Burlington Creek and Ennis Creek 4-15-22

[bobcat]

That there was a mountain biker representative on the public access committee indicates that, from the beginning, Metro was interested in serving that community, which to its credit, has a stronger and more vocal advocacy/volunteer voice than the hiking community. Both bike and hiking trails are scheduled to be built on the McCarthy Creek and Burlington properties. That's a compromise of sorts. The other two properties will be left undeveloped.

The nature of the approach via McNamee Road is indeed an issue, less so because of the trestle but because of people pulling out of a formal parking area with limited vision up and down the narrow winding road. They'll have to figure that one out. (But it's really no worse than parking off of Newberry Road - a busier road by far - for the Wildwood.)

To be clear, right now no bikes (and no pets, of course) are permitted at any of the properties (although I saw the ubiquitous loaded doggie poop bags at both Burlington and Ennis).

A couple of miles further east on Highway 30 toward Scappoose is a mountain bike park in an old clear cut off Rocky Point Road. I suggest you check it out.

Well, he can't check it out unless he's a member of the Northwest Trails Alliance. Members only - Rocky Point is a special agreement between Weyerhaeuser and the NWTA (and even the NWTA doesn't have access when Weyerhaeuser is logging). Like other Weyerhaeuser properties, it is closed to the general public.

Even with the development, I suspect the neighbors will be able to find plenty of quiet time to enjoy the spaces. Metro, whether you like the agency or not, does have an obligation to taxpayers to provide access to most of its properties. Burlington, or at least part of it, was slated for a private housing development before Metro purchased it.

[Aimless]

"[W]elcome by us" just proves my point: you live in a Shangri-la, and, out of the generosity of you heart, you've deigned to allow city people to come enjoy you neighborhood. How kind of you!

Your rhetoric is getting rather ott, Charley. This sort of post is what ignites flame wars.

[Charley]

Your rhetoric is getting rather ott, Charley. This sort of post is what ignites flame wars.

I find the exclusionary attitude around public parks very upsetting, so you're probably right that I lose control over my tone.

On the other hand, over-the-top is a great way to characterize the original comment to which I’ve been replying. Maybe you'd agree.

Metro has planned for its Burlington Property to be a forested public park with multi-use trails. That’s pretty innocuous, and would also describe familiar and well-loved places like Powell Butte and Forest Park. If I type Forest Park into Google search, these are the images that come up:

That’s quite pleasant!

But Metro’s critics really don’t like mountain bike riders, and a person riding through green trees with on a narrow ribbon of trail just doesn’t arouse angry public outcry.

So they’ve come up with some language that’s far more useful: “mountain bike adventure park.” If I type “adventure park” into Google search, these are the images that come up:

Well, now even I hate this plan!

While my rhetoric might not be optimal, at least I'm not exaggerating to this degree, using dog-whistle language to suggest that Metro is going to pave over this regrowing clear-cut and install some kind of commercialized monstrosity for adrenaline junkies.

So, to paraphrase Billy Joel, I didn't start the fire; I didn't light it, but I tried to fight it.

[Charley]

Charley wrote:"Where else do you expect them to ride??"

A couple of miles further east on Highway 30 toward Scappoose is a mountain bike park in an old clear cut off Rocky Point Road. I suggest you check it out.

When I hear statements like this, I always imagine telling hikers "You don't actually need to hike in Forest Park, because Mt Hood National Forest is just 30 miles away." Do you think that would go over well? Is it really a good principle? Would you be fine if Metro said you'll never be able to hike at the Burlington Property again because Forest Park is nearby and you should go there instead?

I have ridden at Rocky Point, years ago before the NWTA system. As Bobcat pointed out, it's not a public park, free for all to enjoy. It's also about 6 miles further north.

More to the point, Metro is thinking about purchasing Rocky Point. . . which makes a lot of riders wary.
https://bikeportland.org/2022/02/07/nw- ... isk-348195

Outcry from neighborhood leaders (thank, Jalapeno!) has tanked equitable trail access plans in Forest Park, Riverview Park, and the Burlington Property in recent years. Given that crappy history, we are concerned that, as soon as Metro buys Rocky Point and puts it into conservation, we would no longer be able to ride there.

It's a sad day when the incentive structure for a group of outdoorsy people is to be cautious of plans to create public parks, out of worry that access will be curtailed, paradoxically, when the property becomes public. In other words, if mountain bike advocates are incentivized to lobby against conservation efforts, we have structured our system very, very poorly.

