Trail building etiquette...a discussion

[trail worker]

I decided to write this just to vent some of the opinions i have..i am not trying to force any of my beliefs about trail building or any standards i go by when building,but i just created this thread as a place to discuss things of the like.
My views on things are this...i believe in cutting live trees up to an extent,nailing into live trees(as long as galvanised ardox nails are used) and building stunts as solidly as possible.
I know that a lot of people on this board believe that live trees should never be used and trees should never be nailed into.My reasoning is this...we had a meeting with the local forestry and recreational departments a little while back.they decided it would be in our best interest;if we were going to build stunts, to use live wood and nail into live trees(forestry was ok with this). just so long as the structures were build with quality and safety in mind,they agreed to turn a blind eye. Now,a lot of you dont agree with cutting of live trees,but,the way i look at it, the forest has many trees, and it is not going to diminish the forest if i "steal" a couple right?
nailing into live trees is a little harder to justify,but i like to keep things strong and solid...nailing into a live tree is one of the easiest ways to do this.
these are jsut my opinions,remember,so dont get mad at me for them!
regards,Julien(trail worker)

[ATN]

Cutting trees would be okay if they were in your way. Always build solid.

[couch@nsmb.com]

This really depends on where you are building. Here on the Coast there is so much Cedar that is lieing on the forest floor that you would have to be plain lazy to not hunt it down and use that. I don't build with any other type of wood so my knowledge is limited when it comes to those.

As for nailing into live trees, I really try not to.

Couch

[Sharon]

Where you live you can get away with it, where there are more people and more riders and more builders it could potentially get out of control. Are youbuilding on Crown land or public land?


If you've talked to forestry and they're ok with it, then use your best judgement. In places where the land owners are not ok with it, respect their wishes.

If you must build, overbuild. Even the best built structure has 3-5 years of life before it has to be maintained. Wood just doesn't last as long. The best rock work never has to be maintained since it will last for as long as we'll be riding.

Make sure to fill in those holes!

Addenum;
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcact/part5-4.htm

Forest Practices Code of BC Act

96. (1) A person must not cut, damage or destroy Crown timber unless authorized to do so

103. A person must not
(a) drive or place any nail, spike or other potentially hazardous object into any timber that the person does not own or is not authorized to alter,

[bullit_kid]

Im going to find cedar this weekend.

[Pat T.®]

One reason I find think nailing into live tees is bad is we have wind, wind makes the trees move around. Moving objects are not good to nail into if you want a solid structure. I know that you are not at the tops of the tree where they move the most, but they do in fact move around. Course we could discuss this till we a blue in the face......some people will always feel their way is better (I suppose myself included...LOL). But like Sharon said, if you can get away with it....well it's up to you :beer:

[LostBoyScout]

To me it's not what I believe in, but what the local forestry dept or whomever is in charge of the forest in question is okay with.

I don't personally think using a few live trees matters. Thousands are cut down per day, and often for trivial uses. As long as they are used efficiently. But if whoever is in charge of the land says no, that means no.

Good point on the wind thing btw. Never thought of that.

[Putty]

i cut down small trees that are in my way, and use them as stringers. I only do this if I absolutely have to.

i don't nail anything into live trees, like couch said, there is a lot of deadfall on the shore, and if you plan ahead before cutting up logs for shingles, you can leave yourself sections that are longer than you are going to need for shingles. Then you can take these long pieces of cedar, split them and make beams. We make ours about 4 by 4 (but they don't have to be square) and use these for supports for structures. It is a bit more work than building something on a live tree, but its a small price to pay.

i am also somewhat careful about moving any rocks and logs on the actuall trail. Obviously if I am building a down ramp, and it flows perfectly back into the A line of trail, but there is a rock in the way or a log sticks into the path, i will cut/move it. But for the most part I leave the trail untouched.

Another thing to watch for is difficulty of compulsory stunts. If you are building on an intermediate trail, do not put huge stunts that are manditory to get down the trail. Poeple will have to walk and will hate you. Match the skill level of the stunts to the traditional skill level of the trail. You can always add optional stuff and make it bigger to provide people with a challenge.

