I don’t blame the Forestry Commission, I think the likes of GT and the 7 stanes has developed way beyond their original remit and statutory duties. When your look at the huge swathes of land the the FC do manage, the 7 stanes and mtb trails affect a small portion only, and it’s not as if they can ignore the rest and focus on our MTB aspirations only.
In my view, they would be far better managed by a more suitable body, such as Visit Scotland, Scottish Cycling (although I think this would be too specific to cycling activities only) or perhaps a specific outdoor activity development body(?). This would allow the FC to concentrate on its forestry and forest management “roots”, rather than worry about the risk assessments, visitor attraction and the site development of Glentress and other sites as a mtb hub. It would be interesting to compare sites elsewhere, so for example Whistler, Bike park Wales, Alpine bike parks etc to see how and by whom are they are managed?
The introduction of the new Community Empowerment Act in Scotland should in theory provide community groups more say around community facilities, and grant new powers of community land and building ownership. It is in this capacity that I can see AimUp, TVTA or similar groups becoming more involved with how these facilities are actually run, and designed in future, hopefully preventing any further “cafe in ditch, facing embankment” type scenarios.
I don’t think anyone is against the ongoing site developments, its just the ongoing lack of corresponding trail development and updates which don’t make sense. Without the contributions of the Trail fairies, GT would be completely worn out by now! Having ridden GT with someone who hadn’t been for years, their smiling summary of “It’s never changed” is in my eyes somewhat depressing. In fact, only change they did ask about was Ewok village which is sadly no longer with us :cry: