front of the horse...  And not a single "peep" from our many environmental and conservation groups....<sigh>

A Fork in the MTB Trails....

Posted on June 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM

How many trails is enough for mountain bikers? As many as they can get away with building, it seems.

The "tipping point" of mountain bike trail building has since long past, with numerous new trails being built, called reroutes, realignments, bypasses, refittings, connectors, etc. all year round on Mt. Fromme, LSCR and  Mt. Seymour (and recently, on Cypress). This is the stark reality of growing mountain bike trail building on the North Shore, because they can get away with it. Keep a close eye on the "progress" of MTB Trail building at (You can no longer say you didn't know...)

(54 MTB trails, and counting...)

It is unknown how many of these trails are actually "unsanctioned" building....The District of North Vancouver (DNV) is not being transparent about the NSMBA activities on the mountain and in the Mountain View Park wetland and upland area. "Out of sight, out of mind..."  DNV has ignored critical environmental assessments in order to appease the NSMBA. They are foolishly forcing a square peg into a round hole of common sense.

(61 MTB trails, and counting...)

Mt. Seymour is a "grey area" of unsanctioned MTB trails ---  not yet officially "sanctioned" by the various jurisdictions, via fair and democratic public process.

(19 MTB trails, and counting...)

The only real "legitimate" multi-jurisdictionally managed/enforced area, with proper parking and amenities, for mountain biking on the North Shore.

(37 Trails... and counting...?)

Note: All  mountain bike trails on Cypress Mountain are unsanctioned trails and structures. MTB Cypress is twisting the arm of District of West Vancouver to sanction their rogue trails in the usual disingenuous manner mountain bikers are known for.

Fact is, unsanctioned mountain bike trail and structure building still continues under the very noses of the various public land managers, without fear of repercussions. The NSMBA keeps on getting rewarded for its very "in your face" scofflaw activities, four seasons a year.  It is no less than pure anarchy!

We will get the forests we don't deserve, as long as our public land managers and pandering politicians keep catering to this renegade element that has taken over our mountains.

It has already gone beyond the "Tipping Point" of what can be called Sustainable. Let's just hope it doesn't end up "biting us" all, when "it" finally hits the fan.

Wild Game of Occupiers Liability, etc....

Posted on June 8, 2014 at 8:25 PM

DNV's playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette with Liability and Risk...


Bike crash victim settles with Blue Mountain

By ,Toronto Sun

First posted: Thursday, May 29, 2014 



TORONTO - Ian McAdam couldn’t imagine how taking a bicycle on a downhill trail at Blue Mountain would change his life forever.

The Mississauga man, now 20, settled a civil suit last week against the Collingwood-area ski resort for an undisclosed amount of money after he was flung off his bike on July 3, 2007 on a ramp built on one of the company’s hills. McAdam broke his neck, leaving him a quadraplegic, paralyzed just below his chest area.

“I remember little tiny flashes, but aside from that, I don’t remember anything that happened for three weeks,” McAdam said Thursday. “I feel relief. This thing went on for seven years and finally we can move on.”

The terms of the settlement, as well as the negotiations and the amount settled upon, remain confidential.

A statement of claim filed by the family’s lawyers at McLeish Orlando in October 2008 alleged Blue Mountain was negligent by failing to “create, implement, monitor and enforce safety provisions to protect chidden from serious harm on their premises” and “failed to advise parents of children admitted … of the known risks on the premises.”

The statement also alleged the resort built jumps, ramps and obstacles on the premises that were “unsafe.”

“There were over 30 injuries happening at the mountain (at the time) – and half of them were children,” said lawyer Patrick Brown in a phone interview. “That kind of information isn’t disclosed to families coming to these places and there needs to be a little bit more transparency on the number of people getting hurt.”

Blue Mountain issued a statement Wednesday indicating that as downhill mountain biking continues to grow as a sport, the facility has created “industry-leading safety procedures” in response to increased rider participation, including removing certain jumps and requiring additional equipment to be worn by riders and a mandatory video for parents was also created.

“Ian’s accident continues to leave us deeply saddened and our sympathies remain with the McAdam family,” said Paul Pinchbeck, marketing vice-president of Blue Mountain Resort. “As members of the downhill community, the safety of our riders while on Blue Mountain Resort property is of the utmost importance. Ian’s accident served to further reinforce that importance.”

The company noted there are risks associated with downhill mountain biking that include human behaviour, speed, equipment, environment, and mountain conditions.

The facility has implemented Rider Assessment Areas — designed to mimic man-made features found on the trails while simultaneously establishing the skill level of the rider — as well as rider education programs.

“It’s important for everyone, including parents of our youngest participants, to take an active part in understanding the risks associated with their participation in any sport, as well as, being informed of all program options designed to keep themselves and their children, safe,” Pinchbeck added.

Since the crash, McAdam has attended physiotherapy sessions three times a week and is prescribed medication for the spasm pain. He has no fine motor-skills when it comes to use of his hands and limited functional range in his arms and legs.

“There is no cure,” he said. “I guess (having a staff member there) would’ve helped at the time to give you a walkabout and suggest what kind of runs I’d be looking for. But it’s all in hindsight.”

Currently, he’s studying entertainment and business at Metalworks Institute in Mississauga and planning to go into artist and venue management, but his dream career was to fly jets.

Hood River mountain biker Matt Klee dies in Canadian biking accident

By Stuart Tomlinson

on June 02, 2014

The mountain biking community, family and friends of 40-year-old Matt Klee of Hood River are mourning his death Monday.

Klee, president of the Hood River Area Trail Stewards, died Friday afternoon when he fell while riding a mountain bike at the Whistler Mountain Bike Park in Whistler, British Columbia.

Klee fell when he tried a jump about 3 p.m., said Sgt. Steve LeClair, a spokesman for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He was with three friends, including an emergency room physician.

Klee was wearing a helmet and other safety gear, LeClair said.

"He was riding on the Lower Whistler Downhill, which is an advanced run in the bike park, and he lost control going down a rock feature ... and crashed at the bottom of it," Whistler Blackcomb mountain manager Doug MacFarlane told Pique news magazine.

Klee was taken to the Whistler Health Care Center for treatment, but was pronounced dead of traumatic injuries at 6 p.m., LeClair said.

