# Horses and Hikers Only.



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Is this the equivalent to a 'slap in the face' to a mountain biker?

I've seen some trails like this and I thought they were mostly legacy and historical trails. But it it still seems to be the current mode of operation of Midpen and other trail groups.

They tried to shove it in our face at the La Honda trail planning. We had a huge show of representation and they are reconsidering.

But lately, I've been noticing and hiking a bit a the *new* Achistaca trail in Saratoga Gap http://www.openspace.org/preserves/maps/pr_long_ridge_saratoga_gap.pdf

It's a pristine singletrack that is deserted and open to Horses and Hikers only.

Also there's a lot of new small trails in Saratoga and they are all prominently labeled Horses and Hikers only.

Why is that? How does this happen? What can we do? What are you going to do?

fc


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

Discrimination against white bikes is NOT right. In the meantime get a different colored bike.


----------



## bikenweed (Dec 22, 2005)

This is ridiculous. Mountain bikers, if allowed on trails, will provide much more volunteer trail maintenance than hikers and equestrians combined. 

If the whole "mountain bikers go too fast and scare me when I'm walking 4-abreast with my family" thing is the reason why MTB's aren't allowed, then MidPen could easily radar-enforce speeds. We know the rangers will be at the ready to ticket any bicyclist that attempts to enter those trails, might as well work together to weed out the speed demons and keep the trails maintained. Cooperation is the key to happiness. 

It's a crying shame how much singletrack is illegal for bicyclists. 

It's also a shame how land management groups hate to work with those who enjoy 2 wheeled recreation in order to create a better outdoor experience for all. In the end, none of us are on this planet very long, and excluding low-impact user groups (bicyclists) is a missed opportunity for the land management.


----------



## Guitarzan415 (Jan 4, 2004)

must mean it's a great bike trail!


----------



## tomsmoto (Oct 6, 2007)

i regularly ride off limits single track. ive NEVER seen a horse there (it wouldnt even be safe to ride a horse on this trail), and ive seen maybe 2 hikers in the 12 months ive been riding it.. 

its shameful that riding a bicycle equates to committing crimes.


----------



## chucko58 (Aug 4, 2006)

I suspect the reason Achistaca is off limits to bikes is that it doesn't connect at the other end to any trail that permits bikes.


----------



## twindaddy (Jun 18, 2007)

If you were in the East Bay you'd lobby against the passing a bond measure to purchase more land that could be used for the same exclusive purposes and then be called a malcontent for wanting equal access.


----------



## Ryan G. (Aug 13, 2004)

Preaching to the choir. We all share the same sentiment I gather, unless people love riding fire roads. 

So when do we reach a critical point where we all disobey the white bike cruiser sign and poach in masses on weekends.


----------



## Melt (May 24, 2004)

francois said:


> Why is that? How does this happen? What can we do? What are you going to do?
> 
> fc


ride em anyways and hope we can outrun the ranger


----------



## ATBScott (Jun 4, 2006)

Or when do we just start to replace every no bike sign with one that says "No Horses allowed" or "No hikers" and see how long before people start to scream. I'll bet it would happen pretty fast. And then when the noise starts, we all collectively say "well - how did that make YOU feel when you saw that sign? I've felt that way for years. It sounds like someone is trying to make a statement". If we can just find some masked man who makes signs to go on a few night rampage and disappear, we might get something going...


----------



## Doesn't Matter (Mar 1, 2004)

I have a different view of this trail and others like it.


----------



## grundy (Jan 12, 2004)

tomsmoto said:


> i regularly ride off limits single track. ive NEVER seen a horse there (it wouldnt even be safe to ride a horse on this trail), and ive seen maybe 2 hikers in the 12 months ive been riding it..


I was running a narrow hillside single track with my dog one time, and came up against a horse. the horse literally took up the entire trail - the riders legs were brushing the vegetation on each side of the trail - absolutely no room to pass. I had to backtrack for a ways and then climb down off the side of the trail to let him by. Its absolutely ridiculous that a horse would be allowed on that trail. By the same token, hikers and bikes would not mix well on that trail. I can live with that, not every trail need be open to bikes. But the fact that a horse is allowed there... it just makes no sense to me.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

twindaddy said:


> If you were in the East Bay you'd lobby against the passing a bond measure to purchase more land that could be used for the same exclusive purposes and then be called a malcontent for wanting equal access.


