You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Is anyone aware of any situations where Forestry England have reported unofficial trail builders to the Police, or at least threatened to do so?
(One of our local riders has had an odd conversation with an FE employee today).
Threatened? Yes. Done so? Not that I'm aware of.
Since lockdown I'm aware of a few SSI etc locally people have damaged and its caused a bit of a ruckus understandably.
Chance of anything coming of it is slim. Whether that means you should be digging or riding on land that's not yours is a different debate.
Yeah. Just seems to be an escalation in our neck of the woods. AFAIK said rider wasn't doing anything 'diggy' at the time...
Needs more info.
If they weren't digging and had been stopped on 'trespass' grounds, I think that's Civil and not Criminal law?
Always better to have a conversation with the landowner, especially Forestry England. Wild trail building is a serious issue for Forestry England in the increased level of risk to people using some quite hairy wild trails (built by someone else with little quality control or chicken runs) and the duty of care of the landowner under the occupiers liability act.
Also some FEng woods are leased by FEng from the owner and no access rights exist there. In some cases public access Is tolerated by the landowner and FEng are fine with that but when wild trail building gets out of hand the landowner gets edgy due to risk and duty of care or damage/ rubbish etc and there is then the potential to call FEng out as having breached the lease and trying to Terminate the lease and get the wood back meaning no public access for anyone.
It’s never as simple as just - public wood - I can do what I want including building timber structures and gap jumps!
In Ireland the case law was suggesting that the trail builder could be liable for injury through the CDM regs instead of their forest service through the occupiers liability route. Not sure where the case went.
FEng do sanction a lot of wild trails and are always happy to look for a long term solution where it is possible. Bear in mind people are stretched and everyone wants a piece of the estate to do their thing. It’s not easy balancing public access, timber production, environmental improvements and estates interests.
Trespass is civil rather than a Police matter.
Potential damage to SSSI would be more serious.
Obviously breaking Rule #1 should be an automatic death penalty.
Talking to an FC ranger at a trail centre the other day, they are at their wits end with with idiots riding off piste, walking on marked "bikes only" trails, dumping litter, lighting BBQs, dangerous parking etc. Suspect someone was just having a bad day and blowing off steam
Lockdown seemed to cause a lot of escalation on this issue, both from 'amateurs' building new bits (many done not so well!) and a lot more of the general public being in the same areas for exercise and complaining about the new trails, or amount of bikers.
It's an age old problem though, and very little that can be done in most instances, it just ends with FE blocking out the routes.
Flipside is this, apparently from Devon
My local trails have fallen under scrutiny with FE since they began felling operations at the start of lockdown. They flattened the big and/or unsafe features. They were willing to keep the trails as long as no new ones were made and that the trails did not have high-speed exits on to the public fireroads.
Lo and behold, people ignored them, built new trails, built big features back, and even included high-speed run-outs onto the fireroads. Now the FE have put up signs everywhere explicitly threatening Police action if anyone was to be caught building there...
trusty, if you don't mind me asking what area of the country are you in?
North West Cumbria pal, more specifically, Northern Lake District.
Yeah, they did exactly the same as Trustybutler describes at Wareham Forest/Gore Heath down here in Dorset.
Some of the trails people were building were getting ridiculous/unsafe in places so they quite sensibly got torn down. Building the same again has restarted so up went the signs.
@colournoise - this isn't redders is it? If so, they've said this before (many times) over the years. it goes like this;
Build loads of trials for a 2-3 years
Landowner gets the hump
FC employee gets in the neck
FC employee has a moan at MTB's and tells the fuzz.
Fuzz do a few journeys through the land then never come back
FC come in, do a load of FC type work, flatten a few trails
Riding goes a little bit quieter in woods
Everythinhg calms down, and goes back to normal..
repeat to fade every few years..
this isn’t redders is it? If so, they’ve said this before (many times) over the years.
@Sui - New signs have gone up. "Don't ride unsanctioned trails, stick to frireroads/bridleways etc".