We should all be rowing the boat together, away from logging and McMansion development in the Tualatin Mountains. Instead, we have homeowners and hikers fighting mountain bikers.

Please don't try to convince me that your group wouldn't oppose mountain bike access at Rocky Point. I've seen this game too many times, in Forest Park, Riverview, and now at Burlington. Well-meaning public servants try to create equitable plans, but at the last moment, there's always some reason we are excluded.

cb.jpeg (26.03 KiB) Viewed 1119 times

[retired jerry]

yeah, it seems like if hikers and bikers cooperated they could get more done than separately

a biker on a narrow trail with hikers is a problem but there must be some way to co-exist

kind of like how hunters and hikers or horses and hikers could cooperate

I haven't biked in years, or ever ridden a horse or hunted but I've gone by all of these without problem

[Aimless]

My sense of the issue is that, if you view it through the lens of various groups vying to have their interests served, then I think the best answer to the conflicts between hikers and mtn bikers is to provide mtn bikers who want to ride fast, with jumps, swerves and jolts with dedicated trails designed specifically for that use. They deserve places to ride that way. But because that specific kind of riding focuses pretty much exclusively on the intensity of the challenges of the trail/terrain , as opposed to the peace or beauty of the surroundings, I prefer that such trails are best 'cut into' less pristine areas where whooping, hollering, speeding bikers can enjoy their fun without disturbing wildlife.

This is not to say that all mtn bikers like to thrill ride every time they hit the trail. I think there should also be trails where they can ride more slowly and peacefully, in safe cooperation with hikers, where the terrain itself doesn't permit them to speed along, so there's generally space and an easy pace allowing hikers, their abundant dogs, and bikers co-exist with little friction or danger.

When I view the question through the lens of humans and wildlife competing to have their interests served, it is clear to me that wildlife need spaces where human intrusions are few. Trying shoehorn human recreation and wildlife protection into the same space will always put the wildlife at a disadvantage. We're just too disruptive and dangerous, especially for any creature not having wings. They need their own protected spaces.

It seems obvious that hikers and bikers need to cooperate to save spaces for trails and non-motorized recreation. That can only work when both groups have a clear idea of each others needs, including where they coincide and where they diverge, so that agreements can be set that allow everyone's needs to be met. But, like marriages, those decisions can't be arrived at just by measuring who wants to get their way the most. That just starts squabbles that can't end without resentment.

[Charley]

It seems obvious that hikers and bikers need to cooperate to save spaces for trails and non-motorized recreation. That can only work when both groups have a clear idea of each others needs, including where they coincide and where they diverge, so that agreements can be set that allow everyone's needs to be met. But, like marriages, those decisions can't be arrived at just by measuring who wants to get their way the most. That just starts squabbles that can't end without resentment.

I think I agree with everything you've written.

As to cooperation, I think NWTA and mountain bike riders in general would be far more accepting of some trail exclusions in the Tualatin Mountains if the opposition and government agencies were not so opposed to every single trail access plan that has ever been offered.

The opposition campaigns have thwarted equitable trail access so many different times and places, using a constantly shifting set of factors:

• Southern Forest Park is a highly impacted landscape, but it's too crowded, so mtb use is unsafe

• Northern Forest Park is uncrowded, but it's too pristine a landscape, so mtb use is bad for the environment

• Riverview is salmon habitat (this one really makes me laugh)

• Burlington Property has endangered species (it's a regrowing clearcut in between a US highway, a state highway, a rock quarry, and a suburban neighborhood)

In other words, by saying NO to every single idea, even if it necessitates coming up with new determining factors in each case, the opposition have shrunken the compromise space to nothing.

Many years ago, I realized that this kaleidoscope of shifting reasons for exclusion just pointed to one thing: some hikers, birdwatchers, and conservation advocates just don't like mountain bike riders. Whether it's the whooping and hollering culture some riders bring to the trails, or bad personal experiences (we've all been passed rudely by someone on a bike, even if it just happened on a walk across the Hawthorne Bridge), there's a deep well of ill-feeling in these debates: "you don't belong here."

Honestly, that's fine! I get annoyed with snowshoers (they clump up my pristine ski tracks), drone pilots, and kids who listen to loud music on trail. But I think we go off the rails when we spend time and energy to shift land management against other user groups, rather than focus on real threats, like the exurban single family home development and logging that have torn up the Tualatin Mountains.

Fighting out-of-control clearcutting and suburban sprawl is daunting and frustrating! Bike riders are an easier target, for sure.