Now you're just acting like a spoiled brat who wants to ride his bike everywhere without any regard for other users.  [end of sarcasm]


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

Melt said:


> ride em anyways and hope we can outrun the ranger


That's what I say Too. 30 years I've lived and ridden here trying to be a responsible rider and be good and not poach. But no more. All bets are off and let the chips fall were they may.
I try and be as covert as possible and if i get caught then I'll pay the fine do the time and wait for another time to start all over again.
This is BS always has been and as far as I can see always will be.There is no short term solution
I know alot of good people try really hard to get and keep ST open around here, but unfortunately it's not working.
What about that peice O sh*t trail they, MMWD, were supposed to give us on the back 40 of Mt.Tam?
"Oh don't talk about it or ride it illegally or we'll loose the chance to get it." What? NOTHING. There stringin us along and were buyin it. Literally. In stupid fines for going over 15mph and riding trails that hardly anyone uses or takes the time to maintain.Or want to keep to themselves.
If you really want good LEGAL riding then leave the bay area, because it's gonna take forever and I/we can't all go to Fruita/Downieville when we want good ST.
Take your chance 
Take your Lumps 
Pick your moments and for Gods sake enjoy the Adrenalin rush while your poachin .You are not hurting anything including your chance to get /keep Bay area ST and DON"T LET THE MAN RULE YOUR LIFE OR LIE TO YOU!!!
I'm sure I'll take plenty of sh*t for this but everyones doin it and know ones talkin cause your not supposed to talk about it so pretend i didn't say anything. The Emperor has no clothes and the White Elephant has left the building.Jeez.
Rant over.
Long live Temalpa, Northside, PCT, Western States,TRT, Skeggs, Nora, Matt Davis,Troop 80, Skyline to Sea trail and all the other great trails around the Bay Area that are off limits and may have been poached by you or me one time or another.  
Good luck to all who take the risk and remember when you see or hear the man,RUN FORREST RUN!!!


----------



## PlasticBike (Sep 27, 2008)

Out of curiosity, what's the average ticket for poaching non-bike trails?


----------



## Doesn't Matter (Mar 1, 2004)

PlasticBike said:


> Out of curiosity, what's the average ticket for poaching non-bike trails?


In 2005, it cost me $187. I think it's now almost $300 (??). That's MROSD tickets. Have no idea what a SC County Park ticket is.


----------



## morganfletcher (Jul 22, 2005)

For want of a better analogy, it's always felt like "go to the back of the bus", for mountain bikers.

I have a dream.

Morgan


----------



## Ryan G. (Aug 13, 2004)

Amen! +1,000,000. Temalpa makes me pucker.


----------



## Buzz Cut (Jan 16, 2007)

Ok I'll bite on this one as I ride both Mt Bikes and Do endurance on horses

The reason for that particular trail not being open to bikes is to provide a "safe" access for horses to hwy 9 and the Saratoga Toll Road trail which leads into Castle Rock and Big Basin State parks. It also keeps the horses off the Gap Trail that we all like to bomb down as we link the gap and long ridge. I can safely say all of you would be screaming bloody murder over horse poop and hoof print holes on the gap trail. The seperation also means the fire guys have way fewer bad horse/bike injury interactions to deal with and keeps bad Biker "press" away. We as bikers have the skills for the most part to deal with encountering someone head on while riding a hairpin. Most 1200 pound horses have the brain size of a walnut and react as prey animals when confronted by a strange on rushing creature...they bolt and most of the equestrian riders do not have the skill level to deal with it and get thrown. I'd rather not deal with the aftermath of it all. That said my horse rather enjoyed racing Mt Bikes down the trail [especially on Canyon Trail] but he was an exception not the rule


----------



## Diesel_Junkie (Oct 11, 2005)

I need to rant:
My Wife is an equestrian. Her horse is trained to deal well with motorcycles. 
I hike, ride mountain bikes, ride motor bikes, and drive rockcrawlers(jeeps). 

Its ironic that the horses seem to be the ones with the problem in a MTB/horse encounter, but the trails get closed off to MTBs. I feel there is infinitely greater numbers of trails around here for horses than bikes. I have ridden horses on some of them. 

The trail access situation disgusts me. The problem is overcrowding and the solutions are retarded. Who would think that if you have an overcrowded trail you should close it off to the faster noisier group so that they can go make the crowding even worse somewhere else. The situation is completely out of control. 

The only place to legally drive a 4x4 within 3 hours of San Jose is Hollister. 

The only places to ride a motorcycle within 3 hours of here is Hollister, Carnagie, Metcalf and a couple of tracks. 

Clear Creek just got closed over a bunch of BS.

In my opinion the only good legal mtb trails around here are in Demo. Everything else has to be poached. Luckily its really easy to poach with a MTB. Poaching with a motor usually doesn't work out so well. 

Every reasonable terrain feature that is built on a legal mtb trail promptly gets torn down. Ironically this is done in the interest of "safety". Because of the likelihood of destruction all these poached features get built quickly and cheaply which makes them more dangerous. Imagine how much safer the trails might be if there were table tops instead of doubles. 

The situation with power sports is so bad that virtually every bad accident i hear about is due to a collision which is due primarily to over crowding which is due to trail closures. A few weeks ago I came across 2 motorcyclists that ran into each other in a trail intersection. Last week an acquaintance of mine broke his leg in a 3way motorcycle crash(overcrowded track). Basically every holiday weekend someone dies in an OHV collision in CA. 20 years ago there was probably 10x more terrain to ride, and many fewer people in this state. 