[trail worker]

good to see that people are willing to discuss this topic instead of just getting out of hand with it...
i agree that when possible,blown down cedars should be used as stringers, but in my area they are not as plentiful as on the shore, so it is somewhat dificult to find washed/blown down stringer stringers.As i said,im not lazy so if they are available,i will use them but if none can be found, I find no harm in taking a few selectively chosen stringers from the forest(as someone said,millions are taken down everyday and there isnt nearly as much of an outrage made as what there should be).
An interesting point was brought forth with the wind factor(thanks Pat).i think that this is good to take into consideration if the tree is small in diameter or if you are building high up,but if you are nailing no more that 5-7 feet up a 4 foot thick tree,i dont think that the wind will have much of an impact.
I know all about maintenance of stunts and trail(rocking etc.) and agree that if you are not going to upkeep a trail,why buiold one in the first place?
alot of good points were brought up already,some wich i had never considered(again with the wind Pat)!

[switch]

I believe that the existing trails should be maintained before anything new is added. That means filling in ruts before adding ladder drops, replacing rotting rungs, and putting in good/proper drainage. Unfortunately, this seems to not always be the case.

As for the use of live trees, a lot of effort should be put into not cutting down live trees. That means use fallen trees, or take down one that's already going to come down (and isn't rotten). If you have to use a live tree, take it from an innocuous area of the forest. You can argue that there are thousands of trees cut down every day, but that isn't going to mean squat if some anti MTB person finds a fresh stump next to a new ladder. Just one piece of bad publicity ruins a hundred pieces of good publicity.

[trail worker]

Originally posted by switch
I believe that the existing trails should be maintained before anything new is added. That means filling in ruts before adding ladder drops, replacing rotting rungs, and putting in good/proper drainage. Unfortunately, this seems to not always be the case.

that is a good point for peopl who live in vancouver/lower mainland but where i live there are no other trails to be maintained...there are xc trails galore but they have the sprockids XC club fixing those trails up every so often(and yes, i have helped on those trail days too).
The neccesity to build larger and harder trails is obvious in a lot of areas(such as sunshine coast and some interior BC locations). Up here, there are also not very many "freeride" trails per-say, so it is nice that some new ones are coming up to cater to the growing niche of bigger is better.

[switch]

Originally posted by trail worker
Up here, there are also not very many "freeride" trails per-say, so it is nice that some new ones are coming up to cater to the growing niche of bigger is better.

And we have the opposite problem. Ned's is a XC trail. We don't have any nice XC trails on the north shore. Some single track would be nice too.

[Sharon]

Originally posted by switch
And we have the opposite problem. Ned's is a XC trail. We don't have any nice XC trails on the north shore. Some single track would be nice too.

That's why we go ride Elphinstone!!

[Grimace]

Originally posted by Sharon
That's why we go ride Elphinstone!!
lol we are the opposite we go to the shore to ride real trials

[Ah-Choo]

Nailing into live trees has always been a contentious issue. I can only speak about discussions I have had with North Vancouver Staff on this issue.

North Van District, and any forward thinking land manager looks at the sustainability of the area both from an ecological and a financial point of view. Selective Silvaculture, while not viable now with log prices as they are, is starting to catch the eyes of District Staffers as a solution for the long term to issues surrounding urban parks and their financial and ecological sustainability.

Unfortunately a 10" Galvanized spike in an old growth Cedar tree renders it effectively useless even if its been in there for fifty years. Ordinarily Trees cut from urban areas will have the bottom 10ft removed to prevent spikes from making it to saw mills where they can cause catastrophic damage to the mill as well as the mill workers, but on the north shore quite often the nails are above the 10ft mark. Removing 20% of a 100 foot cedar (not to mention the most valuable 20%) seriously effects the value of the log, and thus the incentive to maintain these areas as park land.

Land managers are constantly juggling the present value of land for development vs. potential future value (incl. recreational use, value of future timber. Councils are always looking at the bottom line when it comes to land holdings. When mountain biking is regularily spoiling logs that could have significant value, it makes it difficult for them to justify protecting existing trails...not to mention the ecological benefits of thinning the forest after a hundred years of total fire suppression...

Bottom line is that a few nails can spoil a whole forest for selective silvaculture, effectively making it a lose-lose situation ecologically and financially for the entire forest. In fifty years will you be able to pick out the trees with the nails in them. I don't suspect a logger will be able to either.

Just my 2 cents...

[Norman]

Originally posted by Grimace
lol we are the opposite we go to the shore to ride real trials

actually i ride both xc and shore style and i have to say that xc singletrack IS real trails as much as a good flowy shore stuff. there is nothing like epic XC with sweet winding singletrack. :)

[switch]

Originally posted by Sharon
That's why we go ride Elphinstone!!

