IGX

This documentary goes into the conflicts and issues involved in mountain biking and trails on public land in the greater PNW. It's essentially a documentary in three parts-- the first goes into the conflicts between groups (primarily the forest service, environmental activists, and mountain bike trail builders and riders); the second highlights areas where the three have worked to successfully set up networks of well constructed trails; the third is about the benefits of doing things the 'right' way.

The first part was curious-- it presents the forest service as understaffed and hampered by a bureaucratic process, well organized and focused environmental activists (that want to keep forests pristine), and dedicated cyclists who totally just want to ride.

The first part was the worst part, filled with buzzwords like 'create a dialogue' and very little substance, with the big environmental lobby as an omni-powerful outside force (that the filmmakers never talked to FWIW). It was bad enough I wanted to stop watching. Contrasted with the second part, it's almost like the director was trying to make everyone in the first part look bad.

The last part is a PSA for cycling's environmental benefits-- it takes a village or something. That part's short.

Bottom line-- light on facts, but well shot mountain bike sequences. Why environmental groups really opposed mountain bike trails was never explained or seriously attempted; also why they didn't oppose trail building in the other areas-- this is a huge flaw. Logging is evil, but wood is the primary material for a lot of the trails. If you like mountain biking, and can stomach the first half, the rest is pretty cool.

Turdacious wrote:This documentary goes into the conflicts and issues involved in mountain biking and trails on public land in the greater PNW. It's essentially a documentary in three parts-- the first goes into the conflicts between groups (primarily the forest service, environmental activists, and mountain bike trail builders and riders); the second highlights areas where the three have worked to successfully set up networks of well constructed trails; the third is about the benefits of doing things the 'right' way.

The first part was curious-- it presents the forest service as understaffed and hampered by a bureaucratic process, well organized and focused environmental activists (that want to keep forests pristine), and dedicated cyclists who totally just want to ride.

The first part was the worst part, filled with buzzwords like 'create a dialogue' and very little substance, with the big environmental lobby as an omni-powerful outside force (that the filmmakers never talked to FWIW). It was bad enough I wanted to stop watching. Contrasted with the second part, it's almost like the director was trying to make everyone in the first part look bad.

The last part is a PSA for cycling's environmental benefits-- it takes a village or something. That part's short.

Bottom line-- light on facts, but well shot mountain bike sequences. Why environmental groups really opposed mountain bike trails was never explained or seriously attempted; also why they didn't oppose trail building in the other areas-- this is a huge flaw. Logging is evil, but wood is the primary material for a lot of the trails. If you like mountain biking, and can stomach the first half, the rest is pretty cool.

Turd, I've spent a fair amount of time in Oregon parks and saw that horse trails and riders are everywhere. Do horses get a pass from the forest rangers since they are natural vs. mechanically driven? I personally don't give two shits about mountain bikers except when they're using same paths as hikers.

AFAIK they are only allowed on certain specified trails-- it's more common for them to be allowed on trails E of the Cascades.

I agree with you-- MTBers and hikers should have their own trails, especially since a lot of hikers are out there with kids.