Cant stand it any more. 
My rambling incoherent rant is over.


----------



## Passenger13 (Oct 17, 2006)

GoGoGordo said:


> That's what I say Too. 30 years I've lived and ridden here trying to be a responsible rider and be good and not poach. But no more. All bets are off and let the chips fall were they may.
> I try and be as covert as possible and if i get caught then I'll pay the fine do the time and wait for another time to start all over again.
> This is BS always has been and as far as I can see always will be.There is no short term solution
> I know alot of good people try really hard to get and keep ST open around here, but unfortunately it's not working.
> ...


"They can take away our trails...but they can never take away our...FREEDOM!!!" Oops, I guess I got carried away. I just watched Braveheart


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

*Buzz Cut, thanks*

... for the clarity. Always good to have a sensible voice, and especially from someone that stands in both of these user groups.

Speaking from an East Bay rider's perspective, I think what bothers me most is that sheer number of cyclists on the trails seems to be no less than 10 for every horse & rider -- and I think that's very conservative. I don't have a problem with horses having access to trails, but it seems at times that there's really like two riders in the entire East Bay that take advantage of their trail access, and meanwhile, hundreds of us our spinning the same dull loops each day.

It's a good idea to keep us separate on certain trails, agreed. But maybe the mileage of available trails should be proportionate to the number of users in each group, or at least closer to those proportions.


----------



## loomis (Nov 9, 2005)

*Political Muscle Needed*

Want to prevent trail closures for MTBers? Want to open new trails? Join and support (that means $$ and time) IMBA and your local MTB club/advocacy group. Around here we are building new trails. When only the equestrians and hikers show up at hearings about trail access, guess what - we mountain bikers get screwed.


----------



## cohenfive (Jan 12, 2004)

*i think the winds of change are a blowin'.....*

the mtn bike community is starting to become a political force to be dealt with. it has taken a long, long time but there are signs that we are starting to come together realizing that it is the only way to get some of what is fair in this area. i think what happened in the east bay around the bond measure and ebrpd board elections was a first tentative step in that direction.

it totally sux that trail access is still so lopsided against the second largest (and likely fastest growing) user group, but the more we come together and voice ourselves in productive ways the more we will, over time, see changes made.

as our group matures and comes together we become more powerful. it's just a very long road...but i have to be optimistic about something, and for today this is it!!


----------



## fat.tires (Sep 18, 2005)

darkness seems to change the trail usage even more. don't see too many hikers or equestrians after dark on any trails. and heck at night, i don't even notice the red slash... all i see is a white bike sign... Love the way the mark the good trails....Go!!!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Essentially, they get the trails because they were there first.*

They are very well established, moneyed, and organized. Same with the Sierra Club. If they don't like what is going down they can sue and can afford to do so. Park Staff input says that getting these folk to change the usage of the trails to include bikes is a non-starter. So far, that has been true. The problem is that mtb'ers would rather ride their bikes than be politically active in any constructive way. That is not an accusation but a fact and who can blame them?

I hear often that joining IMBA is way to help. I enjoyed the IMBA contact last year and their team was helpful in refocusing the BTCEB for it's mission. Fair enough. However it was the presence of new and talented volunteers from our community who have brought fresh ideas and methods to the game that has really made all the difference. New leadership was key to this revitalization and new effectiveness of an organization which, along with the Marin BTC, actually FOUNDED IMBA.

It is a curiosity that IMBA local membership far outstrips local Bicycle Trails Counsel rosters. Yeah, it is nice when they come around for a trail work thingy or a conference. It is a fine resource and they are great people. Yet, who is it that attends the public meetings? Who delivers our message and makes the argument against huge opposition. Who is doing the dirty work, raising funds, or supporting the NorCal High School Racers? 
Who is taking the kids out to ride all year, not just once on Kids Day? Who is really doing the trail work, leading rides, writing letters, working to develop new trails. Who is really fighting the fight at the front lines? It is your local Trails Counsel, not IMBA.

So when you start to talk about "joining" the battle I think it is pretty clear that hooking up with your local Trails Counsel is the most important thing you can do. This is where support is desperately needed. These are the people you see all the time on the trails and in the bike shops and at all the cycling events all year. The BTCEB, BTCM, ROMP, MBOSC, these are the folks who focus us at the local level and this is where mountain bikers can have a huge effect.

Joining IMBA might make you feel good but it is you local trails counsel that is trying to get things done. Join up!


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

fat.tires said:


> darkness seems to change the trail usage even more. don't see too many hikers or equestrians after dark on any trails. and heck at night, i don't even notice the red slash... all i see is a white bike sign... Love the way the mark the good trails....Go!!!