There are additional signs stating "Forestry England will begin harvesting here from late July..."
Not there. Just our little local woods in East Northants. Nothing special but all we've got.
It seems to be a common issue...and one I don't quite understand but accept that I'm well and truly old-school with my thinking as I remember how it was before access was as free as it is now.
The bit that really gets me is the nice twisty and challenging sections that get turned into motorways (mainly because some people can't ride them as twisty and challenging sections)...we then get 6 months of motorway and then they start building jumps on the trail as it wasn't challenging enough in the motorway guise.
I'm not against rogue building, but it needs to be done with some consideration rather than taking over everything.
Sorry, turned into a grumble from the outset!
In fairness to FE they do have to manage their land in accordance with the law and their policies. Can't have shitty booters filled with rotting wood giving them a liability headache.
Where I am they have actually been really good at trying to cooperate with the locals in order to have the trails kept...But hey, kids want booters and no one is gonna tell them what to do eh, ruined it for everybody.
I reckon it is perfectly easy to have decent wild trails on FE land in agreement with FE.
What is the challenge is communicating with the local scene so everyone is on the same page.
We had some lovely non-official twisty, sandy berms in Chopwell flattened a couple of weeks ago. Not difficult or dangerous, but they were possibly encroaching on an SSSI. There was uproar, but nothing that's not happened before and it'll happen again.
Going to show an FE chap this one tonight...
The kids will accept that that will rot down 'soon' enough...;-)
Teethgrinders last pic just about sums it up. Dad and kids on new bike pootle down fire rd, dad showing off a bit aims down a nice bit of singletrack Off the side of a fire Rd that looks innocuous as the brakes on his bso are rubbish ends up in the air over that pit/ tree upside down.
Cue Multi million pound claim against FE for a broken spine and a ruined career.
OP, I'm aware of a couple of guys who apparently got done for criminal damage because they'd cut a chunk out the bottom of a fallen or felled tree. Personally I don't think anyone came out looking good over the way that was handled but it was a few years ago now.
Generally speaking, it's good to talk, get to know people, and build some understanding. There are a lot of factors at play for those wearing uniform that some random won't be privy to. On the other hand we're generally a disparate lot that shun organised groups and that makes us difficult to engage with. Also the FC as an organisation seems to think and act at the same speed their crop grows, but the folks on the ground are generally well intentioned these days, and most of the old school have moved on or adjusted.
There's been an explosion of building through the furlough period by all accounts and it's probably fair too say that not all of it is going to meet the necessary standards for risk management - and whatever anyone thinks there are standards that do have to be met. Yeah - it's land that's supposed to be managed for the benefit of us all, but go start building a load of jumps out of pallets in your local park and see how that goes down.
There are two sides to every story ( suprise! ) but things generally get a bit easier for everyone if they talk to each other IME.
It's when you look at the places like, frinstance, innerleithen and glentress where official development is at a standstill and the budget doesn't even really cover basic maintenance, but the place remains exciting and draws countless thousands of visitors and millions of pounds to the area and literally enables many of the local businesses to exist, mostly because of the illicit-but-tolerated-and-just-occasionally-sanctioned wild builders, you think just maybe there's a better way for FC England to handle things.
Agree...but Glentress and innerleithen (or now the Tweed Valley) is the exception to the rule. A lot of hard work has been done, but the real difference is that the forestry want tweed Valley as a MTB Mecca...so the door is always open. That aim has been there from the outset and the money spent there has shown that.
It is great news for the area (and there have been issues along the way), but it has all been planned/hoped/intended.
It is a great place with great trails and the unofficial (just not done by forestry) are brilliant. Long may it continue.
My issue with the fc is that they are happy to take huge amounts of revenue from parking fees but not invest any of it back into the trails. Instead they allow voluntary groups to do the maintenance for them. I also struggle with the sssi not because you know at some point fc will drive heavy machinery in to harvest their crop. This has happened at several sites near me
How much revenue out of interest? I assume you know the exact numbers to qualify that statement.