Temira Lital, communications secretary for the Hood River Area Trail Stewards, said Klee worked at Insitu Inc., a Bingen, Wash., company that builds unmanned aircraft.

His wife, Jen Hurley Klee, works as a part-time Spanish instructor at Lakeridge High School, officials with the Lake Oswego School District said. 

"The whole community is just devastated," Lital said. "Matt was no slouch of a bike rider. He was very strong and this ride was well within his ability. This was a freak accident."

Lital said Klee was known for his volunteer work with the group, including building a mountain bike trail for very young children.

"He was a key piece of this community," she said. "This is very big loss for Hood River."

Lital shared Klee's last post on Facebook: "Whistler Bike Park update = amazeballs. Perfect dirt, no one here, and the trails are early season buffness. #winning." 

Klee was the second person to die at the mountain bike park; in 2002, a Langley, B.C., man crashed on a trail and later died.

A memorial service will be at the Gorge Room at the Hood River Inn on Saturday, June 7th, at 5pm.

Occupiers, Cyclists, and One-Eyed Jacks

February 13, 2007
David Hay, Bike Lawyer
Originally presented to the North Shore Bike Group


I believe I can say without hesitation that most cyclists who ride the North Shore Mountains would like to see the current freedom to wander persist indefinitely.  Indeed, the simple mention of litigation, lawyers and liability is not only perceived as buzz crushing, but entirely inappropriate, and downright hostile in some circles.  The magic of the North Shore trails is that they are free - unencumbered by rigid rules, regulations, contracts or commerce.  After all, the last thing any cyclist wants to do at the start of a ride, at the point when he or she is brimming with energy and enthusiasm for what lies ahead, is sign a full release encompassing every conceivable catastrophe, including death, in favour of the landowner and the landowner's heirs, successors etc.

As a general sentiment, the freedom to roam is desirable.  Arguably our law should espouse that sentiment as a reflection of a healthy, spirited society, in which recreation is valued.

Legislative Change

Clearly, this was the policy behind the Occupiers Liability Amendment Act, in 1998, which limited the duty of care owed by landowners to the uninvited public, including cyclists, using their land.  Landowners could allow free access to cyclists, secure in the knowledge that the new statute would protect them against claims in negligence brought by cyclists injured on their lands. 

Certainly, the creation of the Trans Canada Trail and negotiations with private landowners about public access to private lands must have been in the minds of the drafters of the amendments.  This was a wrinkle occupying Trail system organizers in BC for some time.  But statutes, such as the Occupiers Liability Amendment Act, are simply an articulation of society's rules, not society's principles, and accordingly they are seldom, if ever, broad enough to encompass all conceivable situations.  Therefore, cases involving claims by injured parties against occupiers almost always involve a consideration of common law principles -  in the perilous world of occupiers liability, the common law is a mess. 

The Common Law Approach

Despite the development of the law of negligence, Canadian courts have generally attempted to preserve the traditional immunity of landowners.  This has led to an immense and confusing dichotomy which in turn led legislatures to try to better define the various rights and obligations, not always successfully. 

An occupier at law is the person who has immediate supervision and control over the premises.  It is not necessary to own the land in order to be an occupier.  At common law and under the Occupiers Liability Act an occupier is the person in possession or control of this premises.

We start with the 3 basic common law categories of entrants to land:

(a)          trespassers

(b)          licensees

(c)          invitees

Trespassers enter premises (not only land but buildings, boats, trains, and other movable structures) without the permission of the occupier.  Occupiers have historically only been found liable to trespassers if they intentionally injured them or were in reckless disregard (intentional disregard) of their presence.  However, the courts have struggled with the different varieties of entrants within the general rubric of trespassers.  For example, is a child who wanders onto land treated the same as a burglar if the child falls into a river.  A number of factors, collectively referred to as the common humanity test, were developed to allow courts to avoid the injustice associated with rigid definitions. They were:

(a)          the gravity and likelihood of probably injury

(b)          the character of the intrusion

(c)          the nature of the place where the trespass occurs

(d)          the knowledge which the Defendant has or ought to have the likelihood of the trespasser being present.

The second category is the licensee.  Basically a visitor, there with permission and no business purpose.  A classic example is the social quest.  An occupier's duty to the licensee was traditionally to prevent damage from concealed dangers or traps of which the occupier has actual knowledge, with actual knowledge being imputed if the occupier had reason to know of its existence.  It's important to note for our purposes that a voluntary assumption of risk by the licensee is not a full defence, ie, it doesn't get the occupier off the hook completely.  The occupier could always get off the hook by warning the licensee of the danger, but only if the licencee had an opportunity to act on the warning.

The final category is the invitee, or business guest -  the classic example being a customer of a store.  The only difference between the duty owed to a licensee and that owed to an invitee seems to be that the occupier owes a duty of reasonable diligence to ascertain the existence of an unusual danger, whereas the occupier is only liable to a licensee if he or she has knowledge of the danger.

In addition to the three categories of entrants, there is the contractual entrant.  That is someone who has contracted and paid for the right to enter.  In that scenario, the applicable standard was either the standard in the contract or, if it is silent, the standard associated with the sale of goods, ie. are the premises reasonably fit for the purpose intended.  That's a different standard than the one which applied in licensee and invitee cases.  It is a contractual standard, thus it doesn't matter if the occupier is not personally negligent.  The occupier must supervise and control the conduct of persons whose activities on the premises are likely to endanger him.  Most organizations falling into this category require execution of a full release of liability as a condition to participate in the adventure activity.  The law relating to the enforcement of releases is a whole other subject, but suffice it to say there is significant risk to a Plaintiff attempting to argue a release should not be enforced, particularly if the release is drafted by a sophisticated organization such a Whistler.

The Original Legislation

Following the enactment of the BC Legislation in 1974, the Courts moved away from the invitee/licensee distinction, in favour of a general statutory duty of care which incorporated common law principles of negligence.  Unlike the Alberta Legislation, the Act established a general duty of care in relation to all entrants to the premises, including trespassers.  The Act provided that an occupier has no duty of care to an entrant in respect of "risks willingly accepted by that person as his own risks".  The Act is silent as to the effect of the warning.  That would obviously be a factor in assessing the evidence as to voluntary acceptance of risks.  It would also be a factor in assessing whether the occupier acted reasonably. 