Hey Fat:

A friend of mine said he saw some horse tracks coming out of the Gaint Salamander trail recently. I am curious if on your white bike sign rides if you have had a chance to ride that trail? Seems a shame that horses get to ride the trail but the mountain bikers are once again put on the back burner.


----------



## dusthuffer (Nov 30, 2006)

We have a few dedicated folks in SOCAL, called CORBA, that through sheer persistence are able to keep trails open and get other trails open.

CORBAMTB.com what is the norcal equivilent?


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

I agree with BerkeleyMike, the horses were there first. This is just lame and bogus. People in the 'old' days didn't ride horses to recreate, they rode them for transportation. That's NOT what's going on here.
MidPen CLAIMS to not be in the business of recreation, therefore they don't give a rat's assss about bikes. We're there to recreate. Well, now, the horsies are sure as hell there to recreate, aren't they?

I understand the reluctance of letting MTBs on 'old' horsey trails, but it totally escapes me to build new trails and exclude MTBs.

I assume this is a part of MidPen's 65% of trails allowing bikes dealie...

Sucks.


----------



## feetsnofail (Sep 25, 2006)

while civil disobedience (poaching) does not directly benefit the long term goals of opening land access - it can be a positive factor in creating an awareness of injustice for the short term; if this 'awareness' factor is used effectively by the local access groups it can lead to successes in long term access issues

said another way - poach away! not like the access can get much worse than it is now. I'm fed up with the 'play nice and wait' formula which has not been fruitful ...

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." (Gandhi)


----------



## fat.tires (Sep 18, 2005)

what's up Doc!

Giant Salamander's not in my local bag o ticks. never ridden that one, but have heard it's on the list of good rides. i need to get out more often...
which reminds me.... i just bought a new night light about 5 mins ago. PerformanceBikes has a 20% off deal that goes thru today - webstore or phone in - use coupon code 509. picked up the light and motion seca 400. reg price $369 on sale $329, less 20%= $263. not too shabby for 400 lumins with a lithium ion powerpack. should make it a bit easier to spot the white bike signs, + safer and faster


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

feetsnofail said:


> said another way - poach away! not like the access can get much worse than it is now. I'm fed up with the 'play nice and wait' formula which has not been fruitful ...
> 
> "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." (Gandhi)


I'm totally against poaching. The food is usually very bland and without texture. I prefer grilling.

"Poaching can ruin a perfectly wonderful meal" (Julia Child)


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Poaching creates an awareness of injustice?*

I see that but it is a very hard sell to people who simply see it as breaking the law, especially a law that protects a user groups' experience. I have tried this in EBATC meetings and one can feel very foolish, especially if any rude or thoughtless behavior is cited. Trying to explain that in terms of the stresses involved when caught poaching by a group of hikers is an even tougher sell.

This sort of thread generates lots is sympathy for overwhelming a meeting and telling the powers-that-be what is really going down. The problem is that the real work comes in the meeting when it happens again next month, and the month after that and after that and then where is that hue and cry?

Changing the context is what needs to happen for poaching to create an awareness of injustice. Changing context, changing perspectives takes lots of face-to-face time and persistence. People would rather ride their bikes..
This is where I came in.....


----------



## feetsnofail (Sep 25, 2006)

Blue Shorts said:


> I'm totally against poaching. The food is usually very bland and without texture. I prefer grilling.
> 
> "Poaching can ruin a perfectly wonderful meal" (Julia Child)


ahh - good point ... let's 'grill' the MROSD Board :-D

(whatup dude - lets do some poaching, then finish with a grilling =)


----------



## feetsnofail (Sep 25, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I see that but it is a very hard sell to people who simply see it as breaking the law, especially a law that protects a user groups' experience.


agree - and this is where it's difficult since there is no 'single' MTB group - we have XC'rs, DH'rs, AM'rs, FR'rs, etc ... each sub group has different usage needs.

this is where the quantity of riding options comes into the equation. if MTB's were suddenly granted access to all trails, the total # of bikes on trails would be spread across the park lands somewhat more evenly. this would relieve the stress on the currently open trails and (hopefully) reduce the 'overwhelmed with bikes' focus that hiker groups have used in the past.

no easy solutions - but nothing worthwhile is easy. at the end of the day we just want to ride our bikes


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

feetsnofail said:


> this is where the quantity of riding options comes into the equation. if MTB's were suddenly granted access to all trails, the total # of bikes on trails would be spread across the park lands somewhat more evenly. this would relieve the stress on the currently open trails and (hopefully) reduce the 'overwhelmed with bikes' focus that hiker groups have used in the past.


We start into this explanation and request and all the bluehaired board members' eyes gloss over and we lose them in a few minutes. 

They just don't want change.

From the LaHonda meeting, they were adamant that the '65%' was more than enough.


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I see that but it is a very hard sell to people who simply see it as breaking the law, especially a law that protects a user groups' experience. I have tried this in EBATC meetings and one can feel very foolish, especially if any rude or thoughtless behavior is cited. Trying to explain that in terms of the stresses involved when caught poaching by a group of hikers is an even tougher sell.
> 
> This sort of thread generates lots is sympathy for overwhelming a meeting and telling the powers-that-be what is really going down. The problem is that the real work comes in the meeting when it happens again next month, and the month after that and after that and then where is that hue and cry?
> 
> ...


I'm not sure they see it as simply breaking the law, but more of an excuse to become over-protective of what they think they own. They know it's no worse than j-walking, changing lanes without using the signal, or driving 5 mph over the speed limit. They will just play it up like it armed robbery.

For myself, I saw the MTB race at Mission Peak get shut down just a week or two before the race in 1985 and it's been the same since. I don't have the time to wait another 20 years. If the single track gets opened while I'm on my deathbed that doesn't really help me very much. Like the other person above said, I'll just ride and if I get caught politely take the ticket and pay the fine. Call it an extra access fee.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Horse owners are richer and with better political connections. There is no other reason to allow horses and prohibit bicycles.

All popular horse trails are eroded and covered in manure. Vast majority of horse owners behave like a first grade *******s.


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

I think you'll find that most of them in the East Bay are low to mid income Mexicans. And before anybody says anything, I've found that every one of them are very friendly unlike the uptight few rich people with horses.

Seriously, you can get a nice, mild, middle-aged trail horse for like $1,500. Almost anybody can have one.


----------



## Gregg K (Jan 12, 2004)

Here's my simple logic. For all I know it's already being used to argue FOR bikes on trails. As for longevity of a trail due to use, the mountain bike versus the horse can be explained in terms of pressure and shear force on the trails. I have ridden a trail for two years, along with many other cyclists. One tour of three horses permanently deformed that trail, whereas all of the cycling left no discernible traces.

A mountain bike wheel rolls on a patch with approximately 35 psi.
A horse hoof impacts the trail with about 60 psi. Furthermore it not only doesn't roll, but it has sharp edges that shear the trail, leaving damage with each step, depending on hardness of the trail. 

Plus, bikes don't defecate on the trail for other users to deal with. Geez. I"m so sick of this antiquated argument. Besides we outnumber them by magnitudes.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I can't agree with your description of equestrians in the East Bay*

nor with any idea that at $1500 investment in a horse makes it affordable. Now that I think of it, though, if you just hung ol' Paint in the shed or garage when you weren't using her it could be cheap.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Gregg K said:


> Besides we outnumber them by magnitudes.


But not by donation dollars and availability of spare time.


----------



## twindaddy (Jun 18, 2007)

Razorfish said:


> I think you'll find that most of them in the East Bay are low to mid income Mexicans. And before anybody says anything, I've found that every one of them are very friendly unlike the uptight few rich people with horses.
> 
> Seriously, you can get a nice, mild, middle-aged trail horse for like $1,500. Almost anybody can have one.


It's easier to manage the cattle herds in the hills on horseback rather than ATVs - they're banned from the trails


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

twindaddy said:


> It's easier to manage the cattle herds in the hills on horseback rather than ATVs - they're banned from the trails


They manage them?


----------



## j3blur (Dec 11, 2007)

*Mahatma Gandhi Approach?*

How about Mahatma Gandhi Approach.... I say the MTBRs should take the Mahatma Gandhi approach and hike on the horses only trail and stand in the middle of the trail and block the horse riders from using the trail for a formal protest. Let's take some action!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

*mtbrAARP?*



Curmy said:


> But not by donation dollars and availability of spare time.


(1/2 serious): Maybe we need to go recruit riders from the AARP crowd. Some of them have dollars, and damn near all of 'em have spare time. Any geriatric recreation specialists on the board want to start a "Take a Geezer Biking" program?

(less serious): Sorry if I offended anyone; I know that AARP and geriatric are not synonymous. I've just always liked how the word "geezer" rolls off the tongue.... "Geeeeeeezzzeeerrrrr...." It's the only reason I listen to Black Sabbath. In his case, it is synonymous.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

This thread must have been moved.

There are alot of ways for clubs to have a better impact. The disconnect from people seemingly thinking that taking such a rebellious attitude will work is pretty Hollywood. But all the same with the way most multi-user area's are set up with a bias against mountain biking, these attitudes will always be prevalent regardless of how hard many folk who are aligned with advocacy suggest a more productive alternative.

To me i move on and do what i can do to make a positive impact in spite of what's going on. Even doing ride leads i can take time to show people proper etiquette, so on so forth. Stuff takes time, but it's too bad so many people are resolved to not be the wind to the backs of the process.

