SBT GRVL Runs Afoul of Local Ranchers & Residents in Colorado

[spoonrobot]

NSFW image in the article, selected quotes below.

https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/07/s...anchers-clash/

SBT GRVL riders, promoters and those who champion the event for its inclusivity say they should be allowed to ride through Routt County because of the money they pump into the local economy each fall. But the ranchers say the riders’ trash, selfish attitudes and disregard for safety are more than they can take, and that they don’t see any benefits from their spending. Now five years into reckoning with a four-day event in August that annually disrupts their busiest agricultural season, they want the commissioners to do away with it. The race’s future now hinges on commissioners’ review of their permitting process.

Among their top complaints were the throngs of riders who started pushing into the county days before the main event. Then there were the spectators, they said, who ballooned the riders’ number, parked their cars willy nilly and added to the general disruption on the roads ranchers use daily to transport their cattle, hay and 4-H kids. The spectators were almost as annoying as the cyclists, with their cowbells that clanged incessantly, some ranchers said. But the fact remained that the riders also pumped millions of dollars into the local economy through lodging, dining and shopping during the event week.

Chuck Vale, a rancher retired from a 49-year career in the county’s emergency services system, said an ambulance trying to reach a rider who’d crashed on the course couldn’t because “the race people stopped it from cruising down the road to arrive at the event.” Jo Stanko, who’s been ranching the area for decades, saw a “sports garment” lying in her driveway and lifted it with a stick because the owner “had used it to wipe themselves.” And cows Trenia Sanford cares for broke through a fence “when they saw a 26-headed animal racing down the road,” she said. Her hired hand helped corral them. “But you’ve seen cows run. You know they can buck and twist and move sideways. These bikers had no idea what kind of danger they were in,” she told the commissioners.

Charity insists the ride transcends just pedaling through pastoral countryside or racing for a $22,000 prize purse. Over the past four years, organizers have donated $100,000 to area nonprofits, she says. They’ve partnered with the local Boys and Girls Club — teaching kids how to set goals and “have grit,” along with bringing them into bike culture through working at aid stations during the race.

They’ve taught Zoom spin classes for The Cycle Effect, preparing the largely Latino group of girls for the race. They’ve donated money to the Community Agriculture Alliance, a nonprofit preserving agriculture in the Yampa Valley. They support local search and rescue teams and the local United Way. And, since the race’s inception, they’ve welcomed the nonprofits Ride for Racial Justice and All Bodies on Bikes into the organization, creating opportunities for communities traditionally underserved in bike racing. Plus, every year around 7,000 race-related visitors flock to Steamboat Springs, generating “millions of dollars in our community,” Charity said.

In an email, Charity said in 2023, the ride generated $4.5 million in taxable spending in Steamboat Springs, where sales tax is 8.4%. Of that tax revenue, 2.9% goes to the state of Colorado, 1% to Routt County and the remainder to the city. “Additionally, SBT GRVL has made a financial contribution to the Community Agriculture Alliance since its inception (more than $12,000),” she wrote.

And the race “is changing the face of cycling,” she said.

“You’ll have people who barely finish our 37-mile race, walking their bikes to the finish. Two years ago, we launched a (paraplegic) category, and now we work with 50 para athletes. The impact has been so large, the head of marketing at Steamboat resort, Morgan Bast, asked me, ‘How do you change the landscape of skiing like you’ve done in cycling?’”

Without assuming an outcome, Charity says, she has been doing everything in her power to make sure the race continues.

She has eliminated two-way bike traffic on all courses and will use more rural roads to reduce traffic and resident conflicts. She’ll hire more safety marshals, police and state patrol for race day. She promises listening and information sessions for the rural community and a page dedicated to the same on the SBT GRVL website. And perhaps most important, she’s making registered riders sign an oath prior to the race that commits them to following the rules. If they break one they will be disqualified. Anyone can turn in an offending rider. The contact number will be available to the public, and riders will wear enlarged number plates for easy identification.

I wouldn't want 3000+ bicycle racers in my county either. The MAMIL getting gored by a bull at Rock Cobbler 2 years ago made it well into the mainstream content generation cycle, lets hope that a cyclist going to the bathroom behind a haybale doesn't go as far.

These are the same sort of issues that killed off many mass charity rides and proto-fondos back 20-30 years ago where it was common to have thousands of road cyclists at a single event of many in the state or region per year.