The Provincial Crown is bound by the Act, but public highways, public and private roads, and certain other roads occupied by the Crown are exempted.  The Cypress Trails are on Provincial Park land and West Vancouver District lands.  The Fromme Trails are on North Vancouver District land.  The Seymour Trails are on a mix of North Vancouver District land, GVRD land and Provincial Park land.  All these entities would be bound by the Act, and likely protected by the amendments.

The Effect of the Amendments

Now that I have given you that overview, I think it's important you know that under the amendments to the Act, and the one case in BC which has considered the amendments, cyclists who ride the North Shore Trails will likely be treated by the law as trespassers.  Here is how it works:

Section 3 of the amended Occupiers Liability Act provides that a person who enters vacant or undeveloped rural premises or recreational trails for recreational purposes is deemed to have willingly accepted all risks.  In these circumstances, the occupier's duty is limited to not:

(i)        create a danger with intent to do harm to the person or damage to the person's property, or

(ii)        act with reckless disregard to the safety of the person or the integrity of the person's property

Sound familiar?  That's the common law duty of care to trespassers ie. there is no liability for negligent conduct.  There is only liability for intentional conduct (recklessness at law is a form of intent) and there's no liability for someone else's negligence.  An example would be a contractor hired by the occupier whose negligence causes an injury. 

The First Post Amendment Case

Many of you will be familiar with a sad case out of Parksville stemming from a serious accident on rural land in 1999.  Mr. and Mrs. Hindley set off on a ride with their two sons along the Top Bridge Trail.  That trail cut across a vacant and largely undeveloped parcel of land owned by Waterfront Properties Corporation and Pacific Canadian Investments.   It was within the boundaries of Parksville and the Defendants allowed cyclists to use the trail without charge.  Mr. Hindley rode into a completely obscured ditch and as a result was an incomplete quadriplegic.

Suddenly, these legal concepts become much less conceptual to the accident victim, who is searching to replace income, to recover attendant care costs, to renovate his home to accommodate his limitations, to pay for transportation, to protect his young family against an enormous personal and financial disaster.  Mr. Hindley brought his case against the corporate landowners, which in the first instance argued unsuccessfully that they were not occupiers.  Ultimately, the Defendants' applied to dismiss the case summarily, on the basis that their land fit the definition of "rural premises" and they effectively owed no duty of care in negligence.  Because of the magnitude of the claim for damages, the case was deemed inappropriate for a summary trial, and so not decided.  But in his consideration of the facts, Mr. Justice Groberman of the BC Supreme Court determined that the land in question was indeed rural and discussed the purpose of the Amendments to the Act.  He said that a land use analysis should be applied to the question of whether the premise is "rural" under the Act, rather than examining what use the land has been put to in the past or what use it could be put to in the future.  He didn't think the fact that the land was within municipal boundaries was at all important to its classification under the Act.

With respect to the purpose of the Amendments, he said "they were to encourage the opening up of rural lands to recreational use.  Areas outside cities, particularly those where parcels of land are large and roads are some distance apart, appear to have been the main target of the legislation."  He concluded that the area where the cyclist was injured "is of the very nature that the legislation appears to be aimed at."

His Lordship refused to confine his comments to the land in issue.  He stated that land on the periphery of urban areas, such as the farmlands of Saanich, and Delta, and the mountains of North Vancouver would come within the term "rural premises" under the Occupiers Liability Act.   Because the comment was incidental to and not part of his decision, it would be considered obiter dictum, as such it isn't binding on any future judge who might consider the issue.  But it certainly might influence a future judge, particularly because it is such a specific comment.

In the Hindley case, his Lordship did not consider the two enumerated categories of premises, in addition to rural premises, to which the reduced duty of care applies.  Section 3(3.3) (c) of the Act indicates that "recreational trails reasonably marked as recreational trails" would also enjoy the protection of the Act, insofar as the diminished duty of care goes.

This section seems to provide that even an occupier of developed non rural land would be immune, except in cases of intentional or malicious conduct, if the recreational trails were reasonably marked as such.  But suppose a group of 8 year old children sets out on a ride - can it be an 8 year old grievously injured as a direct result of the negligence of the occupier would have no case if he/she couldn't show intention, simply on the basis that the trails were reasonably marked as recreational trails - suppose the 8 year old could not read or understand the signs - would there not in that circumstance need to be some resort to the common law, at least for a determination of whether the trail was, in all of the circumstances, "reasonably" marked.  After all, what will constitute reasonably marked may vary, depending on the circumstances of each case.  The section doesn't seem to connote any kind of requirement to warn of hazards, but simply to indicated the trails are identified as recreational trails, but it has not yet been judicially considered.

Deemed Assumption of Risk

Assuming the North Shore Mountains fall within an immune category, unless you can demonstrate you were intentionally harmed, a most unlikely thing in my view,  you will be completely on your own, and that's fine, as long as you know that, and as long as you expect that before going in.  There will be no recovery in negligence, no duty to warn of hazards.  There is no general obligation based on foreseeability.  If you are seriously injured there is no "system" to look after you or your family beyond the basic healthcare, GF Strong, and an extremely modest indexed CPP benefit. 

This is the social choice at the heart of the amendments.  In my view, they go far beyond simply returning the balance of power to occupiers in the courtroom; they preclude lawsuits from getting off the ground.  Again, whether that's good or bad is beyond the scope of this discussion.  The point is, this legislation leaves very little wiggle room in even the most catastrophic cases resulting from obvious negligence.  This is certainly the case in Ontario, which has also amended its Act.  The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed an action by a catastrophically injured ATV rider, in circumstances where there was clear evidence of negligent road design, on the basis that the accident occurred on rural land, and the Plaintiff had entered those lands for the purpose of a recreational activity - this is the only other post amendment case in Canada.  These kinds of decisions are certainly true to the purpose and spirit of the amendments, but other scenarios may not fit so clearly into the scope of the amendments, particularly those, where it would be inappropriate to expect the standard of the perfectly reasonable person.  Those cases seem to invite a closer look, especially where it is obvious the occupier's negligence was the sole and direct cause of the loss.  That would mean turning for help to the common law which seems contrary to the purpose of the legislation.