A huge step into the process is the internet. i'm in hopes our group Evergreen continues forward with ideas like our Trail Wiki, based on the Wikipedia Format. We have trail pages where interested people can inform and educated on multiple levels. Not only trail conditions, but when important meeting are going down etc...

http://evergreenmtb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Advocacy

The internet is so key to advocacy today, it's such a valuable tool.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Diesel_Junkie said:


> I need to rant:
> My Wife is an equestrian. Her horse is trained to deal well with motorcycles.
> I hike, ride mountain bikes, ride motor bikes, and drive rockcrawlers(jeeps).
> 
> ...


Why would you choose to be into an activity when there is no place to engage in it near where you live? Sorry, but it seems to be a fair question to me.
Just because you want to do something doesn't mean there is some constitutional obligation for the government to accommodate it. When I was growing up in Indiana and was into dirt bikes (grew out of that long age thank god) the only places we had to ride where motocross tracks on private land. That's just the way it was and we accepted it. We didn't have some sense of entitlement that we had a right to ride where ever we wanted.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Yes, this thread was copied from the Norcal board. There's a big ongoing discussion there.

Good info and nice wiki. That is excellent insight to the internet being a key advocacy tool.

We were blind and scattered. Now we may have a light to find our way.

fc



Skookum said:


> This thread must have been moved.
> 
> There are alot of ways for clubs to have a better impact. The disconnect from people seemingly thinking that taking such a rebellious attitude will work is pretty Hollywood. But all the same with the way most multi-user area's are set up with a bias against mountain biking, these attitudes will always be prevalent regardless of how hard many folk who are aligned with advocacy suggest a more productive alternative.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*I agree... and I disagree...*



Berkeley Mike said:


> They are very well established, moneyed, and organized. Same with the Sierra Club. If they don't like what is going down they can sue and can afford to do so. Park Staff input says that getting these folk to change the usage of the trails to include bikes is a non-starter. So far, that has been true. The problem is that mtb'ers would rather ride their bikes than be politically active in any constructive way. That is not an accusation but a fact and who can blame them?
> 
> I hear often that joining IMBA is way to help. I enjoyed the IMBA contact last year and their team was helpful in refocusing the BTCEB for it's mission. Fair enough. However it was the presence of new and talented volunteers from our community who have brought fresh ideas and methods to the game that has really made all the difference. New leadership was key to this revitalization and new effectiveness of an organization which, along with the Marin BTC, actually FOUNDED IMBA.
> 
> ...


I agree that supporting and joining local trail groups is the answer for getting things done locally and regionally. Without joining local trail groups, mountain bikers will continue to get the short end of the stick.

I also think that IMBA is an important aspect of mountain biking trails access. They act at a national level for the strategic best interests of mountain bikers. They also work to identify mountain bikers as responsible and important members of the trail user/building community. They support specific local and regional efforts as well but we (local and regional organizations) need to provide IMBA direction on how they can help us.

Local or regional groups are extremely important but so is IMBA. There doesn't need to be a question of supporting a regional group over IMBA. In my opinion, both we should support both.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Our club, a "local IMBA affiliate" gets tons of mileage in our advocacy work by citing our relationship to IMBA.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I guess I just don't see it.*

It sounds like at least 2 of you are getting benefits from IMBA though I would really like to know how one measures "tons of mileage". As a member of the organization which founded IMBA and any number of subsequent larger groups, it has only meant a loss of resources from us locally. And we are, without question, in the toughest area for dealing with access issues in the nation.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> It sounds like at least 2 of you are getting benefits from IMBA though I would really like to know how one measures "tons of mileage". As a member of the organization which founded IMBA and any number of subsequent larger groups, it has only meant a loss of resources from us locally. And we are, without question, in the toughest area for dealing with access issues in the nation.


I don't know how to measure 'tons of mileage' but have seen things improve because of being affiliated with IMBA. In Indiana both HMBA and NIMBA were able to show the parks consistent and sustainable standards that helped reinforce a sense of legimatacy for trailbuilding efforts.

And additionally TCC crew visits have helped to energize, educate local riders, and help build trust with land managers. They are now starting seeing us as people to network and partner with instead of the enemy.

A good chunk of the relationship with IMBA and their positive results has also come from the people working at the local level - the people getting IMBA involved, putting the PR out there, and representing IMBA and the clubs on a more local level. We've been lucky though and have worked both locally and regionally - it hasn't been a drain on resources, in fact the opposite - getting advice and involement with groups from different parts of a state, or even from more than one state involved with a few projects.

JmZ


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

"tons of mileage"

We (our club) was invited to a State Parks roundtable last year. No agenda, just member of various organizations coming and going. Present also were the State Parks commissioner and managers of several local state parks. We have very good relationships with the two local, large state parks: both have had Trail Care Crew projects over the years, and we do maintenance within the parks and act as liasions with the mtb community as best we can.

I went to this meeting armed with copies of Trail Solutions, as we always try to give a copy to land manager types if they don't already have one.

