Learning from anti-mountain bikers to create better urban mountain biking proposals

3/4/2018

This article is a lot longer than the average article. This is due to the number of quotations contained within. Its well worth the read and important for those wanting to create urban mountain biking experiences. -- City MTB

On the About page for City MTB this description is given under the “What we promote” tab:

We can do this while talking to our fellow citizens and finding how to make the best thing we can for everyone, even if we don't understand or agree with the activities those persons might enjoy. Instead of thinking of that other user group as "those people", why not listen to them and use their concerns and opinions as a way to make your activity of choice that much better?

The fact is, however, there is a group of very dedicated people across the United States that view mountain biking as the devil and mountain bikers as “those people”. It’s easy to dismiss them as Hateful Old Hikers. These kinds of blanket dismissive attitudes aren’t respectful, nor are they helpful. It also shows a real lack of wisdom to dismiss statements because of the person making the statements. A broken clock is right twice a day after all.

Let’s not fall into the trap that many anti-mountain bikers find themselves: hating the activity so much they dismiss facts that destroy their arguments. We should have the wisdom to think critically about ourselves. We need to understand and process people’s concerns. That may mean we work to change a proposal or find a solution to a problem they have highlighted.

What some believe mountain bike will be like at their local park. Image by Mark Hultgren from Pixabay

There is a bit of defensive strategy to this too. Anti-mountain bikers will be talking to local officials and writing op-eds in the local paper saying a Hellmouth will open if mountain biking comes to a local park. If you can’t show with facts that the ground won’t split open and imps and demons won’t come skipping out, you are ceding the conversation to the antis. So instead of waiting for your local anti group to get in front of the town council with garlic and holy water, use your proposal to the town council for urban mountain biking trails as a way to strangle their arguments in the crib.

To know what the arguments are, of course, will require you to read, digest and understand anti-mountain biking arguments and what lessons can be learned. This entire article will be built around examining an argument, disassembling it and learning the lesson that will allow you to make your proposal better. The discussion will be broken up by subject matter.

You will need to know three things:

This is not a personal attack on anyone. We are discussing the viewpoints they have, not them personally. This is not about “slamming” anyone.
We will be talking about Portland, Oregon, a city that has had a pretty dismal relationship with urban mountain biking. Portland is completing a process called the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan (ORCMP) that is a decent first stab at making urban mountain biking happen in Portland. The ORCMP was birthed when two city commissioners interfered with a public process and banned mountain biking by fiat at a location called River View Natural Area. The resulting negative press led the Mayor and some city commissioners to vote to green light monies for the ORCMP.
We will primarily be discussing the writings of Mr. John E. Miller, of the Collins View Neighborhood. The River View Natural Area is within the boundaries of the Collins View Neighborhood.

Let’s put on our tinfoil hats and dive in!

Active vs. Passive Use

Mr. Miller discusses his view of active and passive use here:

Designated Natural Areas may only be used for passive recreation. In legal documents, mountain biking is not specifically prohibited, so MTBikers claim that MTBiking is not a sport — it's passive recreation, and therefore, they say, it's not prohibited, What do you think? These are examples of passive recreation: hiking, field trips, birding in small groups. Active recreation examples: running, cycling, noisy groups such as the Hash House Harriers. Have you ever heard the thumps, whoops, and screams of two MTBikers flying downhill?

And again here:

Many natural areas allow passive recreation. Passive recreation includes walking, hiking and birding in small groups. Active recreation includes running, cycling, groups such as the Hash House Harriers, and so on. The thumps, whooshes, whoops and screams of two mountain bikers flying downhill are signatures of active recreation. There's nothing wrong with active recreation, it just doesn't belong in a natural area.

This is where facts can help. The primary question here is this one: what is passive recreation and what is active recreation? To be clear, we can’t work thru all the parts of this as it’s a long discussion.

Instead of relying on some personal belief of passive vs. active recreation, let’s look at the facts. A legal dictionary describes active vs. passive recreation this way (truncated):

A passive recreation area is generally an undeveloped space or environmentally sensitive area that requires minimal development… The quality of the environment and "naturalness" of an area is the focus of the recreational experience in a passive recreation area.
Passive recreation may be defined as a non-motorized activity that:
• Offers constructive, restorative, and pleasurable human benefits and fosters appreciation and understanding of open space and its purpose
• Is compatible with other passive recreation uses
• Does not significantly impact natural, cultural, scientific, or agricultural values
• Requires only minimal visitor facilities and services directly related to safety and minimizes passive recreation impacts

In short form, to qualify as passive recreation, an activity would need to fit the following criteria:

Have no greater impact than other passive uses
Use the same recreational facilities as other passive uses
Can occur with other passive activities and users simultaneously.