I visited with the Chamber of Commerce in a relatively close but very rural metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia county about a mixed terrain race last year. One of the petitioners told everyone how terrible the bicyclists behaved at a large charity ride in the 1990s that they had for a few years before canceling the permit. This stuff sticks and is hard to shake.

The balance between rural living and event promotion has been strained for a long time but has generally stayed out of the spotlight. This is another reminder that almost every gravel cyclist is a guest in someone else's home and needs to act like it. The promoter, the participant, as well as their support people need to be an ambassador for the sport - sentiment that seemed more common several years ago before the gravel boom in 2019.

[mstateglfr]

- If the roads are public, they arent the rancher's roads. Them complaining that there is 'too much' traffic is weak.
- Sucks that cows got loose because they freaked out over seeing cyclists coming. If the cyclists were on permitted roads, then livestock freaking out isnt a good reason to not allow the event to continue.
- Spectators driving on roads is fine, even if someone dislikes the traffic.
- People coming into the county a few days before the event is the weakest complaint I have heard in a long time. Oh waah waah, people are taking time off work and spending money while visiting the area where you live!



- Cyclists littering garbage or clothing is wrong and needs to stop.
- Spectators parking where they shouldnt is wrong and needs to stop.
- Organizers not letting an ambulance thru is insane. I am guessing there is more to that claim than what is mentioned. Hope so, at least.

[tomato coupe]

I've done SBT GRVL twice, and I'd hate to see it go away.

That said, after living at ground-zero of Ironman and other triathlons for several years, I have a lot of sympathy for the ranchers. These events are very disruptive if you live in the area, and I don't blame them for trying to get it shut down.

[EB]

Classic NIMBY conflict. Similar forces helped destroy road stage racing in tbe US (see Tour of California). I guess it’s coming for “gravel” now with the increased popularity.

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by EB

Classic NIMBY conflict. Similar forces helped destroy road stage racing in tbe US (see Tour of California). I guess it’s coming for “gravel” now with the increased popularity.

Bicycle event participants going to the bathroom in someone else's yard, preventing an ambulance from navigating the roadways, disrupting residents in their daily activities - are exactly what rightfully create "NIMBYs".

How many people do you think you would have to poll in the general public before you found someone happy and accommodating to a stranger going to the bathroom in their yard and leaving behind soiled garments?

[EB]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

Bicycle event participants going to the bathroom in someone else's yard, preventing an ambulance from navigating the roadways, disrupting residents in their daily activities - are exactly what rightfully create "NIMBYs".

How many people do you think you would have to poll in the general public before you found someone happy and accommodating to a stranger going to the bathroom in their yard and leaving behind soiled garments?

Given track record in various threads, Spoon, I'm going to sign out right here, I've got work to do!

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

Bicycle event participants going to the bathroom in someone else's yard, preventing an ambulance from navigating the roadways, disrupting residents in their daily activities - are exactly what rightfully create "NIMBYs".

How many people do you think you would have to poll in the general public before you found someone happy and accommodating to a stranger going to the bathroom in their yard and leaving behind soiled garments?

While your point is absolutely valid, we've all also seen examples of well-run events with a net positive impact to the community run off even though nothing like that happened - just NIMBY and nothing more.

Without question, we should all respect the property and communities of others as if they were our own.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

examples of well-run events with a net positive impact to the community

The issue with "net positive" is that it just takes a loud minority who don't benefit / are annoyed by something to stir up plenty of resistance. Sure, some folks (say, local B&Bs) love tourism, but often that isn't enough.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

- If the roads are public, they arent the rancher's roads.

Actually, part of the SBT GRVL route is on private roads.

[spoonrobot]

We should be careful in thumbing our nose at others behind a sense of mass ownership of common spaces.

If the roads are public, they arent the rancher's roads.

In many areas the gravel roads "belong" to the local government and the people represented thereof. It's a simple matter for the public to decide they do not want their roadways used in this manner, and often the inciting factor is the feeling of being ignored or needlessly antagonized.

Someone who lives in Weschester County New York doesn't have primacy of access to gravel roads owned and maintained by the county in Routt County Colorado. In many areas, rural roads are at the pleasure of the landowner who has agreed to an easement with the county, city, or state. Obviously, this would be very specific, but "ownership" often isn't as clear as we like to imagine.

Locally in Georgia, residents have successfully lobbied the county or state to take unpaved roads private, buy out easements, or cancel contracts for bridge renewal/replacement to reduce access to vehicles, horses, OHV, and bicyclists/hikers.

