However, Cindy riding that bit of short grass on a slope is apparently not in the future... see how the wildlife, other users, and hill itself are suffering? That's right, I don't see it either. Cause that's not what's actually happening...
It's concerning to me though all these new signs up about eliminating 200km of trails and preserving the park in a natural state. For the record, I'm not "anti preservation" or "anti naturalist". But I'm also not a slave to bugs, grass and birds which have habitat all around the city, the prairie, etc. at the expense of having utilitarian recreation opportunities within the city. The mere presence of a trail does not decimate a species.
The friends of Nose Hill support the view of only allowing bikes on surfaced trails (http://fonhs.org/, click on the principles list), city seems to be going that way. My view is paying taxes to pave paths up there, then only riding on those, is a net waste of my taxpayer dollars, so I'm not a fan of this. There's plenty of stupid, damaging trails up there like when kids shovel out huge jumps in poor spots, but there's also plenty of mostly well placed and structurally sound ones. Removal of 200k of trail seems ridiculous. Remove some portion of the worst ones, upgrade small sections of the ones with some problem areas, and let me have a recreation area.
Dogs shitting all over and chasing porcupines, coyotes and deer are way more of an impact than people riding bikes, but of course dog walkers are a constituency that's hard to argue against cause they're just so suburban positive man's best friend all that jazz that they can't ever be wrong. Let's also keep in mind that dogs don't feel obligated to restrain themselves to paved paths only, they'll go chase birds though the grass at will.
If there's an inherent necessity to reclaim, let's put the first few million bucks to the scars of the old gravel pit that's a true eyesore and damage to the landscape vs. ribbons of trail... seriously people.
Support riding there. Support the Calgary Mountain Bike Alliance.
http://www.cmbalink.com/nosehillfaq.html
On a broader scale, I wish municipalities would understand that Canada has a global competitive advantage in mountain biking. We have been product and sport innovators since the start of the sport. We have globally competitive riders. We have a natural landscape that fosters us to become leaders in this sport for years to come, in ways that are entirely compatible with societal multi use and preservation of landscape. The sport (and its brethren of two wheeled derivatives) is part of the global answer to fitness, health, aging, lifestyle choice, congestion, traffic, community, noise issues, emissions and more. Crummy trails and rude users are an issue, but just like the dufuses who hit from behind in hockey or the guys who ride motorcycles 300km/h weaving in and out of traffic on publich highways, those people are the exception not the rule. We each have access as taxpayers to the natural environments of Canada in non-destructive ways, and that's a right I will continue to assert.
Some of the Nose Hill guiding principles are to work with all interest groups. That's good. Bicyles are in those guiding principles singled out (ie. other user groups are not singled out... hmm... bias?), to be:
Bicycles shall be restricted to:
◦Surfaced trails on all sloped areas.
◦The majority of the top of the hill.
◦The majority of the gravel pit. (The unrestricted use of bicycles in the gravel pit, is to be monitored and, if necessary, restrictions may need to be introduced after public consultation)
So to me this has two major implications. The "top of the hill" and "on surfaced trails" seems to favour Edgemont grannies on paths image more than people who "actually ride bikes". Why can't it be understood that a huge utility of a giant hill park is the hill itself? Riding hills is the best fitness inducer we could all use more of. Top athletes in the province use that hill to train on all the time, and do so in a manner that isn't removing the hill, or it species, from enjoyment by current other users or future generations.
A Canadian city that prides itself on the great outdoors and recreation should be supportive of more cycling venues, not less. At the very least Fish Creek, Nose Hill, the COP "east lands" (speaking of another can of worms with groups expressing desire for big box development... sheesh. Thanks Nenshi though for talking sense there), and a corridor to Cochrane should be encouraged rather than discouraged as cycling venues open to residents.
The fact of the matter is minority interests who organize themselves get things done. Cyclists aren't often on top of that heap. Cows can go into K-Country on provincial "park" land to eat, even though they don't care about mountain vistas versus prairie grass. Loggers assert their rights to log in "parks" that are created for some version of "preservation". Those issues all exist, and "pristine" is rare near cities. Striving for a Nose Hill that aims for pristine over practical is hypocritical and false logic. Some parks are for the birds and the bees. Some parks are for the people, and by history, location and luck, Nose Hill is one of those.
No comments:
Post a Comment