Now take the same group of 8 year old kids - they ride the same recreational trail everyday after school.  At one point in the trail, they come around a blind corner and immediately onto a bridge which spans a creek.  The occupier hires a contractor to effect repairs to the bridge and the contractor removes the first section completely.  The lead cyclist plunges into the creek and is catastrophically injured.

On those facts, despite obvious negligence, and an obvious failure to warn, the legislation says no recovery, absent intent to harm or evidence that the occupier simply didn't care if harm occurred.  One wonders if Judges might attempt to circumvent the legislation by some device such as reliance on a common humanity test.

Interestingly, the Occupiers Liability Act of Alberta specifically states that the liability of an occupier to a person using the premises for a recreational purpose shall be determined "as if the person was a trespasser."  It has specific provisions relating to child trespassers which remove the legislative immunity and restore the traditional duty to take reasonable care to see that the child is reasonably safe from danger.  The Alberta Act seems to import the common humanity test by making the age of the child, the ability of the child to appreciate the danger, and the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger all relevant to the determination whether the duty has been discharged.  The Ontario Act is similar to the BC Act in this regard.


The changes to the Occupiers Liability Act occurred in order to foster the increased use and enjoyment of the great outdoors - those changes represent an attempt to reduce the prospect of litigation against occupiers who let cyclists and other adventure minded individuals enjoy their lands, without charge.  As such, the Courts will likely extend to those occupiers the protection offered by the Act whenever possible.  But the legislation cannot embrace all circumstances, and inevitably some cases will need to be decided on their own facts.  In those instances, the Act will be important but not necessarily determinative of the result, and resort to the always muddled common law of occupier’s liability may be necessary.


Parking Lot Politics

Posted on May 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM

The final nail in the coffin, if this DNV parking lot deal goes through, as planned. You can actually view what the arrogance of over-entitlement looks like in the picture of the off-road "wheeled locust" wreckreationalists in  DNV's recent NS News ad, below:

The District is "hot to trot" with this parking lot deal, in order to appease all those whiney off-road mountain bikers who continue to rip and shred the forest floor in sheer numbers! Not only do they want their parking lot, but they want DNV to get rid of the "unfair" Residents' Parking Only zone, that prevents them from convenient parking at a major mountain biking trailhead: Mountain View Park! They want their "cake and icing", too, according to NSMBA's spokesperson (no pun intended), Mark Wood.

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Parking lot for mountain bikers on Fromme unveiled

Lot to provide staging area for mtn bikers

Jeremy Shepherd / North Shore News
May 18, 2014

A new parking lot on Fromme Mountain is either a belated solution to a parking nightmare or an environmental affront that benefits few, depending on who you believe.

The District of North Vancouver is holding an open house this Tuesday to unveil plans for a parking lot and staging area at the base of Fromme Mountain.

Slated for completion this fall, the parking lot includes washrooms and bike washing stations.

The project is an attempt to accommodate the steadily growing number of hikers and bikers who hit the trails while protecting the surrounding neighbourhood, according to a release from the district.

Fromme Mountain's 62 kilometres of trail are frequented by a diverse group of residents, including dog walkers, hikers, families out for a stroll as well as mountain bikers, according to Mark Wood, program manager for the North Shore Mountain Bike Association.

While the trails are plentiful, the parking is sparse, according to Wood.

"There's few recreational parks in the world that have such high (use) with no real parking or staging facilities," he said.

The area's lack of parking has created friction in the community, according to Wood.

"All they've done with the parking ban is move the problem down to Coleman Street," he said.

Wood congratulated council and staff for "taking the bull by the horns."

"The solution, in essence, is. .. long overdue," he said.

Not everyone is happy with the plan for a parking lot. Further examination of the wetlands is needed, according to district resident Wendy Qureshi.

Hard riding on soft terrain is not sustainable, said Qureshi, who added the parking lot was an example of the special treatment enjoyed by the mountain biking community.

"It's only for the mountain bikers," she said. "Why should we taxpayers of the district pay money to facilitate their hobby?" Parking for the area has been debated before, with Mayor Richard Walton warning against putting a lot at the top of Fromme Mountain in 2011.

"If you turn that to a staging area you're going to create a monster," he said.

The meeting is set to begin at 7 p.m. at the North Vancouver Museum and Archives on Institute Road. The district is set to release their transportation and parking study at the meeting.

Construction of the parking lot is scheduled to begin this summer. :(


DNV has clearly lost its original "VISION" about the "Balance" between wreckreation and "environmental management" (scroll down at this link,, to  view the 2003/04 powerpoint,at this button)

Alpine Vision

Back in 2004, this article was written about the swarm of wheeled locusts who took over our forests, illegally...."out of sight, out of mind", for most folk - (This is a short excerpt from it) Mt. Fromme Mtn. has always been the wrong place for mountain biking, but DNV continues to ram the square peg into the round hole, sending splinters of unworkable solutions flying everywhere.

It will all prove to get worse over time -- not better :( The Fromme parking lot "solution" will  prove to be unworkable, long term. It won't solve anything, but just inflict more damage to our forest and wetland environments, and onto our neighbourhoods.  Mountain View Park is the very wrong place for mountain biking. Period!
Alpine study to look at the recreational use of fragile ecosystems

This isn't Montana or Australia, and there's no doubt that precipitation contributes to erosion on our mountainsides. And although (IMBA-based) science may show that hikers and bikers have similar ecological impacts, in our case, it's the sheer volume of riders that may be doing the damage.

"We did a trail user study in August," said Rogers. "Just to get a flavour of who was up there, what they were doing there, and we definitely found a higher use among mountain bikers."

The goal of the district's study is to work together with all interested parties - recreational users, naturalists, area residents and other organizations - to find a **workable solution** that meets everyone's needs and provides for effective recreational and environmental management.


A final, realistic overview...

"The aggressive mountain biking agenda hegemony required a more organized, consistent and sustained pushback, perhaps from a newly created and supported provincial or national organization to umbrella an effort to counter this mountain biking agenda creep... that threatens the peace and quiet of our greens and commons, our wildernesses and other public lands... at huge public costs and environmental impacts. Perhaps, it is too late...

This is the price of hikers/conservationists/environmentalists/equestrians being asleep at the wheel for the last 20 years, while the mountain bikers worked like termites..."


 "Parking Lot Politics": Will they or won't they....? ( This news to be updated, for better or worse...stay tuned).

