It's official: Bikes Banned in Nisene Marks
- Thread starter surfinguru
- Start date
That's just great...It seems like the enviro-nazis won't be happy until we have been driven out of the state. :mumble:
Kill em all Hesse...
' A judge has ruled mountain bikers should be banned from a large portion of the Forest of Nisene Marks State Park that the state hopes to develop and open to more users' This is such BS, look at the last sen, it says it should be open to more users, yet they are shutting more out!Translation ,more old fart hikers who sit in their recliners and read sierra club magazines should be aloud to use the land.
that blows, i have never been there but i hoped to ride it some day.
I only rode there about four times a year but that does suck.
Shizz, Son. :angry:
Shizz, Son. :angry:
Weren't horses banned from the beginning(30 yrs ago) on the property in question?
State Parks has 60 days to appeal this ruling. They are considering whether to do this right now. If you care about this, now is the time to call, write, or e-mail your State Senators and Assembly persons, as well as the head of State Parks. Show them that there are people out there who care about this issue. For names, contact info, and more info on this subject, see <www.mbosc.org>
Yes, Horses are specificly banned when the land was given to the state. Mountain bikes were not mentioned either way since the didn't exsist at the time! The court currently assumes bikes are closer to horses than hikers. There is a group trying to raise money for a legal defense. There are selling Free the Trail T-shirts for only $10. With the proceeds going to the IMBA legal defense fund. You can get one from a local bike shop, or buy some direct here:
http://www.foxracingshox.com/ftt/
It's an easy way to help, and they make great (cheap) Christmas gifts...
Scott
Once again trying to turn anger to action.
http://www.foxracingshox.com/ftt/
It's an easy way to help, and they make great (cheap) Christmas gifts...
Scott
Once again trying to turn anger to action.
this doenst enclude the demo forset, does it???
I dont live anywhere close.
But this sucks for all MTBers. :mumble:
Im buying several shirts to do my part for the IMBA fund.
But this sucks for all MTBers. :mumble:
Im buying several shirts to do my part for the IMBA fund.
F'n hippies:angry:
IronJim,
It does affect the Demo Forest in that all of Buzzard Lagoon is in Nisene Marks. That is the fireroad climb up to the top of the ridge trail. So if this goes through as currently ruled you would have to drop down to sulfer springs, and climb that... not as nice of a ride.
I am campaigning for one of 2 options.
1. Try to have the ruling reversed to allow bike according to the new general plan. This would kick ass.
2. Exclude the fire roads as provided for under the land grant as 20' wide roads for entering and exiting the park. This does not open Nisene Marks, but does not restrict access to the Demo forest.
bpatterson6:
Good job. I am giving them out to co-workers. They are cheap and enviromentally friendly Christmas gifts.
It does affect the Demo Forest in that all of Buzzard Lagoon is in Nisene Marks. That is the fireroad climb up to the top of the ridge trail. So if this goes through as currently ruled you would have to drop down to sulfer springs, and climb that... not as nice of a ride.
I am campaigning for one of 2 options.
1. Try to have the ruling reversed to allow bike according to the new general plan. This would kick ass.
2. Exclude the fire roads as provided for under the land grant as 20' wide roads for entering and exiting the park. This does not open Nisene Marks, but does not restrict access to the Demo forest.
bpatterson6:
Good job. I am giving them out to co-workers. They are cheap and enviromentally friendly Christmas gifts.
That's such crap, I learned to ride on that fire road. I think it's stupid of them to close all the stuff up there. I rarely ride above the steel bridge, but it's still stupid
I love how the judge says "If horses aren't allowed then mountain bikes shouldn't be." He then fails to back up this statment by giving no evidence of how mountain bikes are close to horses, or how bikes do so much greater damage than hikers. The last time I checked, our bicycles didn't weigh 1000+ pounds with huge prints that shat everywhere. Nor did I see the difference between the bottom of a hiker's boot and the profile of our tires. Trail closings happen often in Kentucky, for the exact same reason.
Yeah, were just as bad as horses, come armed with info when you go there. Throw some of this in the ignorant judges face!
