[cherry_row]

[cherry_col size_md=”12″]

We all saw it. The May 22nd “click bait” article from Outside Magazine that called Trail Runners “Lazy Parasites.” Granted, after the immense amount of pushback Outside received as a result of the article, Stephanie Case wrote a response that I’m guessing had a much lesser impact on reaching the masses. While the original article had legs that ran quite a distance, and a rebuttal has already been presented via Outside Magazine, I can’t help but offer an additional perspective to the discussion, and one that examines the issue from both sides.

I guess the main question we need to answer as trail runners is, “Are we lazy parasites or dead beats?” I’ve pondered this question all summer long, and the definitive answer I have come up with is, “Yes… and no.” As someone who has often taken on the role of being iconoclastic, the original article written by Mark Peruzzi actually offended me. It offended me because of the sheer amount of trail work I’ve put in as a long-standing member of the trail and ultra community. I used to adopt trail in the White Mountains of New Hampshire and along the famed Appalachian Trail. I’m also a current trail adopter here in Colorado. I’ve done my time, and lots of it. Perhaps this is why the article hit a nerve with me?

The first problem I have with Mark’s article is that he uses data provided by Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado (VOC), a non-profit organization that is dedicated to trail work initiatives in the Centennial State. He stated that the VOC “ranks trail-runner turnout right down there with public-trail-riding equestrians.” So I guess my first question is, how does VOC acquire this data and is it exhaustive? With regard to ranking trail runners down with equestrians, how many equestrian users are there? What is the ratio of trail runners to equestrians in Colorado? Without answers to these questions we can say that this statement is bullshit, and not truly offered with any conclusive data.

The second question I have is, how does VOC gather data to determine that trail runners aren’t coming out? This question is a big one, because this ends up being another online article where someone throws data out all willy nilly, and spins it to say whatever they want it to say. Has anyone considered that perhaps trail runners simply don’t like volunteering with VOC? I’m one of those who choose to not give VOC my time because their way of conducting and governing trail work clashes with my own core values and beliefs, not just as a trail runner and race director, but also as an outdoor educator.

Trail runners in Colorado also have a whole host of options in terms of groups to volunteer with. Pretty much every government-run open space agency has it’s own trail workdays we can attend. There are also those of us who choose to volunteer with The Colorado Mountain Bike Association (COMBA), The Colorado Fourteeners Initiative (CFI), The Colorado Trail Foundation (CTF), or The Continental Divide Trail Coalition. We also volunteer with other race organizations like The Hardrock 100, Dirty 30, GNAR Runners, and others. The VOC is not the end all be all of trail work groups, and their data is skewed given the sheer number of agencies we have available to us here in Colorado. Perhaps trail runners just don’t enjoy volunteering with VOC, or we’re taking our efforts to another agency that more closely aligns with our individual core values and beliefs?

I’m glad the article mentioned the ATRA, an organization HPRS used to pay to be a member of. One of the reasons I stopped being a member of ATRA is because despite the fact that their website mentions that they seek “to be sensitive to the environmental impact of our sport,” I’ve never actually seen or heard of an ATRA sponsored or organized trail work day.. (plogging doesn’t count kids, come on now) and I made this point to them when I decided to terminate my membership. Until recently the ATRA has been an incredibly passive organization when it comes to resources for trail work. They have finally offered the solution of their site offering links to reputable trail work organizations, but they leave out a list of races and race organizations that actually do trail work. Shouldn’t the ATRA be highlighting and promoting the events who do in fact give back to the trails we use? I also notice that their list for “The Mountain West” includes a hefty smattering of organizations in Colorado, but not a single organization for any of the other mountain west states. (Note: That’s a TON of trail work organizations in Colorado not named VOC by the way.) In the original article, the ATRA sound bite was that Nancy Hobbs “is promoting trail work on her organization’s site and actively directing runners to volunteer opportunities.” Can someone show me just how the ATRA is “actively directing runners to volunteer opportunities”? I found the link to trail maintenance opportunities buried in their “Resources” section, which I would hardly call “actively directing.” In Stephanie’s rebuttal article, it was ATRA President Adam Chase who says, “I must confess. We are guilty as charged…we need [to do] more. A lot more.” While this is a true statement, I would expect more of an active role from Adam and the ATRA in getting runners to do more trail work, especially from an organization self defined to represent and promote sustainable trail and ultra running. 

I had the privilege of running the Western States 100 in 2007 and again in 2010. From having run the event twice, seven years apart, I can tell you that the sheer amount of trail work that organization is putting into the Western States Trail is staggering. I told RD Craig Thornley that “it seems as though Twietmeyer and his crew have removed every rock and root from the Western States 100 route!” I wish that was an over exaggeration, but it’s not. The Western States 100 has probably conducted more trail work over the last decade than any other race organization on the planet.