The race was a danger to more than people’s bodies, the ranchers insisted. They called it an affront to Routt County’s agrarian values, “unsafe for its citizens and producers” and “one of the worst examples of nonrepresentational government” they’d ever witnessed.

The past has made it abundantly clear that digging in one's heels and asserting a right that doesn't exist back by power one doesn't have is always going to lose against locals who can exercise their will through voting, lobbying, and local connections.

There's a fine balance here and while it's fun to be glib online, the reality is a lot more complicated and full of pitfalls that can kill an event dead instantly.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

We should be careful in thumbing our nose at others behind a sense of mass ownership of common spaces.


In many areas the gravel roads "belong" to the local government and the people represented thereof. It's a simple matter for the public to decide they do not want their roadways used in this manner, and often the inciting factor is the feeling of being ignored or needlessly antagonized.

Someone who lives in Weschester County New York doesn't have primacy of access to gravel roads owned and maintained by the county in Routt County Colorado. In many areas, rural roads are at the pleasure of the landowner who has agreed to an easement with the county, city, or state. Obviously, this would be very specific, but "ownership" often isn't as clear as we like to imagine.

Locally in Georgia, residents have successfully lobbied the county or state to take unpaved roads private, buy out easements, or cancel contracts for bridge renewal/replacement to reduce access to vehicles, horses, OHV, and bicyclists/hikers.



The past has made it abundantly clear that digging in one's heels and asserting a right that doesn't exist back by power one doesn't have is always going to lose against locals who can exercise their will through voting, lobbying, and local connections.

There's a fine balance here and while it's fun to be glib online, the reality is a lot more complicated and full of pitfalls that can kill an event dead instantly.

Fully agree that towns/counties/states should be able to decide how the roads they maintain are used.
I simply think a permit by the groups that maintain public roads should still be issued if the complaints only rise to the level of 'my livestock got scared and broke thru the fence'.

I also think, and stated, that complaints like improper parking are legitimate and should be addressed.

As for the claim that someone from NY doesnt have 'primacy of access' in CO, I am not suggesting they have that in CO. I am simply saying that if the road is public, then it can be used for cycling(as well as driving a car, truck, van, etc. And if the road is public, then hopefully the body which grants permission to use that road for an event will agree since its a public road in an area with very little traffic that would be disrupted.
If 'primacy of access' is a legal term, I sure havent heard of it. I get what it means, its pretty obvious, just saying that if there is some specific legal definition that somehow changes the discussion, let us all know.

If a road is private, then yeah permission from the owner is needed. That really isnt what I posted about initially though. And if there is a road that is on an easement, then whatever the local laws are concerning access for that easement should be followed. Again, that isnt really what I posted about initially.




I simply hope to see that public roads can still be used for public use and public benefit, especially in an area where there is such little traffic. Littering and improper parking should then also be addressed.

[unterhausen]

Around here, you still hear about the cyclist who peed in a cornfield once 30 years ago. They mostly plant corn too close together for that now though.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by unterhausen

Around here, you still hear about the cyclist who peed in a cornfield once 30 years ago. They mostly plant corn too close together for that now though.

Funny- around here peeing in corn is not only accepted, its a past time and even encouraged!...especially at PP Ave.



...ragbrai pics off google.

[rothwem]

Enh, I was reading a different article about this and I think the ranchers have some valid complaints. It sounds like the the roads are blocked off literally all day. One of the interviews mentioned that they couldn't leave their driveways, couldn't use the road to get to their livestock. I'd be pretty pissed if the only road for me to get to work was blocked for someone to have a recreational activity on.

We could not haul hay. One day they told me I couldn’t go up the road to where I live and I went anyway. And you couldn’t get out on the road. And the bikers were going seven abreast and when you met them they wouldn’t get over. And it was just a whole day of bikes.

“We do agriculture for a living and we can’t just put it off for a whole day and say ‘Haying season doesn’t matter. My paycheck doesn’t matter because you want to hold a bike race.’ Let’s be respectful of how that looks. And let’s not have packs and packs of riders going east and west for a whole day on a road that is agricultural and it’s a county road that I shouldn’t have to worry about not being able to get out of my driveway for a whole day.”

https://www.steamboatradio.com/2023/...grvl-cyclists/

[spoonrobot]

Call them NIMBY all you want but this bird won't fly much longer if this continues to be common.

Roberta Smith also said she saw people urinating on someone’s property. She confronted them about it and she said they were rude back to her.