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/trail_shock.html
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/BikeAMC.html
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/trail_shock.html
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/BikeAMC.html
FYI, you can ride all of the Nisene Fire Road (Aptos Creek Fire Rd.) right now if you like. The ban will not take effect until the appeal is filed and lost. It's sort of in limbo right now, so if you've wanted to ride from Aptos to Buzzard Lagoon, or to Demo, or if you're worried about ridin Buzzard to get to Demo, no worries. No rangers yet...maybe not for months or years.
All depends on the legal process.
P
All depends on the legal process.
P
Dear Mr. Apple and Citizens for the Preservation of The Forest of Nisene Marks,
I am writing in response to some of the points outlined on your webpage, with the hope that I can open a bit of dialogue with you and your organization regarding your stated position on trail usage in Nisene Marks. Up front I should let you know who I am and what I believe, which hopefully won't dimly color your reception of the rest of my letter- my day job is laboratory research in molecular biology at Stanford. My primary hobby of the last 15 years is mountain biking. I am not affiliated with any national or local MTB advocacy groups, and although I have bicycled in nearby Soquel Demonstration forest, I have never been to Nisene Marks. For the purposes of the discussion below, I feel the latter point is not incredibly relevant.
I realize that the scientist/mountain biker might sound like an odd juxtaposition of realities to some people. I have little time for recreation, so I have to satisfy several needs at once; simply put, better than *any* other form of recreation that I have attempted (this is a long list, so I won't bore you), MTBing allows me to (i) manage stress by plopping me deep into nature and sharply decreasing the volume of ubiquitous people and cars and noise that comes with being an urbanista, (ii) counteract the sedentary inertia coincident with working huge hours, and (iii) allows me to connect with friends whom I otherwise wouldn't see often.
To distill my discussion into one sentence: restricting mountain bike access to trails near urban centers needs to be done only under exceptional circumstances. From your case, your group has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. It sounds like your group simply doesn't want to share the trails with bicycles.To enable this you have successfully argued the original land deed written by the Marks family with a dangerously literal and exclusionary interpretation.
Here's an example:
4. That the use of the Property shall be limited to camping, nature study, hiking, and associated activities
'Hiking' is defined as "to go on an extended walk for pleasure or exercise". I didn't realize that the spirit of mountain biking is contrary to the spirit of hiking. Is mountain biking not "to go on an extended bicycle ride in the woods for pleasure or exercise"? Would you be against climbing trees in Nisene Marks, or swimming, or picking flowers, or hunting morel mushrooms, or photographing your spouse because these were not explicitly stated in the 6 point land usage guidelines by the Marks family? Mountain biking is an associated activity to hiking. I think you will have a hard time disagreeing with this in your heads, even though it is central to your argument.
Extending this point one step:
6. That there shall be filed no complaint in an action of condemnation whereby it is sought to condemn all or any portion of the Property, *or any interest therein*, whether or not the State shall participate in or accede to such exercise of the power of eminent domain.
Is a suggestion of banning responsible user access to the upper 9,000 acres of the park not contrary to the implicit language of the land deed?
What you also know is that like any large group of people, there are responsible people, and jerks. While I have a hard time defending 13-year olds with full-face helmets and reckless abandon for authority and their own bodies (it's amazing that any of us survive beyond 18), I can say that I, like most of us, have never hit a hiker, a domestic or wild animal while riding my bike, and that there are numerous solutions to user conflict that are cheaper and less severe than trail closure; mountain bikers can wear cowbells under their seats. Trails can be designated one-way at times of peak traffic.
Here is why banning bikes is a bad idea: people will not all of a sudden ride less because their trails they used to ride have been deemed illegal. This is a myopic victory for people who champion a shrinking amount of recreation space for overtly selfish reasons. Decreasing the trail volume only increases the burden on legal trails, which in turn gives the anti-bike people more of a reason to close trails. Too many bikes. Too much trail damage. Not enough quiet.
Give me a break. In 2004, we live in an urban reality. The more that different groups of trail users unify their efforts, the more likely it is that *real* threats to our nearby open space won't gain a foothold. A glaring example of what can happen is sadly happening right now in Orange County: Aliso Woods, which has arguably the most famous 'illegal' bicycle trail network in the country, is on the edge of being developed into a golf course! What is worse, having bicyclists and hikers share the trails, and responsibility for their preservation, or the wholesale loss of open space?
Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
El Santo, Ph.D.
Stanford University School of Medicine
299 Campus Drive
Stanford, CA
94305
I am writing in response to some of the points outlined on your webpage, with the hope that I can open a bit of dialogue with you and your organization regarding your stated position on trail usage in Nisene Marks. Up front I should let you know who I am and what I believe, which hopefully won't dimly color your reception of the rest of my letter- my day job is laboratory research in molecular biology at Stanford. My primary hobby of the last 15 years is mountain biking. I am not affiliated with any national or local MTB advocacy groups, and although I have bicycled in nearby Soquel Demonstration forest, I have never been to Nisene Marks. For the purposes of the discussion below, I feel the latter point is not incredibly relevant.
I realize that the scientist/mountain biker might sound like an odd juxtaposition of realities to some people. I have little time for recreation, so I have to satisfy several needs at once; simply put, better than *any* other form of recreation that I have attempted (this is a long list, so I won't bore you), MTBing allows me to (i) manage stress by plopping me deep into nature and sharply decreasing the volume of ubiquitous people and cars and noise that comes with being an urbanista, (ii) counteract the sedentary inertia coincident with working huge hours, and (iii) allows me to connect with friends whom I otherwise wouldn't see often.
To distill my discussion into one sentence: restricting mountain bike access to trails near urban centers needs to be done only under exceptional circumstances. From your case, your group has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. It sounds like your group simply doesn't want to share the trails with bicycles.To enable this you have successfully argued the original land deed written by the Marks family with a dangerously literal and exclusionary interpretation.
Here's an example:
4. That the use of the Property shall be limited to camping, nature study, hiking, and associated activities
'Hiking' is defined as "to go on an extended walk for pleasure or exercise". I didn't realize that the spirit of mountain biking is contrary to the spirit of hiking. Is mountain biking not "to go on an extended bicycle ride in the woods for pleasure or exercise"? Would you be against climbing trees in Nisene Marks, or swimming, or picking flowers, or hunting morel mushrooms, or photographing your spouse because these were not explicitly stated in the 6 point land usage guidelines by the Marks family? Mountain biking is an associated activity to hiking. I think you will have a hard time disagreeing with this in your heads, even though it is central to your argument.
Extending this point one step:
6. That there shall be filed no complaint in an action of condemnation whereby it is sought to condemn all or any portion of the Property, *or any interest therein*, whether or not the State shall participate in or accede to such exercise of the power of eminent domain.
Is a suggestion of banning responsible user access to the upper 9,000 acres of the park not contrary to the implicit language of the land deed?
What you also know is that like any large group of people, there are responsible people, and jerks. While I have a hard time defending 13-year olds with full-face helmets and reckless abandon for authority and their own bodies (it's amazing that any of us survive beyond 18), I can say that I, like most of us, have never hit a hiker, a domestic or wild animal while riding my bike, and that there are numerous solutions to user conflict that are cheaper and less severe than trail closure; mountain bikers can wear cowbells under their seats. Trails can be designated one-way at times of peak traffic.
Here is why banning bikes is a bad idea: people will not all of a sudden ride less because their trails they used to ride have been deemed illegal. This is a myopic victory for people who champion a shrinking amount of recreation space for overtly selfish reasons. Decreasing the trail volume only increases the burden on legal trails, which in turn gives the anti-bike people more of a reason to close trails. Too many bikes. Too much trail damage. Not enough quiet.
Give me a break. In 2004, we live in an urban reality. The more that different groups of trail users unify their efforts, the more likely it is that *real* threats to our nearby open space won't gain a foothold. A glaring example of what can happen is sadly happening right now in Orange County: Aliso Woods, which has arguably the most famous 'illegal' bicycle trail network in the country, is on the edge of being developed into a golf course! What is worse, having bicyclists and hikers share the trails, and responsibility for their preservation, or the wholesale loss of open space?
Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
El Santo, Ph.D.
Stanford University School of Medicine
299 Campus Drive
Stanford, CA
94305
Great letter El Santo, i could not agree more!
Nice letter!
I'm cryin' man that letter is a thing of beauty!