The highlight of my day was when I was talking to the group and mainly the Parks Commissioner about building sustainable trails, ease of maintenance, and how IMBA standards are the best and a guy from another user organization ( backcountry horsemen as a matter of fact) jumps right in and says that IMBA techniques are the Gold Standard, with the local park managers chiming in with a "you betcha" kind of thing. THe commissioner, who was not familiar with IMBA was really interested in what we had to say, especiallly with the local park manager backing up what we said, as in "we love having your group working in our park". 

IMBA trail building standards have certainly put our group in the forefront of who to contact when singletrack issues come up in the community, as have the advocacy techniques we use.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Mike, I love you like a brother...*



Berkeley Mike said:


> It sounds like at least 2 of you are getting benefits from IMBA though I would really like to know how one measures "tons of mileage". As a member of the organization which founded IMBA and any number of subsequent larger groups, it has only meant a loss of resources from us locally. And we are, without question, in the toughest area for dealing with access issues in the nation.


And unlike many of my responses on MTBR, this one isn't intended to be smart ass:

How does joining IMBA and sending them $30 result in a loss of local resources?

We receive credibility with some of our land managers due to our adherance to IMBA's trail building standards. IMBA doesn't specifically "help" us with local advocacy but we do leverage our association with IMBA to gain additional access.

So again the questions, "Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both?"


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I don't see why it cannot be both*

but around here in the SF Bay area it just isn't. We will work on that. It also sounds like you folks have a more receptive group of land managers. Next time you are chatting with the IMBA folk just ask the about our situation.

We have about 8 million people crammed around hills pushed up by plate tectonics surrounding a bay at the edge of an ocean. Groups are working hard to claim land before it is gone to development and I am starting to believe that that sense of guardianships' overreach is what we struggle against. There are still remnants of Old California about and in my lifetime I have seen much of it disappear. To the Elders who seem to have control of the Parks the emergence of mountain biking is intrusive, disruptive, and part of destroying something fine. Keep in mind that California is also the home of the Sierra Club and if you want to see some wacko enviros we got 'em.


----------



## crux (Jan 10, 2004)

When I'm out hiking nothing is more enjoyable than seeing the horses out right after a rain storm leaving 2-5" deep hoof prints in the trail. Their added feces is a real treat for all as well. At least the equestrians are having an impact on the trails.

For the mountain biking community you should be ashamed using the trails in such a low impact manner. How could you have a clear conscious using the trails with out damaging the environment around you. Hell if you want to ride something with wheels go buy a double wide ATV for single track usage. At least that way you can be goosing the throttle around every rock or tree.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

So is this thread a complaining thread, because personally i don't think i really have much stake in arguing over anything i disagree with in here. Which really is like 10% of the statement, and even that percentage i can still sympathize enough to see where you're coming from.

So what i would recommend is find a niche where you can be involved in the process. There are many ways to establish a firm groundwork, but it takes work and time.

There are a small number of mountain bikers per capita that take the time and do what's right for mountain biking in many different clubs and orgs and sometimes outside of the clubs. They really need more wind to their back, not more obstacles in front of them. Here's my challenge to you, are you doing more to be a help or a hindrance, and are you even educated enough to know the difference. If you have a passion to ride then all you have left is the choice to become more involved. Then hopefully the wisdom to follow through with a worthwhile endeavor within the realm of mountain biking advocacy.


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

*Volunteers = Influence*

Equestrians have influence due to their money
Hikers have influence due to their numbers
But mtbrs can exert influence with their volunteer hours

If you can regularly turn out a large number of mtbrs for volunteer trail events, you will soon have influence with the land managers. They have no trail budgets anymore and are desperately dependent on volunteers, both for labor and event planning/organization. Soon they will realize the best source of help to maintain the closed trails is also the mtbrs. The only way to use mtbrs to maintain a closed trail is to open the trail, so there is now pressure to open a trail to mtbrs as they are seen as a way to help save the trail.

Seeing mtbrs help maintain something natural like a trail also helps offset the young rebel, daredevil, lawbreaker image of mtbrs, which unfortunately is still the perception of many hikers/equestrians.


----------



## crux (Jan 10, 2004)

bweide said:


> Equestrians have influence due to their money
> Hikers have influence due to their numbers
> But mtbrs can exert influence with their volunteer hours


I'll put away my smart ars persona for a bit as I completely agree. Back when I was living in the Twin Cities there was a group of cyclist that called themselves MORC and even have a great website that rivals MTBR for the locals. We would have weekly trail work sessions and everyone had a voice in the group. Now most of the cycling trails were reserved for cyclist only crossing hiking trails a handful of times. Now I live in an area where I have my choice of trails to hit any given day of the week from high up in the mtns, across to desert conditions. While the riding here is fantastic I do miss MORC and what they / we were doing for the sport locally.

