The Paceline Forum - SBT GRVL Runs Afoul of Local Ranchers & Residents in Colorado

The Paceline Forum (https://forums.thepaceline.net/index.php)

- General Discussion (https://forums.thepaceline.net/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - SBT GRVL Runs Afoul of Local Ranchers & Residents in Colorado (https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=303048)

SBT GRVL Runs Afoul of Local Ranchers & Residents in Colorado

NSFW image in the article, selected quotes below.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?’”

Quote:

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstateglfr (Post 3336374)

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

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

Quote:

Mention this to naysayers and they’ll tell you the money stays within Steamboat’s city limits, which Corrigan, the county commissioner, confirms.

“Routt County has very restrictive zoning regulations that mostly prohibit commercial activity as well as an outright prohibition of short-term rentals in unincorporated Routt County,” he wrote in an email. “So, practically speaking, there aren’t any stores (except the small store in Clark), lodging facilities or any other operation that could benefit from any of this activity or any sales tax collections for the county.”

That means “virtually all of the economic benefit accrues to businesses and city of Steamboat sales tax revenues,” he added. “Short of some kind of direct payment to the affected residents it’s hard to see what kind of positive impact there could be.”

So they want a part of the money. Fair. But their own rules prevent them from getting part of the money. Reminds me of this meme.

https://i.imgflip.com/4rex2k.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstateglfr (Post 3336374)

- If the roads are public, they arent the rancher's roads. Them complaining that there is 'too much' traffic is weak.

If the event is truly held during peak ranching season, I think this is a valid complaint. It could be that roads are fine for mass cycling 90% of the year, but there's a few week period with heavy ranch usage that makes cycling at the same time less than ideal.

But, if the above is the case, then the "easy" answer is to move the event on the calendar.

I say this having cycled and hiked in Scotland, where there's a "right to roam", but part of that right is the responsibility not to disrupt active farming operations. Seems like the same should apply here (even if the roads are public).

"peak ranching season" is absolutely hilarious.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by texasbbq (Post 3336398)

"peak ranching season" is absolutely hilarious.

How so? The article states the race is during one of the busiest periods for the local ranchers. Is that not actually true? I don't have a clue about ranching - closest I know anything about is sheep (UK), which has some very seasonal workloads (and I only know this due to advice for trekking/cycling across estates during certain seasons - similar advice relates to deer stalking).

Quote:

Originally Posted by EB (Post 3336377)

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?

It's either calving season or gathering/weaning/selling season I'd guess but why not just say so. I've ranched(own cattle) and cycled my whole life so with no pun intended I guess I'm "on the fence" on this one.

Rural people are no different from urban folks in the sense that no one wants to be bothered in daily life and we as, IMO, spoiled Americans are all so quick to cry foul when life goes a little astray.

The littering and damage caused by vehicles is a real thing and I feel the county should bear the brunt of fixing these issues, after all it is their job!

Sorry for the long rant but I can see both sides of this argument clearly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonrobot (Post 3336407)

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

The usual NIMBY attitude. Mostly NIMBY, with a sprinkle of legit concerns because of course nothing is black or white.

Ranchers, for how fiercly independent they like to say they are, are right up there some of the most entitled whiny folks on the planet. Their concept of property ownership is warped. Many still believe they have some sort of ownership over the public lands their cattle enjoy thanks to taxpayers. After having spent time in Montana, yikes.

I realize there's more to it than a oversimplified negative view of ranchers, but my point is to at least consider the source of the gripes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 3336378)

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

Understood. I was commenting on the public roads part. As in, if those complaining are citing examples that take place on public roads, then thats lame.

Any private access roads/paths should 100% be the decision of the person that owns the land. Absolutely, they should be able to say 'nope, your event is too disruptive for me to continue to allow access to my land'.