Warning! Smith Creek Flume Trail

[cv23]

You and others have stated that there have been ditches, mounds created, and trees fallen to limit access to the property so clearly the owner is actively taking measures to block traffic through his property yet while you say you and others would respect such actions you clearly are not doing so are you?.
Why should it be acceptable for your group to break the law and trespass on private property while for another group, the dirtbikers, it should not be acceptable? What if instead of a log across the narrow trail on a blind corner which you are travelling to fast to avoid it is a group of hikers? Why should it be acceptable for you to be an unsafe hazard that could injure or kill them? Sadly because of the different rates of speed each group travels sharing a trail is not a very wise or safe idea, hence the laws restricting bicycle riding, or vehicle operation on pedestian sidewalks. You state that these trails have been in existence for decades which is many years before offroad cycles, dirtbikes or quads were even invented. If anyone should be shown preference or granted exclusive use of these trails then you must admit it should be the hikers who were the group which origionally established these trails.
You question that one user group creating hazards to restrict access by another group is wrong and on principle I agree with you. I would also like to remind you that one user group (probably the owner themselves) has created hazards to deter use of the property by another user group and you almost applaud those actions but take offense when your groups access is limited or restricted by obstacles. Seems a bit two-faced doesn't it?
You also say that the amount of garbage found in the area has been reduced since restriction of the 4x4 group. Reduced but not eliminated so obviously the remaining user groups are still creating damage to the property. In addition to illegally being on the property this damage is also a violation of the property owners rights. Can you state without a doubt that no mtn biker is guilty of damaging the property? Maybe its the dirt bikes and quaders or even the hikers? Logic says if limiting access to one group reduces the damage but not eliminates it then limiting access to another group will help even more. That should without a doubt be the remaining motorized users. Please remember though that if you agree with this and the damage still persists, and we all know it will, your pedal powered group will/should be the next on the list to lose access.

[Steve-O]

You and others have stated that there have been ditches, mounds created, and trees fallen to limit access to the property so clearly the owner is actively taking measures to block traffic through his property yet while you say you and others would respect such actions you clearly are not doing so are you?. The areas being blocked are in Smith Creek. Yes, a few are going around or over the obstacles, judging by the size of the tracks, likely dirt bikes or quads. Area we are attempting to discuss here is a few kilometers north.
Why should it be acceptable for your group to break the law and trespass on private property while for another group, the dirtbikers, it should not be acceptable? Not what I said CV. Please do not twist my wordsWhat if instead of a log across the narrow trail on a blind corner which you are travelling to fast to avoid it is a group of hikers? Why should it be acceptable for you to be an unsafe hazard that could injure or kill them? Sadly because of the different rates of speed each group travels sharing a trail is not a very wise or safe idea, hence the laws restricting bicycle riding, or vehicle operation on pedestian sidewalks. You state that these trails have been in existence for decades which is many years before offroad cycles, dirtbikes or quads were even invented. If anyone should be shown preference or granted exclusive use of these trails then you must admit it should be the hikers who were the group which origionally established these trails. Trail exists due to the flume. A hiker or biker is much more visible than a log or rock.
You question that one user group creating hazards to restrict access by another group is wrong and on principle I agree with you. I would also like to remind you that one user group (probably the owner themselves) has created hazards to deter use of the property by another user group and you almost applaud those actions but take offense when your groups access is limited or restricted by obstacles. Seems a bit two-faced doesn't it? I think we have established that it is not the property owners. If an owner didn't want users on the flume (assuming it crossing private land which has not been confirmed) would they not do as the owner over at Smith has done and put up proper barricades and sign it?
You also say that the amount of garbage found in the area has been reduced since restriction of the 4x4 group.Quite sure I didn't assign blame here Reduced but not eliminated so obviously the remaining user groups are still creating damage to the property. In addition to illegally being on the property this damage is also a violation of the property owners rights. Can you state without a doubt that no mtn biker is guilty of damaging the property? I have yet to meet a mtn biker that can carry multiple bags of garbage, old tires and pallets on their bike, but no I can't state it and there are rotten apples in every groupMaybe its the dirt bikes and quaders or even the hikers? Logic says if limiting access to one group reduces the damage but not eliminates it then limiting access to another group will help even more. No one is talking about eliminating user groups, you are drifting a bit hereThat should without a doubt be the remaining motorized users. Please remember though that if you agree with this and the damage still persists, and we all know it will, your pedal powered group will/should be the next on the list to lose access.???You've gone on quite the tangent here CV and lost me

Feel free to reply or not CV. I am not interested in continuing this with you. You may not call your responses trolling but playing devils advocate and twisting others statements around comes very close to the definition in my books.

[cv23]

So reminding others of the law is trolling and answering questions posed is trolling too????? Sounds like by your definition all posting is trolling which places you in the troll catagory too now doesn't it. Its called a discussion and because someone disagrees with you does not make them a troll but just someone with a different opinion.

What do you want? Everyone to agree that you should be allowed to ride on property you don't own or control with no risk of personal injury so you can better enjoy a sport with a high risk of personal injury?
These are hiking trails and have been in existance for decades as you pointed out. Have you ever considered that the presence of mtn bikes on hiking trails poses a risk of injury to the hikers? That a hiker rounding a "blind" corner to find a mtn bike and rider hurtling at high speed towards them is probably equal in risk of personal injury to you rounding that same "blind" corner on your bike to encounter a rock or log?

