Mountain Biking - Bellingham bummer

Bad news for NW wood riders, buncha trail ramps, etc getting torn down:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-removes-illegal-biking-trails-jumps-from-state-land-146035485.html?tab=video&c=y

Yeah, saw that over on RM along with this link:

http://evergreenmtb.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=357

Weird, DNR is pretty cool over here; I've worked side-by-side with a lot of their staff over the years during wildfire seasons. NW District must be staffed by a lot of hippie foresters, though.

Some pics from the farewell ride:

http://ap1.pinkbike.org/p5pb7916735/p5pb7916735.jpg

http://ap1.pinkbike.org/p5pb7916732/p5pb7916732.jpg

http://ap1.pinkbike.org/p5pb7916738/p5pb7916738.jpg

More here:
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/north-fork-trails-whatcom-county-closures-2012.html

Rules is rules, dang it. I was riding Monday night and someone had put a small jump on a multi use dirt trail. I says to mysef, cute, but someone is gonna be pissed. Hikers don't like us bikes already. What were they thinking.

The reasons given by DNR seem to be successfully addressed by many other state and local agencies in Washington. For example:

Duthie
Banner Forrest
Capitol Forest

All those riding areas have lots of developed trails and the responsible agencies seem to be happy with their control of liabilities.

It is too bad that we can log and destroy the forests but we can develop them for multi-use.

It is too bad that we can log and destroy the forests but we can develop them for multi-use.In fairness, the first and primary responsibility of the Dept. of Natural Resources is to manage the timberlands in their trust as working forests/timberlands - - mostly for the funding of K-12 education. If you look at a map of the state forest lands, you will see that a good majority of it is "Common School Trust" lands - - meaning that timber is raised, harvested and sold to support state funding of the public school system.

The fact that the DNR most often allows for multiple-use on many of these lands, as long as it does not conflict with their primary objectives, is bonus to all of us. That these allowances seem to be inconsistent throughout the state is unfortunate and frustrating for sure. It's too bad there are land managers within the agency who seem to be advancing personal philosphies/agendas, to the detriment of all recreational users of state lands.

The only agency I'm aware of that has ever been specifically charged with providing multiple-use recreational opportunities within working forest lands is the U.S. Forest Service. And you see the direction that's going too - - more and more of the people in charge seem to be environmental activists who are now trying to restrict recreation and expand wilderness designations within National Forest boundaries - - far from the original mission of the USFS. I blame this on my generation and all the ex-hippies who glommed onto the outdoor jobs in the federal and state governments after they settled down from their college-protest/Peace Corps and/or weed-smoking days. [/rant]