Their sites cater for more than just mountain bikers just because you aren't getting new trail each year doesn't mean the money isn't being invested - keeping existing stuff open has a cost each year as does all access.
Volunteers aren't free. There is a cost in terms of staff time and resources (training, tools, building materials, trail design, legal compliance, h+s management, supervision) depending on how you play with your spreadsheet you may well find contractors are cheap all things considered. A mutually beneficial relationship is often given a value beyond that of just costs however.
SSSIs exist for a huge number of reasons - as an example removal of trees on a SSSI for ground nesting birds is beneficial. Building trails all over it afterwords not so beneficial. Land management is often complex but I expect if you asked they'd happily explain why.
I also struggle with the sssi not because you know at some point fc will drive heavy machinery in to harvest their crop.
SSSIs were extensively used in the 80s and 90s as a way to exclude as many potential user groups as possible. Obviously many SSSIs are very worthy thing protecting all manner of species and habitats. Many, on the other hand, are an absolute joke. There was an article somewhere (Graun I think) that detailed the explosion in SSSIs from genuine concern for sensitive habitats to NIMBYs just trying to arm themselves with a bigger stick to exclude others.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
lovin’ this guys attitude
Yeah, though unfortunately when I was up there yesterday someone had got their knickers in a twist, and torn down the notice 🙄
If Rob the ranger is the same guy I met up there a week or so back he seemed very nice, and said he was a rider too.
Similar up at Haldon, 2 or 3 of the rangers ride, so are cool about subtle trails.
The FC would no doubt love to harness some of the enthusiasm on here if you volunteer to help them out. A few days digging drainage ditches, litter picking, replacing signage etc alongside a ranger will open up a whole world to you about income, costs and priorities.
Hicks Lodge used to have some interesting posters detailing what the parking charges got spent on.
Tom - i always found Rob a very personable chap. I thought it must have been him when you mentioned on the other thread.
the actual number of people building, and crucially, maintaining, is tiny.
there's often plenty of people prepared to post online and shout about 'our trails', but try and get them together to do something constructive IRL and turn-outs are often very small. hey - everyone has busy lives, but if the only contribution you've made is moving that bit of brash off the inside of that bend to 'make the trail flow', frankly you can button it. actually what you've invested is turning up and riding your bike. well done.
The FC would no doubt love to harness some of the enthusiasm on here if you volunteer to help them out.
no harm in getting in touch. if people have got the get up and go to take some tools in to the woods then they're just the sort who could make a really useful contribution.
chrismac
SubscriberMy issue with the fc is that they are happy to take huge amounts of revenue from parking fees but not invest any of it back into the trails.
I understand why people say this, but it's a really counterproductive position to take, because it overlooks the capital cost of building the trails in the first place. The FC will never see a return on that investment in most cases.
If you want to take a hard line "parking fees must be reinvested into the trails" then the next logical step is "parking fees must pay for the trails" and that just won't work, even in the honeypots.
So it's counterproductive at best and also basically a kick in the teeth for the FC.
not only that, but it's outside the control of the FC, i believe. as far as i understand any revenue they generate goes in to the exchequer. they get allocated a budget and that budget is quite tightly controlled.
I don't have access to forestry accounts or anything, but I severely doubt they're doing backstroke in a swimming pool full of money from the parking charges.
Especially when you look at the dubiously expensive buildings and facilities they put in at the real honeypots, e.g. Grizedale, Glentress.
I am aware that public use for leisure is a big driver for the national forestry quangos now, and something they are judged on by Government(s), with improved wellbeing the desired outcome.
As perhaps alluded above, it seems MTBing can feed into that, when given a fair hearing.
From my conversations with the Central Region team, there is no way any of the trails really pay for themselves, even with volunteer groups. They are (understandably) focussing investment in the big centres (Cannock, Sherwood, Thetford) which leaves little places like ours with just a family trail, shared use trails, and the 'rogue' off-piste.