"Snakes and Ladders..."

Posted on May 3, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Back in 2006, I already saw the "writing on the wall", but continued to "stay the course", coming to the point of recording the destructive after-effects of what actually happens when a scofflaw self-interest group is embraced by politicians and public land managers. Sadly, it hasn't changed the status quo of the mountain biking cult. The ecological vandalism continues, both "sanctioned" and illegal (unsanctioned/unauthorized).

DNV's pre-determined Fromme MTB Parking Lot proposal is being flaunted to the public during a May 2014 Open House (that will take another chunk out of the Mountain View Park upland area --- only another $500,000 poured into this environmentally destructive off-road wreckreation.

See my earlier blogpost:  DNV Paving Paradise?! (Mtn.View Upland area)

This is the face of mountain biking (photo, below). These are our new "stewards" of the woods, embraced by the questionable DNV/NSMBA "Trail Maintenance Service Agreement" (PPP deal):

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Rogers
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:07 PM
To:  -----
Subject: RE: Our forest - inquiry on NSMBA

The District has not allocated funds directly to NSMBA for the past 7 years.  Through the District Volunteer program, Parks has provided some " in kind" trail materials to NSMBA to support the trail maintenance program. The materials would include primarily some lumber and gravel for trail surfacing by volunteers.   Any funds spent during the past 7 years on Fromme Mountain trails  came through a combination of federal grants and municipal funding.  This funding was applied to specific trail projects identified through DNV Parks, and implemented with District Parks crews.

In 2013, Council approved the District  to develop a pilot program whereby a Trail Maintenance Service Agreement would, under specific criteria, provide some grant funding to NSMBA. That will be instigated in 2014 as a pilot program.

Let me know if you require additional information.

Thank you.


(PS. There has never been a pilot program between DNV and NSMBA that has "failed", even after the mess the NSMBA made of Mountain View Park with a "pilot program" years ago! DNV called the ecological damage inflicted by the NSMBA and other mountain bikers, a "success"! We just cannot reason with that kind of mentality.)

Public Private Partnerships (PPP) are special deals between government and certain, chosen corporations, and some questionable "non-profit" organizations like the NSMBA, which get tax breaks, grants...  So, here we go again... Get used to it, folks! Yes, it is all pretty darn daft:

A thrillseeking MTBer "Toonie Ripping" on Mt. Fromme/ Mtn.View Park upland, May 1, 2014

Twonie (sic) #1 - Scott Robarts Photography

One wily mountain biker, L.L. ("Mea culpa! Mea culpa?") is even trying to whitewash mountain biking's dubious activities, by debating the terms  "illegal and unsanctioned". It is clear these mtbing folk know very well the damage they are doing, but continue to plow ahead with their environmentally destructive agenda (legal or illegal). They do not like to "kow tow" to the authorities' rules, folks. It is the nature of mountain bikers:

On "Unsanctioned" vs "Illegal Trails"

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

On unsanctioned vs illegal trails


I am writing about a topic that has bugged me for a long time.  It bugs me because the incorrect use of the language is sloppy; stems from poor understanding of the correct use of the term and in my opinion, sets back the mountain-bike advocacy movement every time the word is used.


The specific context of this is the North Shore and the use of the words "illegal" to describe the status of trails when, (for everywhere except for BC Parks) the correct use of the word is "unsanctioned" or "unauthorized".   This is important because when used in the context of law illegal describes an activity that is proscribed by a law that carries criminal penalties.  


It is important to note that no jurisdiction in the North Shore except for BC Parks has implemented laws that make it a criminal offence to build a trail or structure on public lands (see citations at end of this article).   In North Vancouver and West Vancouver building trails without permission isn't even addressed.  In Metro Vancouver lands building trails without permission carries a fine but no imprisonment.  Only in BC Parks is there a risk of imprisonment for riding bikes without permission.  Curiously building trails without permission is not addressed as an offence under the Parks Act.  Only the Forests Act addresses this issue but as there are no active forestry tenures in the North Shore that point is moot.


The upshot of all this is that it is inaccurate, sloppy and damaging to say that North Shore trails are "illegal".   To use this word paints bikers riding North Shore trails as lawbreaking criminals when this is not the case either from a technical legal perspective or from a policy making perspective.   Using the word "illegal" damages the cause of mountain biking advocates, lends ammunition to those who would curtail biking and paints trail-builders and trail-users (remember that any hiker, runner, or little kid who puts in a trail is caught under your lazy, inaccurate use of word) as scofflaws.  Again I emphasize that this is not just pointy-headed academic lawyer speak. Using the wrong word carries a whole pile of unwanted baggage


Accordingly I urge the use of the word "unsanctioned" or "unauthorized" in the context of North Shore trails as this is the correct use of the term.  If trails are recognized under a process such as the Fromme trails under the long-drawn out ARGG process then of course they then become sanctioned


And by the way, they're not land owners. They're land managers.   They manage the land, for US the taxpayer.  Get that one right too and stop kow-towing to them.


EDIT:  This short article cannot address other jurisdictions where there may be indeed criminal penalties for unauthorized/unsanctioned trail building.  American jurisdictions in particular have no shyness about enacting all manner of laws that criminalize the act of building a trail or structures without permission.    I stress that this is not the case in the North Shore.  However the laws in your jurisdiction may be very different so do not take this article as legal advice to punch in a trail





DNV bylaws


Environmental Protection and Preservation Bylaw!.pdf - water, stream and pollution discharges


Park Control Bylaw!.pdf - damage to parks in the DNV


DWV bylaws


Creeks bylaw - construction that may impede waterflow


Parks Regulation bylaw - garbage, litter, animals, wildlife, tennis, golf, watersports, helmet use and pollution in DWV parks




GVRD bylaws


Regional Parks regulation


3.4 - specifically regulates trail construction and (b)prohibits trail construction

15.2 - fine between $ 50 and $ 10,000



BC Parks Parks Act and enabling regulations


Parks Act -


Parks, Conservancy and Recreation Areas  Regulation -




13 - structures prohibited


28 - fine of up to $ 1,000,000 or prison of up to one year




25 - no riding a cycle unless permitted otherwise

We just end up with mountain bike abusement park trails and structures in the woods that look a lot like this: (Lower Griffen Switchback Trails, which should have been closed to mountain biking several years ago. It is the main cause of silting issues in Mountain View Park's frog pond) --

It is clear that our politicians,  public land managers, plus a motley crew of corporations and bike industry shills will keep the scoffaw mountain bikers wheels churning up the forests and wetlands we tried so hard to get protection for. Everything becomes fodder for the mountain bikers. That is what happens when politicians and public land managers reward scofflaws and give them too much political clout. 