You should try Snowden up in Campbell River. Awesome trails.

[Grimace]

Originally posted by Blaine
actually i ride both xc and shore style and i have to say that xc singletrack IS real trails as much as a good flowy shore stuff. there is nothing like epic XC with sweet winding singletrack. :)
all our trials were built buy old men who build "insane stunts" one foot off the ground

a few of us are building some insane and progressive trails

plus im not built to go up hill

[Norman]

Originally posted by Grimace
all our trials were built buy old men who build "insane stunts" one foot off the ground


hahahaha that made me laugh :lol:

[bullit_kid]

Good point Ah-Choo

nailing trees is bad, cant we all just make dirt jumps :rolleyes:

[trail worker]

Originally posted by Grimace
all our trials were built buy old men who build "insane stunts"

yeah tennyson but you must admit that Graham Macdonald has some serious trail building skill...when you look at the stuff he has built it is always done PRIMO...and it is always very well thought out~even tho cunning stunts is easy as pie,it still has a ridiculous amount of flow for a trail that combines nearly a kilometer of bridge and logride together without touching the ground,i htink that he was the first person to build a suspension brige to be ridden on a bike trail also. Glen Ellingsworth is the same way....although he doesnt build much crazy stuff,he builds with quality...ive been building with him b4 and i can honestly say that I was impressed,plus, he is a chainsaw weilding maniac LOL...anyone who can carve their name in a foot long plank with a chainsaw gets my vote of honour!

[Reefer Ryder]

I agree with julien, i dont see a problem with taking a few small trees down. But if your going around cutting down 3-4 foot wide trees thats sorta questionable. Its not like a few trees will change anything its just more the thought you know? Like why kill something thats taken decades to grow just so you dont havto ride around it?? Just my thoughts, Cheers

PS the trailbuilding forum rules.
oh and good post!

[Taylor_P]

Originally posted by trail worker
yeah tennyson but you must admit that Graham Macdonald has some serious trail building skill...when you look at the stuff he has built it is always done PRIMO...and it is always very well thought out~even tho cunning stunts is easy as pie,it still has a ridiculous amount of flow for a trail that combines nearly a kilometer of bridge and logride together without touching the ground,i htink that he was the first person to build a suspension brige to be ridden on a bike trail also. Glen Ellingsworth is the same way....although he doesnt build much crazy stuff,he builds with quality...ive been building with him b4 and i can honestly say that I was impressed,plus, he is a chainsaw weilding maniac LOL...anyone who can carve their name in a foot long plank with a chainsaw gets my vote of honour!

i aggree with the above statment 100%, but graham was not the first to build a suspension bridge, it was done in nelson first. :) and yes glen is the king of the saw... ferns. :)

[Grimace]

Originally posted by CoffeeMan
i aggree with the above statment 100%, but graham was not the first to build a suspension bridge, it was done in nelson first. :) and yes glen is the king of the saw... ferns. :)
i never said they were bad at building stunts 1 foot off the ground lol

[Ah-Choo]

Originally posted by Reefer Ryder
I agree with julien, i dont see a problem with taking a few small trees down. But if your going around cutting down 3-4 foot wide trees thats sorta questionable. Its not like a few trees will change anything its just more the thought you know? Like why kill something thats taken decades to grow just so you dont havto ride around it?? Just my thoughts, Cheers

PS the trailbuilding forum rules.
oh and good post!

There are many problems with cutting the small trees down, particularly on the North Shore.

1) Most of the small trees taken are cedar. Fromme, since it was logged has become a primarily hemlock forest. Those hemlocks are starting to come down through natural attrition and if there are no strong cedars to fill the area of new light, hemlock will grow back, resulting in a continued lack of diversity. How many of you tree cutters are foresters and can make a knowledgeable decision on which trees NEED to be cut out?

2) As I said, forward looking land managers look to the value of the trees in 50+ years, right when these trees will be prime for selective silvaculture. Typically land owners are not happy when some-one removes their future $10, 000+ tree.

3) Live trees are not as strong or rot resistant as properly seasoned wood, particularly if the bark is left on. Houses are not built from green lumber, why should structures. There are plenty of standing, dry cedars that are dead, and are better building material hands down. It should be noted that these trees are valuable habitat as well, and should be selected from different areas so as to not denude the forest of standing deadwood.