They've also told me that the last few months have seen a boom in building, but also more crucially in building being reported by other users. If they are made aware of unofficial stuff then they have a duty to act which is pretty understandable and part of their liability cover I guess.
Also hints that more and more smaller FE trails/centres might have their official status reviewed as funding bites, although admittedly this is reading between the lines a bit on my part.
There is a confirmed hardening of the public line on unofficial trails nationally, and I guess the conversation our rider had and the Cannock FB post are part of that.
I reckon in many ways FE are stuck between a rock garden and a hard place - I do believe that a fair proportion of the Recreation teams support MTB at least as much as other user groups, but also suspect we are harder to integrate, more expensive to accommodate, and bring in less revenue than other users so their budgetary and legal hands are tied. Not sure I'd want to be doing their job right now TBH.
Having said all that, I still love discovering a new trail that someone has put in and - shhh - may even lift a rake myself at times... I just think we need to be sensible, considerate of other users, and always adhere to rule #1.
Unless something has changed drastically, trails centres are funded via tourism funds rather than leisure and wellbeing funds...they are built to draw people to an area to spend more...
No idea, but reading between some lines, FE funding full stop is a bit of an issue right now regardless of which pot it comes from.
I was talking more about the recognition that forests can facilitate leisure and wellbeing, and thus allowing the public to use them for MTBing can be a good thing.
Yes the cash for building actual trails probably comes from (largely exhausted) funds aimed at driving tourism in specific regions.
"Wild trails" are a challenge that the MTB world doesn't really know what to do about yet and I think it's going to take a shift in mindset in some quarters to find a solution that works for all stakeholders.
Yeah, agreed. Suspect a large part of this issue though is that many mountain bikers don't see themselves as a stakeholder. They don't even consider it. They see a piece of land and believe they are fully entitled to just build whatever they like.
When it does get removed they are up in arms and seem against trying to talk about it (as they suspect it'll be a flat out no).
No idea how to turn any of that around...but would really help if it could be.
It's interesting that this thread has developed into a conversation on FE funding and FE development of trails which of course means official trails. The only expense to FE for unofficial trails is in either removing them or defending liability claims (and there are a lot!).
On FE land there are two types of MTB trail:
Official ones, built to guidelines and official standards at considerable expense for usage by large numbers.
Unofficial ones which are illegal (criminal damage to land and the liability issues well pointed out above). Remember, most FE managed land is covered by Byelaws rather than Trespass laws.
FE will only deal with properly formed groups to facilitate volunteer trail building and maintenance and those trails need to be built to the same rules and regulations as the FE developed ones.
The fact that in some areas unofficial trails are tolerated is a real bonus for us but, at the end of the day, if these trails are removed for whatever reason there is really nothing we can do about it.
In my area (FoD) MTBing is massive now and especially during the shutdown of Wales we have seen huge additional numbers. Judging by the parking in gateways, on verges, anywhere except official carparks I get the impression that a hell of a lot of people don't want to contribute a single penny towards FE or the local economy so whilst they may be happy to ride unofficial trails I can't see many contributing in time or money towards keeping the status quo.
It's time for a huge rethink on this, FE, FLS own shit loads of land, the vast majority of which is neither SSSI nor beautiful.
We have an ever expanding amount of people that wish to ride trails in such places, potentially local to them, and not driving to some generic 'you can cycle here ya plebs' trail centre.
The current situation completely adds fuel to the fire, more folk biking locally, less folk going abroad.
I for one am not comfortable with this balance, and find it odd that any biker is, subservient to a government department or whatever they are these days.
The 2 areas I build locally are privately owned, and we have permission to cut trails from both custodians, but I'll be completely honest, if I didn't, I'd still be doing it.
Edit- it also saddens me that something that benefits the health and mental state of people seems to be subject to a cost balance in the eyes of some, when we see how much money is taken for other complete follies.
The only expense to FE for unofficial trails is in either removing them or defending liability claims
That's simplifying it somewhat as to defend claims they need to demonstrate they have done what's reasonably practicable to meet their legal obligations.