Perhaps I should have left the futile fight back in 2006, but then we would not have had any information on what actually happens after such scofflaws are embraced... The following article from 2006 is just as valid, today, as it was yesterday --- but, it has gotten a whole lot  worse with mountain bikers' indiscriminate non-stop riding, races, NEW trail building (all sanctioned? We can no longer tell what is actually sanctioned and what is illegal, anymore. There really is no difference between mountain bikers' sanctioned vandalism and illegal vandalism. The line between sanctioned and illegal riding, racing and trail building has become blurred.)

So, once again, several years after 2006, I DO bid my final adieu on this neverending, almost futile "war of the woods" on the North Shore, and elsewhere in the world.  This website will have to suffice, exposing the dirt on the "Snakes and Ladders" of the mountain biking lifestyle cult. There are lessons to be learned from it...

I guess there are just some things I cannot change, but continue to hold out hope someone else can ---  We will leave it in God's hands.

Dear Father, hear and bless
Thy beasts and singing birds:
And guard with tenderness
Small things that have no words.

 ~A Child's Prayer


"War of the Woods" 2003-2014

Easter is about the midst of hopelessness

Posted on April 19, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Earlier on this blog, I wrote about David Suzuki becoming very cynical about the Environmental Movement:

"Environmentalism has Failed" ~Dr. David Suzuki

Now, another environmentalist has stepped forward, without hope for the is so sad, but they are just facing the stark truth about the greed and hypocrisy of this present world.

It’s the End of the World as We Know It . . . and He Feels Fine

Clouds Over Cowichan from Warmland Films on Vimeo.

The Growing Wall of Shame...

Posted on April 18, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Other than the usual Bike Shops and the Bike industry who support the NSMBA's Trail Building vandalism (which is expected...) we have to ask ourselves what has happened to the common sense of many other corporations/businesses support of the NSMBA that are not "mountain biking related"?

Todd “Digger“ Fiander works on a trail Thursday on Mount Seymour with Mark Wood, rear.

Photograph by: Gerry Kahrmann , Vancouver Sun

(Check out that devastating deep gold dirt pit dug out, to the right of the picture above, behind the shovel handle. Note the damaged tree roots...These pits are dug out everywhere, off-trail in the forest, then "filled in" with forest debris, rocks, wood, etc. to hide the damning evidence!)

Does anyone ever stop to think about where all these wheelbarrows full of "gold dirt" comes from....? The media is to blame for support of this ecological vandalism, greenwashing it...

Last year, we saw corporate support of the NSMBA's activities from such folk as the *TD Friends of the Environment, BMO* and Deloitte. This year, after a long "campaign of shaming", Deloitte? no longer support the NSMBA, but TD "Fiends" of the Environment and BMO have no scruples.

*UPDATE: Sadly, we note although BMO and TD "Fiends"... was not actually listed in the 2014 NSMBA TAP roster, they are still very much involved with destructive MTB trail digging on the North Shore:


North Shore Mtb Assc @NSMBA · Jul 3 on Twitter

Big thanks to BMO Financial Group for their continued dedication to the trails on the Shore! Here they are...

Now, in this year's roster of NSMBA  corporate support we have such enviroMental lulu's as Lululemon Athletica supporting the NSMBA's ecological vandalism! We have Queen's Cross Pub, and Raven Pub, and Okanagan Springs Brewery joining the roster along with the usual clueless MEC and Arc'teryx. Green Coast Rubbish sponsoring this NSMBA "garbage"?! Now you get the picture of what can only be called "greenwash". You can't play both sides of the coin, and call yourselves environmentally-minded!

Lastly, I am especially astounded that  Capilano University "Outdoor Recreation" program (with its ethical statement about their: "Commitment to protecting the earth") has also sponsored the NSMBA ilk, even with with all their financial woes surrounding them! It goes to show you the lack of common sense so many corporate entities (and places of "higher learning") suffer from...(plus, the fact Cap U. keeps the Mountain Bike Operations course running while closing the Studio Art and Textile Art department... Go figure?)

Studio Art and Textile Art Eviction from Capilano University shared a link.
Capilano University puts on final grad show for Studio Art program
If you want to see the results of Capilano University’s Studio Art program, now is the time. This year’s Capilano University Studio Art Grad Show will be the last.

All  we have to do is write, and boycott these businesses. Every conservationist and environmentalist can do that. We can write on their facebook pages and email them about our displeasure of them sponsoring and funding such neverending trail building by the NSMBA, etc.

If we can't "blame" them, we can always shame them and shun them... Thank you.

What Can We Learn from History?

Posted on April 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM

You sometimes have to scratch your head a bit to wonder how mountain bikers can possibly appreciate the natural environmentthey ride and build roughshod on. There is a clear disconnect somewhere...

But, sometimes one has to give credit where credit is due and this mtber did write a fairly nice piece on the History of  Fromme Mtn., etc. (from a mtber's point of view, of course.)  Here are the links (Mtn View Park is mentioned in the second part of this history piece):




The Relics of Shaketown – Part I

Exploring the Original North Shore

Words by Bryce Borlick. Photos by Bryce Borlick and courtesy of The North Vancouver Museum and Archives.
July 3rd, 2013


The Relics of Shaketown – Part II

Another North Shore History Lesson

Words by Bryce Borlick. Photos by Courtesy of The North Vancouver Museum and Archives.
September 4th, 2013 Bryce Borlick is back with another old timey tour through the slopes of the North Shore when humans first sent projectiles down its fall lines.

My only real concern is that the mountain bikers figure that it is okay to destroy something that later recovered (made off-limits to human activities), once again...(that somehow there is no value to a recovered second growth forest that is "only" 80 to 100 years old!)

There is even less chance of a viable "third growth" forest surviving this off-road onslaught (riding and digging) without rest. It will not be healthy growth without removal of such consumptive wreckreational activities, soon. Too many invasive activities on Fromme Mtn, and elsewhere weakens the ecological health of the future forests.

