Forestry England’s Cycling Strategy: A sign of things (not) to come?

Forestry England published its first Cycling Strategy a few weeks ago. Big organisations need this sort of thing so that everyone knows what they shou …

By stwhannah

Get the full story here:

Forestry England’s Cycling Strategy: A sign of things (not) to come?

Unfortunately at a local level FE seems to work on a personal opinion rather than organisational policy.

A change from a supportive warden at the point where my local (Eastridge Trail Partnership) trail custodians were due for re-licencing, to one who had no interest/disliked mountain biking has resulted in 3-4 years with no authorised trail maintainence.

On the plus side, the local trail pixies have built some banging stuff 🙂

@BigChris your local person can be reminded in writing of their responsibilities to the local community. Then you go above their head and point out non-adherence to the corporate plan and how it is bringing the organisation into disrepute. That local manager is just a small wheel in a bigger arms-length civil service organisation and there are more senior people who will not appreciate being gainsaid by a minion due to their prejudice.

Good article.

IMV this appears to be very much ‘more of the same’, though an actual national policy is welcome this she’s seem to reflect what’s been happening in our area for about the past 15 years.

The majority of people who when asked what they’ve been doing might respond ‘mountain biking’ are usually riding lower grade trails. You’re not riding advanced stuff straight off the bat, some people will never progress that far and that’s the reason off piste stuff can exist. It doesn’t need to be built to the same standards in terms of surfacing as the official stuff does because it doesn’t get the same level of use.

Chris’ point above illustrates the importance of relationships. If the individuals on the ground are open to it then getting to know them and building trust can accomplish an awful lot more than people might think. It opens up opportunities for things like borrowing enough rakes and mattocs for 5 of you to restore a damaged bit of trail in a few hours on a Saturday morning, or for a few trailer’s worth of 45 to dust appearing just where it’s needed.

As an organisation I understand why the forestry wants to deal with sanctioned volunteer groups but a few committed individuals can make a massive difference to a riding spot, and have been doing so for years.

Mountain bikers don’t seem to lend themselves to getting organised much beyond turning up for a race for some reason. I don’t think this is a bug, it’s a feature.

Whilst it doest necessarily help now, maybe encouraging more people at the entry level is a good thing for the future. As numbers increase, demand increases and the need to satisfy that demand should increase.

Its a shame there isn’t more for those of us who have progressed beyond entry level, maybe it’s time for the brands and manufacturers to step up and get organised as they benefit the most from increased participation and demand for better quality equipment.

good article – thanks Hannah

If you are digging and building unauthorised trails, or are part of a group that is, please stop. Consider getting in touch with us confidentially, to see if we can somehow work together.

they’re  not exactly making it easy. surely this needs a point of contact (a direct line to Dan?) rather than just a link to this page. https://www.forestryengland.uk/contact-us

the kid that digs what they want to ride in their local woods

mostly this is an big misconception from landowners/managers – “kids” might knock up a few badly built kickers but the people actually setting out or maintaining trails look a lot more like the forum members on here.  one way or the other they’ve got the time and resources to dig as well as ride.

but part of that is freedom – its grabbed hours around work family and weather.  formal volunteer groups are a lot tougher to make work. digging or building needs a lot of guidance if not to do more damage than good and most features don’t actually suit more than a handful of people working on them.  ive been on a few dig days which were pretty frustrating as a result.

Now, clearing existing trails – cutting back branches growing over the trail, clearing ferns/gorse/brambles/nettles – doesn’t need any real supervision. and a small saw and secautuers are not expensive.  a lot more riders could contribute a lot  more on that front. carrying some tools and do some clearing as part of every ride makes a big difference. If more people did that would be a good thing.

If FE aren’t going to build out networks someone will – so can’t help feeling they need to accept that and work on back channel dialogue to the builders as to which areas or features or trails are a particular issue.  There are definitely sensitive areas of woodland/forest but when you see the state of a hillside when logging vehicles have been in (even if it’s thinning rather than clear fell) the idea that mtb trails generally cause problematic erosion or disturbance to wildlife  doesn’t seem to bear much scrutiny.