In that spirit I have been attempting to get a group similar to that going here in NM only to be faced with some significant resistance not from land managers or the city, but by the cyclist themselves.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*I was wrong....*



Berkeley Mike said:


> I'd be interested to hear more about that if you have the time.


I'm leaving my previous opinions up but I've changed my mind based on the new RLC program that IMBA is launching.

In my opinion, the RLC program doesn't help those regions that already have established mountain bike advocacy organizations and in fact hurts them, defocuses them from their current goals and objectives and ads a layer of complication that doesn't seem to benefit anyone.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Resistance from the cyclists themselves?*

I'd be interested to hear more about that if you have the time.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I'd be interested to hear more about that if you have the time.


oh, that's an easy one. Resistance can take the form to "how dare you maintain ( change ) the trails" to "how dare you negotiate with land managers" to total apathy to volunteer for anything.....


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*I have some too....*



formica said:


> oh, that's an easy one. Resistance can take the form to "how dare you maintain ( change ) the trails" to "how dare you negotiate with land managers" to total apathy to volunteer for anything.....


People who have "great" ideas that they think others should execute on their behalf because they're too lazy or the task is too hard.

1. You (advocate) should do this for me (non-volunteer).
2. You should build this type of trail for me.
3. You should of course, maintain the trail I'm proposing you build for me.
4. You're doing everything wrong. 
5. You're not working hard enough for me.
6. You're a plumb smuggling XC rider and can't possibly understand the awesome, hucking and freeriding experience that I'm looking for.
7. You're a Mountain Dew swilling, apethetic gravity junkie and you can't possibly understand awesome, ripping and flowing XC singletrack experience that I'm looking for.

And the list goes on and on....

The infighting between mountain bikers is a sucking, waste of time. It's especially perplexing because outside of the cycling culture, people make no distinction between cycling types. We're all weirdos who wear tight clothes and ride an expensive toy.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

Ken in KC said:


> People who have "great" ideas that they think others should execute on their behalf because they're too lazy or the task is too hard.
> 
> 1. You (advocate) should do this for me (non-volunteer).
> 2. You should build this type of trail for me.
> ...


+1

8. How dare you take down my (poorly constructed) object. 
9. How dare you move my object, and tell me it's inappropriate on a beginner trail.

And I've got more too.

It happens everywhere. But honestly the first time I had someone tell me 'thanks' for some trail, or reroute really makes it worthwhile.

JmZ


----------



## crux (Jan 10, 2004)

Main issue I see is that when cyclist are blessed with several great trails they are unwilling to help out in sustaining existing trails or even adding new features. Then we have rouge cyclist fabricating advanced trails across newbie loops adding insult to injury for new cyclists. New cyclist are getting injured, hikers are pissed at the features, and horses are not much happier with the cycling community. 

Attempts at getting an organized crew together with an existing negative image towards trail building in the area is just not a very popular idea locally. 

There are also some trail closure issues that have impacted the cycling community which were passively accepted. Locally we have a major perception issue that needs to be addressed.


----------



## aph72 (Jun 28, 2006)

Man I hate horses. If a dog came in your yard and left 10 inch wide potholes from his paws and left about 10 pounds of crap, wouldn't you just flip out? Why are we expected to tolerate this kind of trail damage and feces all over the trails? What if a guy dumped on a popular sidewalk for about a month straight, he might just equal what a horse drops in a day. I don't see why the same behaviour restrictions we come to expect from dog owners can't be applied to horse owners. No trail damage, no huge piles of dung. Pick up after your horse!
(what rings like a bell and smells like poop? dung, da-dung, dung, dung)


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

" I don't see why the same behaviour restrictions we come to expect from dog owners can't be applied to horse owners."

On one of our more popular trails, the city has posted the dog owners must clean up after their animals, I've asked horse riders to do the same, and am met with laughs, and shaking heads. If my dog leaves a poop. i get a ticket, if my horse leaves a 3or 4x poop, thats natural and OK to leave in the middle of the trail.


----------



## UncleTrail (Sep 29, 2007)

francois said:


> Is this the equivalent to a 'slap in the face' to a mountain biker?
> Why is that? How does this happen? What can we do? What are you going to do?
> fc


Is it just me or is the pic of that first trail showing an improper full bench cut? sloping in instead of out?


----------



## mikeleroy (Sep 15, 2008)

zrm said:


> Why would you choose to be into an activity when there is no place to engage in it near where you live? Sorry, but it seems to be a fair question to me.
> Just because you want to do something doesn't mean there is some constitutional obligation for the government to accommodate it. When I was growing up in Indiana and was into dirt bikes (grew out of that long age thank god) the only places we had to ride where motocross tracks on private land. That's just the way it was and we accepted it. We didn't have some sense of entitlement that we had a right to ride where ever we wanted.


I would respond with something longer, but, your argument (if you can call it that is weaksauce). FAIL


----------