So that's going to include responding to and dealing with complaints, inspecting trails and sorting anything they find, keeping records of all work carried out and taking on responsibility for anything they modify.
As I said all access has a cost.
no beer has nailed it on the head...even without permission he'd build...so when the landowner finds his handy work, they'll decide whether to keep or destroy. If destroy there will be a load of grumbles...
I absolutely agree that the current set up needs to change, however, the people who are mountain biking now have changed. Many appear to think that they can ride everything and if an accident happens, some don't accept it was their fault, but someone else's.
FC manage land (which was a change to before when they just made Sitka farms)...they still predominantly are tree farmers so don't really care about recreation other than it is part of their remit now (has been for some time!).
Some local FC people are very accommodating, others not so. The fact the landowner is liable for what is on 'their' land makes it difficult for them to green light everything.
The change needs to happen everywhere at all levels for it to make a proper change.
Tbh Dick, the word 'build' is subjective really, I tend to clear more than build, no wooden structures or anything, just nice flowy trails and kept away from walkers paths, and always in god awful otherwise sterile spruce plantations.
2 locals spent what must've been a shit load of man hours digging massive doubles right on a popular dog walkers path, farmer chinned them and made them take it all down. That's just bloody stupid.
Many appear to think that they can ride everything and if an accident happens, some don’t accept it was their fault, but someone else’s.
Is that true though? I've been MTBing up here for nearly as long as you, and I've never heard of one single litigation in such circumstances, sure there's bound to have been some cases, but considering the number of trails and number of bikers, is it even a risk worthy of consideration?.
Yeah, clearing rather than wooden structures and jumps seems to be a better process.
I've not experienced it myself, but having spent time with several FC people over the years, it seems to happen more often than the public are aware of.
I worked at the FC for a while and yes it's a huge problem for them. british mountain bikers don't realise how good they've got it but still manage to act like a spoilt self entitled bunch
Huge problem? how many a year? how much in total cost? I'm merely asking the question, as it's always used as a stick, but we the public don't see the figures, it'd be a worthwhile exercise for FC/FLS to publish.
Freedom Of Information request?
Are you wanting number of claims or cost per claim? A couple of the ones I was made aware of were for £5m each...so if they had lost and had to pay, it wouldn't take many to shut everything down.
FOI would be the way to go for actual figures...
Think I may try a FOI request for Scotland, I'll post back in a couple of years when I hear something... 🙂
The legally required time to reply to FOI requests is a bit quicker than that...
Did see this and thought.........what a waste of everybody's time to achieve nothing!
The challenge for FE and others is as soon as they touch a trail they are deemed to have adopted it and thus are responsible for upkeep. Budgets are tight and that is why we’re now seeing groups like FE and here in Scotland the FC or whatever it’s called now engaging on ‘wild trails’. In the tweed valley the TVTA have gone about this the right way - setup as a formal charity, board and governance in place etc meant the FC engaged with them and they are mutually now addressing upkeep and development at places like the Golfie. With that comes requirements around dig day supervision, elfin safety etc but it shows what can be done. This extends to Glentress etc as development of wild trails will continue there.
https://www.instagram.com/trail.police/?hl=en
...isn't this what so many people have in mind when FE etc talk about trail building?
but considering the number of trails and number of bikers, is it even a risk worthy of consideration?
I suppose if your job at FE is risk management and your wage relies on making sure you don't get sued, you don't chance it. You eliminate the risks because the riders have no right to be building trails and 'features' etc anyway.
The challenge for FE and others is as soon as they touch a trail they are deemed to have adopted it and thus are responsible for upkeep.
Easy solution....
By touch I mean almost acknowledge it’s existence. They also can’t really engage with one man and his dog. If you genuinely want to build and engage them form a group and formalise it - it legitimises what you want to do and they will take you seriously.
If you genuinely want to build and engage them form a group and formalise it – it legitimises what you want to do and they will take you seriously.
Caveat. In the current climate this is by no means certain to work...