That isn’t some “bending of the rules” definition either. Most other cities and even nature organizations in the United States use some version of that definition. Heck, even organizations opposed to mountain biking use this definition.

Some forms of mountain biking can meet those criteria (more on that in a second). How?

We know from mountain biking over the last 25 years in other natural areas and urban wildernesses across the county that, with due diligence in design and maintenance, urban mountain biking does not have a greater impact than other passive uses
Since 2007, mountain biking uses the same recreational facilities as hiking trails. In 2007 the United States Forest Service (USFS) adopted the International Mountain Biking Association’s (IMBA) trail building guidelines. As a result, regardless of what recreation type, hiking or biking, is going on those trails, from a facility standpoint, you are building a mountain bike trail. (Side note: For the ORCMP the city of Portland abandoned their unsustainable trail guidelines in favor of modern ones, based on the IMBA and USFS guidelines.)
99% of urban mountain biking trails across the country are shared between user groups in some way. About 97% of those shared miles are singletrack trails. There is plenty of proof that hikers and bikers can share relatively narrow trails without issue. Some locations do a better job sharing than others, we must be realistic. But that only means we should copy the best methods of sharing, not reject mountain biking from a site.

Unlike individual’s beliefs about what counts as active or passive uses, what matters are these legal definitions of active or passive recreation. These legal definitions are used by nearly every city in the country define active or passive recreation based on the impacts of that that activity to the land its located in. So, it’s not the calories consumed by the participants or the Zen attitude of those participating or “whoops and screams” of those participating in said activities that defines active or passive recreation. Its their actual impacts to property.

In fact, 23 years ago, in 1995 the City of Portland came to the same conclusion in the Forest Park Management Plan where they list the following as passive use:

Other cities in Oregon allow mountain biking in their natural areas, too, so Portland’s definition first stated in the Forest Park Management Plan is not the outlier within the state of Oregon. When you look nationally, of course, there hundreds of mountain bike trails in natural areas, preserves and urban wildernesses.

Lesson

The big lesson here is use factual and legal definitions to define active and passive use correctly. Its why the Knobbies in the Neighborhood handout on the subject is two pages long to help properly define what is active and passive use. Use the actual text of whatever definitions your city or similar cities use. Work through what those definitions mean on the ground and for mountain biking in your area. Include FAQs that directly discuss how to maintain naturalness and allow mountain biking. It’s always good to explain how trail infrastructure has been mountain biking trail infrastructure for over 10 years. Please remember that not every form of mountain biking is passive use, however.

Types of mountain biking and where they go

Mr. Miller discusses downhill and freeride mountain biking, coming to this conclusion:

My sarcasm: Full face helmets? I'm glad they are protecting themselves from running into trees, seniors, and children! We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt! Seriously, even gentle forms of off-road cycling could be injurious or disruptive to wildlife and hikers in natural areas. The Leave No Trace ethic literally says if nature is changing its behavior in response to your presence, you are too close ‐ Back off!

Downhill mountain biking has its place, but it's not about quietly enjoying a forest, or allowing the forest to remain relatively undisturbed. There is a fantasy that a single bike silently passing along a level trail does no harm. But what if that one bike makes ten runs that day, or if dozens of bikers make five runs on a Saturday? What if the trail is steep and downhill, and is mainly for thrill, with whoops and hollers? This is not Off-Road Cycling.

In this point he is correct. Downhill mountain biking doesn’t belong in a natural area like Riverview. Which is why it’s not slated to be placed in River View, per the ORCMP (emphasis added):

Complete detailed alignment planning and trail design for the natural surface trail loop… as a model of a safe and sustainable shared-use trail, for cross-country off-road cycling, walking, running, and enjoyment of nature.

But this confusion (and let’s be clear, on Mr. Miller’s part, it’s not confusion, it’s an intentional dissembling) about what kinds of mountain biking can go in what properties creates real issues. The terms for types of mountain biking, such as “cross country” or “all mountain” or “downhill” are confusing to those that do not mountain bike. All mountain bike trails go across the county, often all over a hill or mountain and at some point all trails go down a hill. Saying to assembled group of seniors, who likely saw a Red Bull YouTube video on NextDoor, that your club or the city is plan is put in a “cross country trail” is meaningless to them. They are going to imagine that Red Bull video going through their park.

Also, many local mountain bikers, god bless their hearts, tend to approach trail design with a “everything but the kitchen sink” attitude. This often means their proposals have types of trails that may not be appropriate in that location. The Northwest Trail Alliance’s original designs for River View where ambitious, to say the least. The design included things like skills parks, jump areas , and 5 separate non-loop trails, including a flow trail, that would not qualify as passive use.

