Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Groups

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
Couloir
Posts: 25
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm

Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Groups

Post by Couloir » April 3rd, 2018, 12:44 pm

Interesting - looks like this a taken a step forward in resolving this issue:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/d ... 12058/230/

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12969
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by retired jerry » April 3rd, 2018, 1:05 pm

So that means they can go ahead with Mountain bike park at Timberline Lodge on Mt Hood?

Bark was suing to prevent this?

User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 3122
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by adamschneider » April 3rd, 2018, 1:15 pm

retired jerry wrote:So that means they can go ahead with Mountain bike park at Timberline Lodge on Mt Hood?

Bark was suing to prevent this?
Apparently: http://bark-out.org/project/timberline- ... kills-park

Couloir
Posts: 25
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by Couloir » April 3rd, 2018, 1:29 pm

retired jerry wrote:So that means they can go ahead with Mountain bike park at Timberline Lodge on Mt Hood?
Unless they, the Sierra Club, or Friends of Mt. Hood, have something else up their collective sleeves, I think that's an accurate assessment.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12969
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by retired jerry » April 3rd, 2018, 2:13 pm

I'm generally in favor of environmental groups

It seems like maybe a bike park next to Timberline might be okay. Make sure they manage it good. Include environmentalists in oversight group to minimize impact. Concentrate humans around Timberline rather than disbursing.

I don't know the details on this though

Bark says they've made a lot of road to trail projects which is good. Timberline project a little different. Bikers use chairlifts to go back up?

User avatar
RobinB
Posts: 771
Joined: September 9th, 2013, 11:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by RobinB » April 6th, 2018, 9:18 pm

The slopes above Timberline have already been destroyed by overuse, but it seems like having bicycles go down without even a padding of snow can only make things much worse. I've always viewed the Lodge somewhat fondly, but reading their glib, moronic press release, which doesn't even begin to acknowledge possible objections, it's hard not to feel disheartened.

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3291
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by Guy » April 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm

RobinB wrote:The slopes above Timberline have already been destroyed by overuse, but it seems like having bicycles go down without even a padding of snow can only make things much worse. I've always viewed the Lodge somewhat fondly, but reading their glib, moronic press release, which doesn't even begin to acknowledge possible objections, it's hard not to feel disheartened.
Not looking for a fight here Robin but can you elaborate? Will the bikes be above Timberline? How will having bikes use the trails between Timberline & Govy Camp cause problems? I know there are theories but what facts are there? I'm kind of the opinion that concentrating heavy use into fewer areas is better than spreading use out equally over the local trail system. I can be persuaded otherwise with fact though :)
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
RobinB
Posts: 771
Joined: September 9th, 2013, 11:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by RobinB » April 7th, 2018, 11:08 am

Guy wrote:
RobinB wrote:The slopes above Timberline have already been destroyed by overuse, but it seems like having bicycles go down without even a padding of snow can only make things much worse. I've always viewed the Lodge somewhat fondly, but reading their glib, moronic press release, which doesn't even begin to acknowledge possible objections, it's hard not to feel disheartened.
Not looking for a fight here Robin but can you elaborate? Will the bikes be above Timberline? How will having bikes use the trails between Timberline & Govy Camp cause problems? I know there are theories but what facts are there? I'm kind of the opinion that concentrating heavy use into fewer areas is better than spreading use out equally over the local trail system. I can be persuaded otherwise with fact though :)
Thanks for the measured response, and sorry, yea: I misspoke. I should have said the slopes around Timberline, not above.

So I have two types of concerns. The first are aesthetic. I find Mt. Hood to be just utterly beautiful, but am always saddened by the blight of ski infrastructure in the otherwise lovely south side. The problem isn't just lifts - though I certainly feel a twinge of sadness every time they come into view - but also the manipulations of landscape and trash left by users. The creation of new bike trails will just make this worse: more manipulation of the terrain, and almost assuredly more trash. The aesthetic concerns are probably not going to convince everyone, because one could easily claim that the compromise is worth it for the recreational and economic benefits that skiing (and I guess now mountain biking) bring, but it's a big part of it for me.

The second, and probably more significant, set of concerns are environmental. The environmental suits made a bunch of claims, but three big ones stick out to me: (1) increased erosion, leading to increased sediment in Still Creek and the West Fork Salmon River; (2) destruction of animal habitat, particularly for the Western Bumblebee; and (3) downstream infrastructure increases at Timberline necessary to accommodate increased summer traffic.

I agree about concentrating use, but there's already a large network of roads around Mt. Hood National Forest, some of which could be transitioned to non-motorized use. These trails would admittedly miss the alpine scenery, but I guess my position is that that sort of scenery ought to be preserved for users whose primary motivation is just to experience it, not to use it as the backdrop for another sort of recreation.

My presumption is that Timberline wants to build the park because, given dwindling snowpack, encouraging non-ski use is increasingly an economic necessity. But, frankly, I would just as soon have the lodge go out of business, and return the mountain to the majesty of others in the Cascades - Sisters (aside from Bachelor), Jefferson, Adams, arguably Rainier, and certainly Glacier Peak - that have been left untouched.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12969
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by retired jerry » April 7th, 2018, 11:27 am

Walking around the mountain is about 40 miles. 1 mile of it is the Timberline Lodge area. Maybe 1.5.

Aesthetically, I think it's sort of cool to see the developed area. Tourists in sandals. Ski lifts. The cell tower...

And there's maybe another 1.5 miles of tourists wandering around from the lodge. Many international people.

And then it's back to relative peace and quiet

I think it's nice those people get to experience that, and there are lots of wilder areas for me

They should carefully study and mitigate any environmental impact

I know what you mean about trash, there's lots of detritus from the ski area you don't see other places

User avatar
RobinB
Posts: 771
Joined: September 9th, 2013, 11:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Timberline MTB Park - Judge Denies Motion from Cons. Gro

Post by RobinB » April 7th, 2018, 11:37 am

retired jerry wrote:Aesthetically, I think it's sort of cool to see the developed area. Tourists in sandals. Ski lifts. The cell tower...
I guess that brings up another important limitation of my aesthetic worry: unlike the environmental concerns, where there really is a fact of the matter (even if we don't know it for sure yet), it seems that, with aesthetics, there's room for disagreement. Thanks for pointing that out in such a nice way.

Post Reply