Jump to content
The timing of this article is unfortunate. Much better detail is likely coming very soon. This has been a really long time in the making. Thanks for the hard work of all those involved with the easements and approvals. It looks like the County really stepped up here. There are some issues on the City side of things to get people to this trail that need some attention asap. This is definately not just a mountain biking trail. Measuring its use should not be hard.
This does not address Buff Pass, but USFS went through a planning process on Rabbit Ears Pass a little while back and they plan to improve winter (snowmobile) access pretty significantly on Rabbit Ears Pass. Likely more info somewhere lost in a government website! http://co.grand.co.us/668/Rabbit-Ears-Pass-Winter-Parking-Project
We typo'ed the email address in the first email Routt County Riders sent out.
All the info can be seen here (including ways to comment): http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-YT4GMHkidBvgAI6EdIeDXIvfdrAJuM3388jPTdUvyA2NMMgyUQQAyrgQmg!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfS000MjZOMDcxT1RVODBJN0o2MTJQRDMwODQ!/?project=46247
That is my personal opinion too. Rabbit Ears will be the area that sees really high use if that area enters the planning process, and trails are approve/built. I hear there are more hurdles over there that will take time and it is not the top priority for USFS.
Just because the Buff Pass area is the top priority for the USFS, does not mean the 2A Trails committee will be paying for all or even some of the proposed trails in the above plan. I suspect some but not all trails that are approved up there will be funded by the 2A Trails Committee, but that likely will not be known until the trails are approved.
The Buff Pass trails had bike traffic into mid November last year. The USFS is also working on a trail capacity study before they permit businesses to drop off riders to ride downhill. Requests for permits like that have been sitting around for many years. This process has "inspired" USFS to tackle that project too. There are a number of businesses and similarly the Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club that are waiting for these permits and would likely use Buff Pass trails and many other USFS trails if they were allowed.
Snowmobile group based in Milliken, CO & a group that appears to be focused on wilderness based out of Nederland, CO. Both twisting the facts to further their agendas.
Please take a minute to reach out to the CPW office locally. They have been involved with this proposal from the start.
The part that bothers me most is that outside special interest groups think they know better how the land near Steamboat should be managed than those living, working and playing here. Inaccurate information is currently being spread by those with extreme views on both sides of the fence. In my opinion, the extreme views of outside special interest groups is what should bother people in and around Steamboat Springs more than anything else.
They have not shown they have built the existing unauthorized trails well.
It is my understanding that there are many sections of the existing unauthorized trails up there that have resource impacts. They (USFS staff and resource specialists) will be evaluating how best to address those impacts this summer.
There are some sections of the trails that have unique features (rocks, views etc.) that will likely be incorporated into an authorized trail if one is approved.
Building anything on public land without approval should not be acceptable to anyone. The time it takes to get approvals is unfortunate, but it does end up creating an end product that will likely provide better access and minimize any real or perceived impacts to the environment.
I think RCR knows its role just fine. The day RCR takes the extremist interpretation (likely you included) of the two abreast portion of the law that "other cyclists in town" is the day I walk away from the club. Send a memo to paper with your lawyers interpretation of the current cycling laws in the form of a letter to the editor if you think RCR's advocacy approach is the wrong one. Advocacy is about working with other user groups not giving them the finger.
Pat you are right that I should not have said "3 feet". I should have said a "safe distance". I interpreted the safe distance to be 3 feet when a cyclist is involved in a passing situation with a motor vehicle. It sounds like you don't think the minimum 3 feet is needed to be a safe distance when it is the cyclist passing a vehicle. But, it does sound like you appreciate the required 3 feet when it is a vehicle passing a cyclist. Seems a little hypocritical to me. I absolutely agree that cyclist are there own worst enemy, but I think it comes down those who break the law and those who interpret the law to the extreme.
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.