And they’re not the only ones. Other hundred mile races require trail work as a condition of entry: Hardrock, High Lonesome, Wasatch, Cascade Crest, The Bear, Tahoe, and any 200-miler a part of Destination Trail to name a few. This brings me to highlight part of the issue, not all 100-milers require volunteerism as a condition of entry. But what if they did? What if 100-miler race directors nationwide made the collective and conscious decision that trail work is required to run any 100-mile race? Would you do it? Would you wake up then, and complete the work required of us to use the trails that are a privilege to use? By the way, how many mountain bike races require volunteer trail work as a condition of entry?

I know of one runner who was 140th on the wait list when the lottery for this year’s Cascade Crest 100 had concluded. The day before the trail work requirement was due by participants, she was 90th. Those who had not completed their trail work requirement on time were immediately removed from the entrant list, and wait list, and this particular runner moved up to 5th on the wait list (from 90th) overnight.

Think about that for a moment. Getting to 90th on the wait list and being thrust to #5 simply due to the fact of the sheer number of runners who either chose not to complete a day of trail work, or choose not to submit the form. Either way, this is the kind of data that actually makes us guilty as charged. By the trail work deadline for the 2018 Silverheels 100-Mile Endurance Run, 33% of the field had yet to submit their form. Thirty-Three-Percent! Nearly a quarter of the field in the 2019 Silverheels 100 would rather pay the $150 “buy-out fee” instead of doing the required volunteerism, and another 20% missed the trail work deadline. I guess this answers my question that if all 100-milers required trail work as a condition of entry, would you do it? The answer for most of you is “No.” (Note: The $150 buy-out fee is a donation to a local non-profit that HPRS ultimately supports, and is positively impacted by your laziness.)

From an RD’s perspective, it becomes interesting once the volunteer requirement deadline approaches. Suddenly a whole host of runners, who haven’t done the trail work, start bailing on the event because of “injury.” Many start asking for refunds and credits despite whatever the race’s policy on refunds and credits state. I actually had a runner tell me that since she would not receive a refund (we never give refunds at HPRS) as a result of her failing to complete trail work, that she’d never run one of our races again. …. OK!

Upon applying for our permits for our races in Fairplay starting with race year 2015, The Human Potential Running Series also applied as formal trail adopters of about 11 miles of USFS trail in the area surrounding Fairplay. Now, of course part of this gesture is selfish whereas if we want to have the privilege of using these trails for our races, we need to take on the responsibility of caring for the very trails that we use. The other side of this is, that it’s just the right thing to do. Use of these trails for ultramarathons is a privilege and not a right, and I recognize that.

I adopted that 11 miles of trail knowing full well that there would be countless days when I would be the only one out there. That I would be the only one showing up for trail work. Yet as our series has continued to grow, so too has the number of runners who have joined us for our trail workdays in Fairplay. The USFS Ranger District that permits the Indian Creek Fifties will begin mandating trail work as a condition of our permit starting in 2020. It would be easy for me to complain given that we already give so much time and energy to the USFS trails in Fairplay, but I acknowledge the challenges the USFS faces on a district-by-district basis.

So far in 2019 The Human Potential Running Series has successfully hosted 4 trail works days across two different USFS Ranger Districts here in Colorado. Through those 4 days we accumulated 336 man-hours of volunteer work. We also conducted 40 man-hours of volunteer work with COMBA (A few years ago we even worked alongside the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative on Bierstadt). This is the most we’ve ever accumulated in a given year, easy considering that prior to 2019 HPRS averaged a scant 3 volunteers per trail work day. In 2019 we’ve revisited how we award those who conduct trail work with us, issuing an automatic HPRS comp race entry for completion of an 8 hour trail work day with us. We also spent a few thousand dollars on outfitting HPRS with our own set of trail work tools, which gives us more freedom on when we conduct trail work without having to rely on borrowed tools from other agencies.

Yes and no… the answer to the question of, are we lazy parasites or deadbeats? There are quite a few of us in the trail and ultra community who have taken the responsibility of working the trails we use to heart. We’ve invested thousands of our own dollars into trail work efforts, and affording others the opportunity to join us. Yet, regardless of if it’s the VOC’s data, or someone else’s, we cannot hide from the fact that as a user group, we are indeed lazy.

We can do more. We should do more. It is my hope that more race directors will hop on board with requiring volunteer trail work as a condition of entry. It is my hope that many more of you will give back to the trails we love to death by offering some sweat equity on at least ONE DAY… ONE DAY OUT OF 365 …to trail work. If you have the time to train, you have the time to volunteer. If you have the time to race, you have the time to volunteer. If you’re one of those who claims that you don’t have the time to volunteer because your time is taken up by the race and training, then you just may indeed be one of the freeloading deadbeats that click bait article talks about.

[/cherry_col]

[/cherry_row]