There are several histories of the North Shore written that should be read to appreciate where we came from and where we are headed. It takes a long time to restore and rebuild, but so easy to destroy. What kind of legacy we leave behind is mainly determined by our politicians and public land managers who "manage" our forests and natural parks and wetlands. Can we trust their judgment? What was once destroyed is now gone forever...

Is it really worth the accomodation of the off-road thrill- riders in the woods? Only time will tell...

District of North Vancouver

Socio-Historical Service Infrastructure

Note: Author of each chapter is Roy Pallant unless otherwise noted.

In particular...

Another very comprehensive history comes via:

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Logging and landscape change on the north shore of Burrard Inlet, British Columbia, 1860's to 1930's Author: Kahrer, Anna Gabrielle Degree Master of Arts - MA Program Geography Copyright Date: 1988    (several pages on Lynn Valley Mills and logging done on Fromme/Lynn Creek environs, with maps of logging flumes, etc. Excellent study, online. It covers the North Shore.) Download the pdf file at link.

Of course, we can't leave a stone unturned, folks:

The gist of the problem with the scofflaw NSMBA and supporting mountain bikers, etc. is ongoing --- supported by the District of North Vancouver and West Vancouver politicians and public land managers who continue to turn a blind eye to it all --- while on the other hand continually rewarding those mtbing scofflaws/NSMBA.

The many unscrupulous corporations who support the NSMBA under "green, or sustainable, or environmental initiatives/funding" such as the "TD Friends (fiends?) of the Environment" can tell us a lot about what is wrong with societal norms today.

Once a scofflaw, always a scofflaw. Wink wink, nudge nudge. The NSMBA (unofficially) really do approve of these rogue trails and structures, but put on their "public face", disapproving of such things (only if the rogue trail/structure happens to have been discovered by the public land managers) All scofflaws!

The politicians and public land managers are the real laughingstocks of this neverending "dance around the mulberry bush" of mountain biker over-entitlement to our public forests and parks. What can we learn from this anti-social behaviour? The "dance" continues unabated....(at least you cannot condemn the mtbers for their raw honesty in the following threadposts...)

03-14-2014, 08:02 PM   #91
Registered User

MTB Trails's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 866817
MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.
Originally Posted by onepunch View Post
^^^^^thanks. Great info. I was not going the opposite way. But i need to do more exploring up there. I have not heard of rapid transit either.
This should help you out. Maps are available at the local bike shops. or as an App

10% of App proceeds to the NSMBA!

Follow us on Twitter
Last edited by MTB Trails; 03-14-2014 at 08:27 PM.
MTB Trails is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2014, 10:41 PM   #92
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 231
Rep Power: 896674
TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.TRD has achieved FLOW.
Originally Posted by MTB Trails View Post
10% of App proceeds to the NSMBA!
Sharon, do any of the Book's proceeds also go to the NSMBA?
TRD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 11:08 PM   #93
Registered User

MTB Trails's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 866817
MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.MTB Trails has achieved FLOW.
Originally Posted by TRD View Post
Sharon, do any of the Book's proceeds also go to the NSMBA?
For the first edition we asked about partnering with the NSMBA but since there are trails in the book that are not recognized by the land managers, trails we felt needed to be on the map for navigation and safety purposes, they felt they could not be a part of this project.

We talked again about partnering but since this continues to be their position we will not be partnering with them for the books.

We took it upon ourselves to give the NSMBA money from the Apps.

We have given money to builders not supported by the NSMBA since they are working on trails that are not recognized by the land managers.*

Follow us on Twitter

*So nice to know that the authors of this dubious North Shore MTB Trail Book and App, Sharon Bader (former-Prez of the NSMBA) and Wade Simmons (former "World Class Ambassador" for  Trauma Services, Vancouver Coastal Health's now defunct ) are giving the proceeds from their publication toward illegal activities. Hoo hah!

The MTBer jokes are being played on us all, over and over again, according to this sage letter out of Penticton, BC, by a motorsports enthusiast, nonetheless! He has surely got the mountain bikers' and their foolish political and corporate supporters pegged!

Biking: lawsuit waiting to happen

E-mail Print PDF

I have to commend the current administration at Penticton City Hall at excelling in one area - being able to find new ways of exposing the citizens of Penticton to potential costly lawsuits. I have to commend the current administration at Penticton City Hall at excelling in one area - being able to find new ways of exposing the citizens of Penticton to potential costly lawsuits.

The minute jurisdiction and authority of a defacto recreation area such as Campbell Mountain is signed over to a special interest group by city council you have put the people of Penticton at the top of the legal food chain.

All it would take is one person to crack their melon while taking a jump on their mountain bike and some crafty lawyer will link the City to being responsible. Leaving it as mitigates liability since there would no real authority administering the area and the mantra "use at your risk" would more than likely prevail.

Think I am joking? Google: "mountain bike lawsuits". It makes for fascinating reading.

I invite the mayor and anyone on council to contact me. I would be more than glad to take anyone on an ATV tour to witness first hand the potentially deadly structures that have been constructed on the Three Blind Mice Trail system in order to entertain thrill seeking mountain bikers.

I don't have a problem with mountain bikers but don't start attempting to throttle what I find to be entertaining and relaxing. That being a respectful motorsport enthusiast.

Daniel Pontes 

As you already know, folks, DNV has already foolishly embraced the NSMBA, lock, stock and barrel, and all those (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) rogue trails proliferating on the North Shore, unabated.... (DWV is following "...suit", closely) ...the clock is ticking over a future lawsuit...for sure...(Remember, you heard it here first, dear DNV/DWV citizens. It should come to no surprise.)

and last, but not the least:

Going, Going, Gone...

Posted on March 6, 2014 at 1:35 PM

The big land giveaway, in the name of two very opposite edicts, marches onwards to inevitable destruction: "Sustainable Growth" and "Wreckreational Growth" . Our many panderers, who we call politicians, pander to the developers and selfish interest groups (such as the NSMBA) whims to the point of ignorance.  We can only shake our heads in disbelieve as the inevitable future charges ahead, like a bull inside a china shop. From loss of green spaces to, loss of agricultural land, and the sanctioning of wanton destruction of our forests (death by1000 cuts) every new trail/road/parking lot built at a time to  appease mountain biking thrillriders, we seriously have to ask where all those pandering politicians have left their brains?  The future does not bode well for future generations, that is for sure.