Certainly if you were really worried about wildlife in an area the first thing you’d do is ban dogs off leads (if not banning dogs completely).

After seeing the trail of wanton destruction that F.E have left around the Forest of Dean I struggle to imagine them wanting to do anything other than drive all mountain bikers out ?‍♂️

I agree with Robin’s comments on this completely, you do need progression. Mountain biking has evolved considerably over the past 30 years, bikes and expectations have changed, and it really helps to have a broader range of trails. Some folks at Forestry England get this completely, but as an organisation they’re still missing the bigger picture. In the absence of progressive policies on recreation it means that the offer for mountain biking is still wildly variable from region to region.

In terms of funding, yes bike park-style trails are expensive and need costly rebuilds, but enduro lines can be created with enthusiasm and hand tools. From a liability point of view, they’re less inherently risky than big jumps or even family trails. The existence of these trails at places like Forest of Dean is a big additional draw for visitors. But in many FE locations they’re being clamped down on, even though the work to remove them can be more environmentally damaging than the trails themselves (see relatively recent goings-on in Leigh Woods, Bristol for an example).

 

XC racing is also suffering from a severe shortage of venues and the licensing system for skills coaching is not working very well, from what I can gather from friends in the business.

 

The strategy doesn’t address any of this, which leaves a lot riding on the side projects like the trail associations pilot. Otherwise mountain bikers will continue to be pushed towards places with better facilities and better policies, and mountain biking will continue to be a poor cousin of dog walking in English forests.

My understanding was that volunteers can’t build much of anything as that had been tendered out on an exclusive basis, and so with no budget, and an exclusive contractor, nothing actually happens.

FE at Cannock have pretty much said they aren’t interested in rebuilding any of the sections they “dumbed down” as they want more families riding – not bothered about those who want to ride Tech or progress.

Since I’ve been riding Cannock the Dog has just got progressively flatter and more pedally.

After seeing the trail of wanton destruction that F.E have left around the Forest of Dean I struggle to imagine them wanting to do anything other than drive all mountain bikers out ?‍

And the tyres, empty oil barrel, spent grease cartridges. The foresting at fod seems ill thought out, inefficient and the blaming of die back, then leaving piles of harvested trees at the side is laughable.

Time for the uk distributors to become involved and pressure British cycling and the forestry bodies into implementing something which is sustainable and provides what people will ride.

TBF to FE it’s unlikely to be them doing the harvesting. FWIU it’s mostly contractors these days. Doesn’t excuse leaving crap lying about of course.

As far as I can tell they’ve (contractors would be told where to fell, surely) used a process of “there’s some cheeky trails over there, trash it” and just rolled that around the whole forest.

Since I’ve been riding Cannock the Dog has just got progressively flatter and more pedally.

Went a few weeks ago, first time in ages. Was very disappointed with the dumbed down devils staircase and the complete removal of the easy jumpy bit as you get to Birches Valley.

Also…

TBF to FE it’s unlikely to be them doing the harvesting. FWIU it’s mostly contractors these days.

I look after contracts/contractors at work. You can’t just abdicate your responsibilities for environmental care to them, (same with health and safety and quality issues). Ultimately it’s the responsibility of the employer so needs active management and engagement to ensure standards are met.

This :

 

On the flip side, are mountain bikers good for Forestry England? Well, maybe, a little bit. In terms of wider community benefits, the Strategy notes that visitors on bikes typically contribute around £56.89 on site and locally. But unless there’s a cafe or bike shop, it’s really only the parking fees that we’re contributing to Forestry England rather than the community. Forestry England doesn’t collect information on who is paying for parking, so it’s not possible to see which user group is contributing more.

 

Is annoying me greatly.

They reckon they have enough data to show that a Mountain Biker spends 56.89, but yet they cannot tell whom is paying for the parking/entry.

But unless there’s a cafe or bike shop, it’s really only the parking fees that we’re contributing

 

I turn up to a FE site with my bike. If there are no facilities, then my spend is limited to the parking. If theres a cafe and a bike shop, I tend to spend a bit more.