The bottom line is that we are building on some-one elses land. Where did we ever get the idea that it was cool to destroy potentially valuable resource on their land?

[trail worker]

Originally posted by Ah-Choo
There are many problems with cutting the small trees down, particularly on the North Shore.

1) Most of the small trees taken are cedar. Fromme, since it was logged has become a primarily hemlock forest. Those hemlocks are starting to come down through natural attrition and if there are no strong cedars to fill the area of new light, hemlock will grow back, resulting in a continued lack of diversity. How many of you tree cutters are foresters and can make a knowledgeable decision on which trees NEED to be cut out?

2) As I said, forward looking land managers look to the value of the trees in 50+ years, right when these trees will be prime for selective silvaculture. Typically land owners are not happy when some-one removes their future $10, 000+ tree.

3) Live trees are not as strong or rot resistant as properly seasoned wood, particularly if the bark is left on. Houses are not built from green lumber, why should structures. There are plenty of standing, dry cedars that are dead, and are better building material hands down. It should be noted that these trees are valuable habitat as well, and should be selected from different areas so as to not denude the forest of standing deadwood.

The bottom line is that we are building on some-one elses land. Where did we ever get the idea that it was cool to destroy potentially valuable resource on their land?

I agree with you completely,but once again i suppose it comes down to the location of the said stunts/trails. As you pointed out, Fromme is a touchy place to be cutting live Cedars down becuse of how sparsely they populate the forest. However, if you were building in a location were cedars populate the vast majority of the forest, like on the Sunshine Coast(alot of wich are these "young" cedars wich you speak of), there is not a great issue with cutting a FEW down(from different areas of the forest of course), to build a structure. Nowhere was it mentioned that it was "cool" to cut down live trees,but in some areas(once again I will use the Sunshine Coast as an example), there are simply not a lot of standing cedars wich happen to be dead. We do not experience such heavy erosion and you do on the North Shore mountains,so threrefore not as many tree's roots are washed out,leading to a somewhat lacking supply of decent quality, dead cedars.

[Reefer Ryder]

Good points ach-oo im gonna go rethink my life.




lol ya im not talking about fromme either! And i dont care if i i knock a few bucks off a logging company. And maybe a lesson on what trees we should be cutting down, and which dead ones we should take? And the whole concept of land ownership is absurd. The land is for everyone.

[switch]

Originally posted by Ah-Choo
Houses are not built from green lumber, why should structures.

Sounds like you haven't worked in construction... :D ;)

[trail worker]

i have another thing to discuss....switchbacks...is it absolutely neccesary to build a switchback when the going gets steep andthe steep gets going?
I mean, in some places it is neccesary for drainage/erosion sake, but other times people just seem to throw in a few switchbacks to cut down on speed, why?

[Grimace]

Originally posted by trail worker
i have another thing to discuss....switchbacks...is it absolutely neccesary to build a switchback when the going gets steep andthe steep gets going?
I mean, in some places it is neccesary for drainage/erosion sake, but other times people just seem to throw in a few switchbacks to cut down on speed, why?
lol sidewinder

[trail worker]

Originally posted by Grimace
lol sidewinder
LOL my thoughts exactly

[switch]

Originally posted by trail worker
i have another thing to discuss....switchbacks...is it absolutely neccesary to build a switchback when the going gets steep andthe steep gets going?
I mean, in some places it is neccesary for drainage/erosion sake, but other times people just seem to throw in a few switchbacks to cut down on speed, why?

Maybe it has to do with the line. :???:

But most likely it has to do with an easy way down. Like on Leopard, or the Switchbacks on Seymour.

[Taylor_P]

Originally posted by trail worker
LOL my thoughts exactly

its funny as soon as i read your original post about sidewinder, before i read tennysons reply i was thinkin sidewinder too. and to top it off they are like 180degrees.... blah... :lol:

[Ah-Choo]

Originally posted by Reefer Ryder
Good points ach-oo im gonna go rethink my life.




lol ya im not talking about fromme either! And i dont care if i i knock a few bucks off a logging company. And maybe a lesson on what trees we should be cutting down, and which dead ones we should take? And the whole concept of land ownership is absurd. The land is for everyone.

Perhaps you should...

1) its not the logging company that necessarily loses, its the land owner, you know the guy who allows the trail to be there in the first place. Unfortunately land is not for any-ones use, we are "borrowing" that space from the land owner...Unfortunately that is the law, and I don't think that that is about to change...