Northwest Trail Alliance's original River View Natural Area plan

Lesson

Include a pictogram or other visual means of showing different kinds of mountain biking. Include in that whether that type qualifies for active or passive recreation. In most scenarios, cross country, some all mountain and adventure trails are the only types that sneak under the wire for passive recreation and even then, in properties like urban wildernesses, only cross country singletrack trails. That means every other type will likely have to go into properties that allow less passive or even active use. Knobbies in the Neighborhood has a mountain bike type matrix that includes a visual representation and a linked temperature bar showing there that use fits best (see below). Such a method prevents confusion where it is innocent and prevents antis from sowing confusion on purpose.

Knobbies in the Neighborhood cross country use iconography

Knobbies in the Neighborhood all mountain use iconography

Knobbies in the Neighborhood downhill use iconography

Use examples to help make your case

Mr. Miller makes statements that seem concrete, as if the state of urban mountain biking is just so. Here are some examples:

Ride to your Ride is good, in concept. Mountain bikers want more sites and trails to satisfy their goal of riding to their ride, and to disperse load. This is an ideal (fantasy) not attainable in practice, or at least is not shown with data matching potential sites, population, and demographics.

Or this:

MTBiking can be done in urban areas like Boulder, Colorado with different soil on nearby blank hillsides, or places in Portland that have a good run that's not dedicated to protect wildlife and water resources.

And this one:

Mountain Biking, by definition requires the elevation drop provided by hillsides. Portland hills are mostly covered with houses and streets, with streams under-grounded. The steepest hillsides have been left undeveloped, carved by natural streams. A few of those hillsides have been protected against development. The question for many is whether these native hillsides should be carved up by downhill runs for wheels.

There is a lot going on in these statements. But the basic gist of each is the same: we can’t do it here because we need very special circumstances. That can be a compelling argument if the target audience doesn’t know better. It’s likely that elected officials know so little about urban mountain biking that they too might believe that it requires something special they don’t have. Google and other search engines are no help, dominated by the ramblings of the small number of anti-mountain biking propagandists. The advertising world certainly doesn’t help the perception of mountain biking, choosing to create ads and videos filled with very damaging optics that look nothing like what real mountain biking looks like.

The only way to show that “alternative facts” are flat out falsehoods is to call upon examples.

If you can show that ride to your ride is a real thing and works in cities of all types, that disarms that argument. If you can show that plenty of other cities have urban mountain biking that aren’t Boulder, CO, that begs the question of why Portland (in this case) is so different. If you can show that mountain biking takes place on lands with less elevation change than Mr. Miller’s driveway than that is a great example of the normal-ness of creating fun mountain biking trails in all types of terrain. If you can show trails in terrain steeper than River View that have successfully shared between user groups, you have disarmed the very idea that only in special circumstances does sharing work.

Lesson

You need to have examples. A lot of them. And you to need spell out what the example is, where it’s from and why you think it should apply to your area. Saying something like, "We want to build something like XYZ has," tells your audience nothing, other than XYZ has something you like. What about that place is unique? How does it apply here? What does the city need to do to make something like that? It’s likely there will not be an example that perfectly fits your intended location. For instance, you might need to choose one example of trail design, one for user management, another for funding and still another for long term maintenance. This need for multiple examples is a good thing, not a negative one. Why? With each example you not only give concrete information, you build the case that urban mountain biking is not something that requires unique and special circumstances.

Perception is reality

Of course, it’s all giant conspiracy as Mr. Miller has discovered:

An MTB parts supplier has offered to bankroll building and maintaining all trails in RVNA. Will we allow a commercial sponsor to freely use this public space? Organized groups of MTBs are standing by, eager to build new trails, free of charge. What will City Council do when banned MTBs storm City Hall en masse on January 14th demanding access on the day of the Hearing for the RVNA Management Plan? Will Portland let MTBs and their commercial interests dig up our natural areas?

And:

Beware of the Mountain Biking Industrial Complex… the mountain bike industry and culture has mobilized and is being very aggressive pushing this through locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. The Public is not so vigilant.
The Public is concerned that private sponsorship is creeping into city programs under budgetary stress:
• Corporations are offering to convert public property into purpose-built playgrounds.
• At a River View Natural Area [RVNA] Management Plan open house, an mountain bike parts wholesaler offered to bankroll the construction and maintenance of all trails in RVNA!
• Some staff and land managers are mountain bikers. Without policy-level protections, staff actions (in offices and in the field) may be influenced by their riding and digging friends. For example, a trail manager suddenly left the parks department after being caught leading unauthorized mountain bike trail work in RVNA.
• Portland Public Schools is establishing sport clubs for mountain biking, with industry sponsorship. These mountain bike teams do not need to shred our protected natural areas, or Forest Park.