If a dog walker turns up to the same FE site with no facilities, what, exactly, are they contributing that we arent?

If a dog walker turns up to the same FE site with no facilities, what, exactly, are they contributing that we arent?

I think the argument is not what they’re contributing, more the cost of attracting them to come in the first place. Mountain bikers need ‘stuff’;  trails, signposts, a building plan, a maintenance plan and so on. Before any bikers come you’re already spent money, FE need to both recover those costs and persuade the biker to pay more on top to make money. Where as your dog walker just needs a poo-bin in the CP and their parking ticket goes straight into the ‘income’ column.

TBH if I was managing a forest and knowing what’s popular at the minute with bikers, I’d not be keen to provide any built trails either. We’re not, as a group of leisure users, the easiest or cheapest to cater for.

FE sites have car parks, poo bins, maps, signage, trail clearing, surfacing… all aimed at people not on bikes.

the licensing system for skills coaching is not working very well

I presume that’s deliberate understatement for effect? It’s a shit show.

I agree with many of the comments here, but really just wanted to say that this is a really good article. I love a bit of proper digging into a serious topic.

I think that using existing infrastructre by combining the original trails grades together, making some sections easier by adding bypasses to the black bits and extra red/black offshoots to the blues would be a good way of adding progression and allow riders/families with different skill sets to ride together.

This would also hopefully encourage the volunteers as they would all be working towards the same goals.

If those bypasses also worked for adaptive bikes then that would help too.

This would also instantly add miles of potentially interesting trail to please those mile hungry pesky ebikers too.

Even the FE seem to have acknowledged that ‘we’ have just got on with making the really progressive fun stuff ourselves.

Dare I suggest that maybe it’s time to pay for trails which ‘someone’ (FE in this case) invests time and money in creating and maintaining?

I pay for parking and contribute voluntarily to a trail fund at my local trail centre (Comrie Croft). I think it’s brilliant value for money the 3 or 4 times a year I go and ride there.

We do seem to be a sport at the ‘serious end’ who think it acceptable to spend £5k on a bike, £400 on kit, a £10k car to get there, £20 on the cafe and £6 for parking but baulk at paying for trails…

*Stands back from lit touch paper*

if a dog walker turns up to the same FE site with no facilities, what, exactly, are they contributing that we arent?

I’d guess most people wouldn’t go very far to walk the dog, 10 or 15 minutes down the road so unlikely to need breakfast, fuel, a pub lunch and a BnB. MTBers on the other hand travel hours to a destination and will need some or all of the things I list above. Add in a bike shop for emergency spares and repairs and I’d say cyclists bring a lot to a FE site and the surrounding area.

We do seem to be a sport at the ‘serious end’ who think it acceptable to spend £5k on a bike, £400 on kit, a £10k car to get there, £20 on the cafe and £6 for parking but baulk at paying for trails…

and £50 to visit BPW for the day, which is I suppose the top end of the paid trails market, but does indicate that people will pay for trails. Or uplift, which is no good without trails.

It’s obviously harder to charge for a more open trail system in the average FC place, and there will always be freeloaders, but I think the will to pay is there. However, the FC haven’t quite found the method yet. Not helped by their attitude perhaps,  as people have mentioned if anything there seems to be less incentive to pay up at FC locations as they are changing for the worse. I go to Cannock a few times a year, and generally do pay to park as I think it’s the ‘right thing to do’ (sometimes not more for logistical reasons), but it is getting less and less interesting on the main trails there, if they change it’s generally for the worse. And that’s coming from an XC mincer. Used to go on a fam holiday for a week a year with Coed-y-Brenin as the focus, but likewise that has got less and less interesting. (Not FC I know, but similar issues).

What I don’t have a handle on is the economics of it across the country, vs the odd success story like BPW. As you say though, the number of ebikes you see at FC places it seems that the money could be out there.