2) I'm no forester so really, when it comes to cutting live trees your guess is as good as mine...The prime dead ones are solid right thru, barkless for the most part and usually have a crack along the length of them from drying out...

[Reefer Ryder]

Well I think live trees are much stronger then rotten, i mean felled ones.

And we should just keep up with renegade trails, not on fromme and coast mountains because well there closely watched. And fuck land owners, and fuck crown land!

[woodlot rider]

well i agree with alot of you,

what i do, is get a dead standing tree that is about 10" or so in diamiter and get about 4 of my buddies helping me build and run and jump on the tree and shake the shit out of it till it falls over.. then we blame it on the wind...
win both ways, if they find out u took it down at least it was dead. :D :p

[trail worker]

Originally posted by woodlot rider
well i agree with alot of you,

what i do, is get a dead standing tree that is about 10" or so in diamiter and get about 4 of my buddies helping me build and run and jump on the tree and shake the shit out of it till it falls over.. then we blame it on the wind...
win both ways, if they find out u took it down at least it was dead. :D :p

ahahahahha sounds similiar to some of the things we did in the past.:lol:

[Ah-Choo]

Originally posted by trail worker
ahahahahha sounds similiar to some of the things we did in the past.:lol:

Until we figured out that the tops snap off about ten feet down and come crashing down onto your head...

[Taylor_P]

Originally posted by Ah-Choo
Until we figured out that the tops snap off about ten feet down and come crashing down onto your head...


that has never happened to us, my brother and james(i think) came close once to that though...

[Grimace]

Originally posted by Ah-Choo
Until we figured out that the tops snap off about ten feet down and come crashing down onto your head...
no they jsut had hammer warz

[Taylor_P]

Originally posted by Grimace
no they jsut had hammer warz


hammer wars tennyson? i dont think you were there...

[Grimace]

Originally posted by CoffeeMan
hammer wars tennyson? i dont think you were there...
ive heard the grand tails of epic battels fought over uphill disasster

[Taylor_P]

Originally posted by Grimace
ive heard the grand tails of epic battels fought over uphill disasster

i am sorry my ill informed friend, for you must be mistaken, for i do belive that there were never any "grand tales", simply a short rather boring one about luke and james gettin ripped then chucking a hammer or two at each other, that is hardly enough to warrent the telling of a grand tale. moving on i see you described them as epic battles, well as i have all ready stated, it was simply the innocent throwing of a few hammers between two stoned children, which julien and i soon put an end to, simply because we did not feel like bandageing a head wound sustaned from a hammer... and the part of uphill disaster, well i wont argue it was up will and pretty much a disaster, but hey everyone has to learn some time. :)

later..

[Grimace]

Originally posted by CoffeeMan
i am sorry my ill informed friend, for you must be mistaken, for i do belive that there were never any "grand tales", simply a short rather boring one about luke and james gettin ripped then chucking a hammer or two at each other, that is hardly enough to warrent the telling of a grand tale. moving on i see you described them as epic battles, well as i have all ready stated, it was simply the innocent throwing of a few hammers between two stoned children, which julien and i soon put an end to, simply because we did not feel like bandageing a head wound sustaned from a hammer... and the part of uphill disaster, well i wont argue it was up will and pretty much a disaster, but hey everyone has to learn some time. :)

later..
that was a good epic story

[Taylor_P]

Originally posted by Grimace
that was a good epic story

i know... :)

[barry]

Originally posted by Grimace
all our trials were built buy old men who build "insane stunts" one foot off the ground

id rather ride well built, strong, tech, non scary shit than insane leaning tower of pizza

[B~ROTS]

trail worker wher abouts do you live?

[trail worker]

Originally posted by B~ROTS
trail worker wher abouts do you live?

at the liquor store...getting a boot.
actually,i live on teh sunshine coast,a flowering hotbed of well built trails,and stuff.:P

[B~ROTS]

o your lucky. if i built stuff on burke nailed into live trees m33p would brobably rip it down

[trail worker]

Originally posted by B~ROTS
o your lucky. if i built stuff on burke nailed into live trees m33p would brobably rip it down

unless John's changed his attitude since the last time i talked to him about this...(not very long ago), he wouldn't do anything...he agree's with the use of live wood...BUT...he is most likely holding back from using live stuff to protect the trail's from the scrutinous eye's of eco-nazi's...and quite frankly,i don't blame him.