It’s likely we all wish the "mountain biking industrial complex" was half as powerful as Mr. Miller believes it is. Then we might get some things done around here!

While we can have an interesting discussion on hypocrisy and how a collection of fellow mountain bikers in a town suddenly become “lobbyists” but a collection of other users is not, the fact is that perception is reality. If your neighbors or your local officials perceive that you are acting in the interests of corporate masters, that becomes their truth.

Corporations are legal entities that exist for the management of various activities. There is a real debate on how much power they should have in governmental and personal affairs, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. But the fact of the matter is that corporations are necessary to organize and perform functions as a collective. (Your church, club or local co-op grocery are all structured as some form of a corporation.) Mr. Miller would likely not be upset if Merrell boots wanted to pay for hiking only trails in River View. It’s in Merrell’s interests and it would align with Mr. Miller’s interests. There would be nothing wrong with the Collins View neighborhood taking Merrell’s money to restore River View for the benefit of the public if that aligns their respective interests and the land owners. Just as there is nothing wrong with taking corporate money as a mountain biking club to build or restore trails for the benefit of the public and the land manager. But before you do so, you might want to think about how that will be perceived and if the corporation in question would appear to be interfering with the policies of the land manager.

This “perception is reality” can also occur with the images used to promote the trail proposal. For photos of trails, it’s important to look at the message that others see in those images. Do they show a bunch of young “white” dudes? If you are wanting to propose trails in a natural area, Red Bull ads aren’t the photos you want to use as it will only be the types of mountain biking that are passive use that can go in those properties.

But what if the perception isn’t wrong? In a discussion between Mr. Miller and another Collins View neighbor, Ms. Alexandra P. Clarke, who runs a Facebook page entitled River View Natural Area Conservation Project, there was a discussion on the race, age and perceived income of the persons who have spearheaded mountain biking in and around Portland. (See photo gallery below.) There are likely three reasons for this:

Portland, and Oregon as a state, has had a… let’s call it… troubled history in regard to racial integration.
Portland’s neighborhood associations have long been on the front lines of red lining. While that practice is largely in the past, the result has been that most of the nature based experiences are in the parts of town that have been historically “white”. It should be noted that many of the natural areas in Portland are roughly based on the original Olmsted park plan for Portland. However, please remember, that for what ever their positives, the Olmsted's worked hand-in-glove with segregationists.
Portland’s long-standing animosity toward urban mountain biking self-sorted mountain bikers into the types people who were financially able, with fewer attachments at home and who were motivated enough to drive the distances required (i.e. “white” males, ages 20-50, with decent incomes).

While all of the above may be true, the bikers of Portland may not be off the hook totally on this one. Even a cursory search of cycling outreach in various cities shows Portland to be less than proactive in reaching out to persons of non-Euro-North Asian heritages. That, combined with the factors above, may create a feedback loop where the people who do a thing look the same because they live near natural areas or make enough money to drive to them. Then those people tended to only think about people like themselves when doing outreach for that thing.

Lesson

Think of the perception you are creating. Before you make a decision, think about the optics to the public (who don't know much about mountain biking) or the skeptics (who hate mountain biking). When it comes to financing the work to create urban trails, maybe look for non-corporate and non-business funding sources first. Work with local entities that might have a vested interest in your proposals make sure they are on board with the messaging and don’t say something stupid (“If the city does this, my company will pay for it”). Look at the images, social media posts and way your club comes across. Do you defend or promote illegal riding or trail building? Do you share videos and photos that show skidding and other trail and environment damaging activities? Are the images you are displaying to the world look like a group of people who would care about a natural area? Do your images show the full rainbow of humanity or is everyone same shade? What about your mountain biking club? What backgrounds and heritages do you have? Do you all make about the same money? Are most of you the same sex/gender? If so, maybe some more robust outreach is needed.

In conclusion

As mountain bikers, and ones interested in urban mountain biking, we should be happy with the amount of work we have put into building a positive history for ourselves. Those opposed to mountain biking must misrepresent, obscure, use the Chewbacca defense, rely on FUD and often, flat out lie to create any sort of negative narrative. But as recent events in the United States have shown, we are dangerously close to living in a post-fact world.

“Mountain biking wrecks natural areas,” like a lot of post-fact statements, fits on a bumper sticker. You could try fighting that one after it gets said. Or you could think of ways to remove its power before its said. Thinking ahead and formulating how to make the facts of urban mountain biking accessible will do far more than dueling op-eds in the local paper. Take the lessons mentioned above and apply them to your work making urban mountain biking trails. Next time you go online, instead of rolling your eyes at an anti-mountain biking scree, look at it and ask yourself, “Could I use this to make my urban mountain biking proposal better?”

News