I’ve said this before but I moved to North Portugal in 2020 and the difference in how cycling is supported and  provisioned here is a world apart from the UK!

https://www.cyclinportugal.pt/en/

And that’s only a small part of it, the local councils support many events, our local town (population <10k) hosts an urban downhill event and a big XC marathon race, also has a permanent XC course nearby that hosts National level events.

Ponte de Lima (40min away) has two bike parks, Bike Park Ponte de Lima and Pé do Negro nearby. The rivers Lima, Minho, Vez and the coast have Ecovias which are great cycling routes.

How is that all paid for @Moe

There is a big push to increase tourism in the North which probably funds mostly the river and coastal routes and I have seen ‘EU funded’ in a few places, the other day we passed a building up on the Serra de Arga, just outside a small village (Arga de Baixo) where there was a bike wash, workstand and Wi-Fi connection.

Just up the road from the permanent XC course is a building with workstands showers and changing rooms, open, unstaffed (but clean and tidy) and free to use (it’s the hub for the Paredes de Coura routes on the link I posted).

The bikeparks, Ponte de Lima os the most formal one, with a few pros using it for training. The Pé do Negro trails are supported by volunteers and bookings arranged via a local bike shop. The base also has showers and changing attached to the local council offices.

Sounds great.

Tbh, I look at the UK now and wonder where it’s all going so wrong, I mean, Portugal is far from perfect, it has it’s fair share of corruption and political games going on but it delivers services at most levels so much better. There was a 15000 strong protest in London for rejoining EU in the UK at the weekend yet it was hardly reported, now whether you’re pro or anti surely it should’ve made it fairly high up the headline list? If Harry had farted in public it would’ve been top story ….  all week!

I do sometimes miss the flat forest, usually when I’m about to start the 5k climb back home after a ride out! ?

The Portugal experience sounds fantastic, but what, over a decade ago or so we in the UK had CYB pioneering and all the Welsh trail centres and uplifts followed, FOD, Cannock etc, 7 Staines and other Scottish places all funded through various means and plenty of active volunteer groups. Much of that has literally rotted away but go to some places and they are more popular than ever, some almost deserted, funding for maintenance/ rebuilds very limited and a shit ton of red tape which pretty much prevents volunteers doing anything worthwhile.
Locally we recently had massive funding for the commonwealth games, some of which provided a new family trail which is very popular, there is a dedicated DH area run and maintained by a few dedicated people, a couple of still very popular but getting a bit run down/ dumbed down XC trails, used to be some very well attended XC dig days but thats finished ( red tape) but lots of off piste to ride for the Youtube gopro vloggers.

@scruff, yes I think the red tape thing is different here, there seems to be much less concern about permissions, form filling, RA’s etc, not that they are not there but definitely a more positive attitude to making events work and the community embracing it!

What’s their position on riding unofficial trains?  When I started MTBing 30 years ago it was officially “of there’s a trail on the ground you can ride it”. Is this still the case?

I also think our expectations have probably escalated, leading to ever bigger/faster/rockier/jumpier trails, that looks utterly terrifying to non-riders.

Plus the legislative environment and risk averse nature of corporate management means those in power are terrified of ending up in court on a corporate manslaughter charge….

Not sure, the trails in this area, I’ve not seen any ‘wild trails’ but that’s not to say they don’t exist, it’s a huge area. Pé do Negro trails run down over open countryside and through the village (even through a derelict house)  before ending back at the centre. It’s not a separate area. When I lived in Thetford, within a year or two I had a pretty good handle on the wild trail network but I think if I live and ride to a hundred I’ll never know all the tracks and trails here!

My understanding of public spending/govt in the EU is that there is a lot more devolution and less extremes of wealth (maybe partly due to greater tax on riches). A lot of events in France are well supported by local councils – e.g. there are multimillion euro budgets in small towns where the UK equivalent only have tens of thousands.

Anyhow, as an update to the UK situation, MB Wales is being relaunched, to formulate and execute a sustainable strategy for Welsh mountain biking. There will be much greater private sector involvement if we cannot secure enough public money or grants – I don’t see any other way. Even in the case of grants/public funding, there has to be accountability.