[logman]

Try again w/o the name calling. Trip.

[Steve-O]

Hope you had a good weekend CV.

Nope, you do not need to agree with me. I think we have both been answering each others points over and over. Maybe one of us is insane eh?

If there was a clear sign I was trespassing using the flume trail, I would stay off. Vigilante action of dragging forest debris across a trail is just that; vigilante action. A property owner over at Smith has not only put ditches and berms in place, last week he posted numerous signs, so while that area is more popular with the dirtbike crowd, I would park and start my rides from a corner of the field, I now park further up the road to respect his request.

The post that re-opened this thread was asking who and why are the trails getting blocked. That question still remains unanswered. I have my opinions but I think I'll keep them to myself.

[fluid power]

I agree, that all riders should ride in control and be able to stop in time to avoid an object or person. My original point was that unnecessary obstacles are annoying and potentially dangerous and will not solve the issue. Why create an unnecessary hazard/annoyances.

Also, we've neglected to mention, that the owner (at his discretion) could disallow certain user groups and not others. They could allow hikers, horseback riders, mtn bikers, and ban motorized vehicles. Most complaining in the media and on this forum seems to revolve around motorized vehicles. I know that because there was somebody complaining about the noise, council had requested that the owners construct fences to stop the motorcyclists and quaders.

http://globalnews.ca/news/253911/video- ... t-kelowna/

My hunch is that the person complaining is also the the one laying obstacles out. It would be a shame if the owner closed it to everyone because of complaints about motorized vehicles.

[cv23]

http://globalnews.ca/news/253911/video- ... t-kelowna/
It would be a shame if the owner closed it to everyone because of complaints about motorized vehicles.

Thanks fluid
Pretty much gives a clear description of what is private property or crown and states at the end that at least last summer trails were being blocked by someone with the authority to do so.
In all fairness to the mtn bike crowd it clearly points the finger for the damage being done to the riparian areas at the motorized trespassers.

[fluid power]

I think that the council Asked the owners to block access to the area. I know for a fact that since this aired, no action has been taken to block access.

[fluid power]

I was up there once again today...I noticed some new signs "Private Property No Trespassing". I obeyed the signs. I'm not sure if it was the owner who put them though....there has been a rash of fraudulent signs being posted in the area.

I'd still really like to talk to the owners....

[mr.bandaid]

Thanks for the clarification CV.

The trail in question is the flume trail that can be used to get from Tallus Ridge/Shannon Lake area to Smith Creek. This trail has been in use for many, many years for this. I do not know that this trail crosses private land. If it does, the owners have never fenced, signed or indicated in any other fashion that they do not want people crossing over on foot, horseback, bicycle, quad or motorbike. Does this imply consent? Maybe. Maybe not. I would think that if there was indication the owner was fed up and steps taken to block traffic, people would respect that. If you have been on the flume trail, you would know that any of the above mentioned methods of travel have no impact on the trail as it was established decades ago.

The issue raised by Fluid however, is that dirtbikes and quads are feeling the need to challenge their riding skills on pristine wilderness surrounding the flume trail and are cutting new trails up the sides of hills within metres of existing trails. The cuts they leave are significant and may grow deeper with erosion. It would be my guess that this leads to the second issue Fluid mentions and that was the fact a few individuals (not the property owners) are taking drastic action and throwing debris at the bottom of steep hills or around blind corners creating extreme hazards.

So CV, you have made it clear you feel trespassing is bad. I agree as do others. What are your thoughts on issues raised? Does frustration with a user group reason for another to take matters in their own hands and create hazards that could potentially harm or even kill?

Not entirely true. The property was actually fenced a couple of years back and subsequently ripped down by people on quads. Saw them doing that with my own eyes. Most of the metal flumes are gone now and just the wood they sat on remain. Who ever is placing the wood across the trails is just adding to the problem as the quads and bikes just make a new trail around thus destroying more environmentally sensitve forest. Still a beauty place to stroll in the morning, the evening not so much as it can get a bit noisy up there.

[logman]

No worriers about the quiet mountain bikers. Just head up the road and see what a huge mess they have been making. It's an embarrassment.

[Steve-O]

Did a mountain biker steal your girl or something Logman?

[Steve-O]

Ahhh, just trolling you a bit Logman. Its been quiet up there this year for dirtbikers. Maybe because the number of ditches and berms put up around many of the access points to the big field. That has also helped limit the number of losers coming up and dumping.

MTBco hosts a regular Toonie ride up there and due to the no motorized vehicles signage up for the big field, they sought landowners permission and found that the field anyways, is held by a numbered company in Vancouver. In talking to the district, the feeling was the landowners further up may be doing the work to limit motorized traffic. Again, unconfirmed just the vibe from the district, the feeling being that as long as the various user groups stick to the already existing trails, than all is well and good.

Ride on.

[logman]

I don't dislike mountain bikers. I just don't like the illegal construction and the enevitable decay of ramps and such that never gets cleaned up. The building of illegal jumps and landing ramps. I have not been up to smith creek much this year. Only to reach the higher elevation do I ride through the area. I still get the stink eye from residents even with a licence plate,insurance,moto license and respect for private property. No hard feelings Steve o. The trash dumping,grow op losers are the problem. As are the fire pit garbage burning,couch dumpers. What is wrong with people?

[logman]

The field has signage now? That area was great for families and kids learning to ride moto and bikes alike. Too bad the trash dumpers and mud bogging has ruined that.