SBT GRVL Runs Afoul of Local Ranchers & Residents in Colorado

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by Alistair

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.

Peak ranching season- that just sounds funny to me. Based on the route for a couple of recent years, it looks like the entire route is within Routt County. That county's population density is 11 people per square mile. Peak ranching season means 4 trucks on a road in a day instead of the regular 2 in a day. <-- yes thats a generalization. Hopefully you can why the joke was made.

Regardless, yeah sure- maybe moving it to a different date would solve complaints.

[prototoast]

1) wherever large amounts of people congregate, there will be conflicts.

2) if people are prohibited from congregating in one particular location, they will seek out new locations, and have those conflicts there.

3) aside from just a broad sentiment of not wanting people around, none of the actual issues appear to be all that severe, or otherwise insurmountable.

[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.

[mickey.d]

vowels.
Use vowels, alienate less people.

[Ralph]

You would like to believe that a large group of cyclists would be conscious and respectful of the land they are using. But having been involved in the production of our large cycling event, I know that a surprisingly large number of them aren't. You would think they would clean up their litter, but many don't. You would think they would be respectful of others on the roads, but many aren't. You would think they would be respectful of private property owner's rights, but many aren't. They cause their own problems, and then complain about their treatment by the locals.

[raygunner]

Wasn't the Oregon Outback ride cancelled, or ended by the founders, due to similar behavior from riders?

[benb]

It actually seems like a pretty interesting mix of issues.

I think the event is probably too large and out of control. I see now reason why the jurisdiction can't decide the event has to be capped at 500 riders or something. 3000 is incredibly huge.

There is a big difference between traveling on a public road on your bike and taking over roads for a permitted race. I think it would be foolish to think the permit isn't in danger of not being renewed, but it does seem like there is also an interesting urban/rural divide here, it seems the city gets all the benefits from the event and the rural area gets all the negative effects. I wonder if the city has so much political power that they can override the will of the people who actually live in the area. You'd think maybe the city should have to have a downtown road race instead.

In general I think it's ridiculous to think the ranchers shouldn't get mad about people defecating/urinating on their property or blocking their driveways or streets. I'd bet 99% of us here would call the police if someone pulled that in our suburban/urban areas. Not really theoretical for me, I have actually had to call the police when someone trespassed in my yard, refused to leave when I asked him to, and then urinated in the yard. (They caught him)

Riders gotta behave and promoters maybe gotta think smaller, tough cause they want to make all the money but 3k participants is gargantuan.. the promoter needs to do better.

I don't know how big steamboat springs is but $4.5 million doesn't seem like enough money with the #s they quoted in the article for the people there to have to put up with a lot of BS.

I think it can be helpful to make sure big events don't loop through towns more than once. Pass through and be done with that town. The impact on any one area is smaller that way. (Not saying this course is really bad)

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by raygunner

Wasn't the Oregon Outback ride cancelled, or ended by the founders, due to similar behavior from riders?

Nobody knows for sure. More than one trusted individual said it wasn't human poop. Like this thread, many of the other less serious complaints were said to be overblown as well - Supplies left for others as littering, people threw up on the road maybe some were cyclists (?), not every gas station and store was happy about the mud/dirt and smelly vagabond cyclists.

It was probably more of a liability issue than anything else. Sending random urban cyclists from the PNW trekking across the desert with a loosely organized map and guidelines was probably going to run into real issues eventually.

[72gmc]

Human bodies need to do human body things, when they need to do them. Some humans have an overgrown sense of entitlement and add garbage to the body things.

So, plan comfort stations and a cleanup effort. The effort to donate money and time is also good, but preventive measures (do this at mile X, don't do this or you're out) and a cleanup plan is a complete plan. If they already have some of this in place, enforce it. And keep working on a way to get some sort of benefit to the county residents.

I don't think this is the right reason to point out rancher entitlement. Better to treat others as you'd like to be treated.

[Alistair]

Specific to the bathroom situation... does anybody know if there are adequate port-a-potties at the aid stations (or even more frequently)?

People are downright nasty when it comes to toilet behavior. Two recent examples...
- Mid-COVID, one of our local parks (Scotts Run, near Great Falls, VA) had poo on the trail regularly. People who werent "outdoorsy" were hiking there (because COVID) and not planning their BMs. So nasty.

- Last year, there was a large soccer tournament at another local park. Promoter wasn't required to provide additional toilets (the park's facilities are down the road 1/2 mile). So, people **** in the woods, which happens to have a hiking/mountain biking trail. So, anybody who went for a ride that Sunday/Monday encountered piles of human waste and used TP. So nasty.

Anyways, point being promoters need to be required to provide adequate facilities because a small number of participants will ruin things for the rest of us.

[contronatura]

Sounds like whiny suburbanites more than anything. Agri- and cyclo- tourism are the main things that can be utilized to maintain the historic & distinct character of these rural communities. It appears they're more interested in exclusive laws to prevent any outright benefits for the local economy but which will prevail-- the dull impulse towards profit or NIMBYs?