How can they both protect and destroy at the same time? There is a clear double-standard agenda at work here, dear folks.

I do know for a fact, any wise politician who dares to speak out against the status quo, will be chastised by the panderers surrounding him or her. Or Metro will silence them via UN Agenda 21/ ICLEI edicts on "sustainable growth", while paying the piper on the side.... In other words, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Welcome to the new "Gulag of Sustainability" folks:

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

JAMES: Walkable green spaces fast disappearing

Elizabeth James / North Shore News
March 5, 2014


"If planners abandoned. .. unmeasurable objectives like smart growth, livability and sustainability to focus on what really matters - mobility and affordability - we could see a rapidly improving situation in many cities."

- Alain Bertaud, Demographia Jan. 20, 2014

Acknowledging there is no silver bullet to increase the supply of affordable housing, Alain Bertaud, former Principal Urban Planner for the World Bank, introduced the 10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.

Saying, "As a city develops, nothing is more important than maintaining mobility and housing affordability," Bertaud makes his case that planning constraints cause a lack of "an elastic supply of land" and that failure to plan for transportation infrastructure is a major contributor to unaffordable housing.

In his opinion, the situation could be improved if regulators maintained "a steady supply of developable land" but left "land and floor consumption per dwelling to the market."

Presumably, "market" means developer and buyer demand.

Bertaud is an expert planner, so who am I to tilt at his windmills? But tilt I will.

My problem with the "constraint" thread throughout the report is that the authors don't show how elastic boundaries can be prevented from devouring essential green spaces, parks and agricultural lands in their path.

In response to population and buyer demands, Metro Vancouver history shows that for more than eight decades, urban planners have been so unconstrained that forest stands, aboriginal and agricultural lands have lost out to ballooning residential growth and to commercial and industrial interests.

In 1931, there was West Vancouver's extensive British Properties development.

In 1948, North Vancouver District and the National Housing Act approved Norman Hullah's 500-home Norgate Park housing neighbourhood.

In the mid-1990s, the Seymour area was under siege from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. until residents, encouraged by soon-to-be Coun. Lisa Muri, won their fight against development in Cove and Mountain forest. (My Note: It was given to the mountain bikers "to take care of". What will be left, will become real estate fodder for developers, in the future.  I see no victory there, Councillor Lisa Muri. What a crying sham, eh?)


Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

From the mid-1950s onward, developments that began with the British-Dutch Construction Co. and many other residential and commercial developers have eaten up most of Richmond's Lulu Island farming and eco-sensitive areas.

Just as disturbing, today's barely constrained urban growth is doing the same throughout Delta and the Fraser Valley agricultural heartland.

So my questions for Bertaud are these: What price market housing and mobility infrastructure if we cannot feed ourselves? What price have we paid if our parks are reduced to pocket spaces and birds and pollinating insects disappear for lack of green space? The England of today - poet William Blake's "green and pleasant land" - is spending a fortune in its attempt to repair decades of unconstrained development since the days of its "dark, satanic mills."

Somewhat closer to home, a Feb. 3 Yale University educational report by Richard Conniff describes initiatives to "restore the pollinators that are essential for world food production" - http://e360. msp?id=2735 But there's no need to travel any farther than a landscaped pathway between two west-of-Lonsdale condo complexes to be reminded of the importance of our fastdisappearing walkable green spaces. That was where I saw dozens of robins flying among the snow-clad bushes - I counted 23 and there were more.

How many birds will be booted out of the greenspace abutting 161 East Keith if the City of North Vancouver sets a municipal precedent by selling the boulevard to FDG Property Management and, as Coun. Guy Heywood put it, council swaps "density for market rental housing"? How many of those 90-plus units would meet the federal income to housing ratio - let alone Demographia's affordability guidelines of less than 25 per cent of an urban household's income? I am not suggesting we put the welfare of birds and bees ahead of the needs of renters. But surely we can find a better solution than a Hobson's choice between soulless highrise density and ripping up the verdant lands that are so essential to our own physical and mental health - and to our ability to feed ourselves.

We ignore the abundant evidence at our peril - evidence like the editorial Building better urban health in England which was published Feb. 8 in The Lancet Psychiatry journal. Citing the City Health Check of "nine most populated cities in England, including London, Manchester and Bristol" commissioned by the Royal Institute of British Architects, the editorial stated, "The report is a welcome addition to the existing evidence from the medical community showing that the way cities and towns are designed, planned and managed can have an important effect on health."

It is up to us to ensure that the "important effect" is a positive one and that the livability of our communities is not sacrificed to urban planners whose goal is to loosen the constraints in the spurious claim that they are providing affordable housing. [email protected]

© North Shore News

- See more at:


Development comes in all forms. It is not just housing and road development, we need to be concerned about, but also includes wreckreational development. They all take a toll, even if the "market" isn't there. Build it and they will come....? Maybe, maybe not...It isn't about saving the planet, folks. It is about GREED, power and control.

It is about taking away our private property rights, while also letting any kind of Tom, Dick, or Harriet, "members of the NSMBA, etc.", going into our public forests, watersheds and wetlands to do whatever the hell they please, without fear of repercussion. Meanwhile, as trees get hacked and damaged by the NSMBA's trail building and pit digging, private property owners are being dictated to as to what trees they can or cannot cut on their own properties. Give your head a shake folks...Nothing really makes any sense, does it?

Shelley Fralic: It’s my tree and I’ll chop it if I want to

 Proposed Vancouver bylaw crosses the private property line

As long as DNV abuses Mountain View Park wetland and upland, and the rest of Fromme Mtn. allowing it to remain fodder for the dirt bikers thrills and spills, hands off our private property rights! You can't play both sides of the coin. Thank you very much!

We have far more rights than the many buffoons, corporations and politicians who support and fund the NSMBA's ecological vandalism inside our public parks and forests, for sure!

Be careful what you "wish" for, it just might come packaged inside  Pandora's Box!

Poetic Justice...?

Posted on February 26, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Sometimes, there is a "too 'good' to be true", story. This one is out of Australia. 

But, as the old proverb goes:

"Truth is stranger than Fiction."


Bulli trail bike ride takes toll




Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.