dissapointed

[R57]

reading about thoughts from some of the big names in access, and how some of them are now talking seperate use trails. not a good idea when the horse riders talk it. not good when cyclist talk it.

[EBasil]

I think it's worth talking about, Lyle. The issue, that is. Feel up to starting up a thread in here that covers some of the topics in that article?

Just think, a thread without SUVs and George Bush. :)

[tryandgetme]

if anyone could turn it into a bush or SUV thread, we could :D

[wooglin-at-home]

Lets rake off all the organics, leave the trees, and paint lines for trails.

I think a trail is an impact on the environment, and more trails are more impact. Its basically just a different kind of urban sprawl.

[geckoman]

and that goes for spreading asphalt all over the place too. The parks dept in St Paul paved a bunch of trails on the Mississippi in an effort to get more people to use them. Now there are still very few who use them and the mountain bikers are gone too. worse still it looks like some unsupervised trail building has started and the builders are having a negative impact on the plantlife that prevents erosion in some areas.

[RideOrDieDan]

worse still it looks like some unsupervised trail building has started and the builders are having a negative impact on the plantlife that prevents erosion in some areas.

It never stops. We built a bunch of free ride stuff at a park, with approval, but people still seem to want to ride the fall lines off the tops of the hills and make their own stunts and illegal trails in the park. The land managers are pissed and about to close the trails to all mountain bikers. as for the paved trails we are getting alot of that, but atleast those areas haven't been sold to developers and they are something fun to ride other than the roads on training rides.

[R57]

Tim Blumenthal-- "This might be provocative, but I think there's going to be a trend toward more single-use trails. As mountain bikers get more skilled and are riding more technical trails, it's going to be difficult to share the same trail with an aging population of trail users who might be uncomfortable with bikes. Single-use trails might actullay be a good thing for avid mountain bikers since the rides won't need to worry about conflicts with walkers and equestrians."
Gee Tim, this is the same argument that hikers and equestrians have been using for years to deny us access to trails, run up the white flag, give back all the trail access IMBA has fought so hard to gain, we will just build all new bike only trails, and hire a small army to police them.

Hey Lee Bridgers, educate them idjits.

Jake Heilbron-- "There will always be conflicts when trail users have to share trails.---We need to have specific trails for specific uses. I think we do need to have seprate access." there are equestrians in my hometown who do not want me to ride my bike on the same trails they ride horses, Jake, you are their new best friend.

even Cimarron Chacon's reasonable idea with the "preferred use" trail, would mean twice or three or four times as many trails . where does it end?
trails that get from point to point should be multi-use, if specific groups want to build single use areas that shoot off from multi-use trails, there is nothing wrong with that, like a sandy area for horses, or some horse jumping features, but if I want to ride my bike in to watch I should be allowed to do so. and I think a trail that goes down the fall-line for freeriders is a good thing, as long as it is built on solid rock or other such where erosion is not a problem, and if eq's or hikers want to watch, good.
as long as someone is advocating seprate use trails, there will always be jealousy and conflict, we simply have to learn to share what we have.
I t really dissapoints me to read these good people spouting the same old horseshit.

[wooglin-at-home]

Tim Blumenthal-- "Yadayadayada".
Long live long rides, so long as they're gravity assisted. And not really that long.

I think he's being realistic, at least for that aspect of the sport, but I don't have to like it, endorse it, or support it.

[EBasil]

Well, I was a little concerned about the comments those "advocates" made, also. Particularly, I think such talk, if unqualified by conditions, plays directly into the "Next Great Assault" on multiuse trails being open to bikes: user conflict.

The original hack against bikes was that they cause too much damage. Now, largely discredited to all but the most insidious hacks, this attack on bikes is falling out of use.

The new angle is that other user groups, even if they are the gross minority of trail population, don't enjoy themselves if they have to share trails, and that bikes should then be banned. Very much like how white Southerners didn't enjoy the rapid transit system in Alabama if certain people were allowed to ride on the same bus, or at least in the "good seats". This angle must be rejected: if you don't like families or kids or bikes or seeing others in the outdoors, then stay home or tough it out, right?

However, where similar trails are "braided" or parallel to one another, "split use" can be a good thing. One example referenced obliquely on this board is the trail "set" we call Cobblestone in Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve in San Diego. This singletracked arroyo is a primary route for hikers, runners, cyclists and equestrians, and arguably one of the most popular bike trails in the park. It's a climb/descent, too, so where the most users are, comes the potential for conflict.

We got lucky: although there aren't two parallel trails the entire length of the arroyo from mesa to valley, we have two sections of singletrack parallel to the main trail that braid, ie leave then rejoin the singletrack used by most cyclists. A "Trails Committee" comprised of hikers, horsers and cyclists went out, looked at the trails and decided that the parts of the arroyo with parallel trails could be "split use" in order to reduce conflicts between users. The result is a pair of very enjoyable equestrian trails and corresponding sections of the main singletrack where cyclists and pedestrians can proceed without fear of manure or equestrian conflict. The "horse" trails will be signed for "no bikes" and the bike trails will be signed "no horses". Without conflict on significant portions of trail, and with trails of equal quality, we think it's a good solution. Now, where there's only one trail, it's share and share alike.

edit: Oh, and the idea was justification to "open" lower Cobbles to mountain bikes for the first time in ten years, and to formally designate the whole trail corridor as multiuse.

[Fergie]

I think that in some cases, single use trails are really the only option.

Not for the vast majority of trails, but for highly technical trails, single use is the best option. Any trail that features built stunts, or super steep sections probably SHOULD be single use. That will protect everyone involved from injury and lawsuits.


Oh yeah, on the subject of cutting lines everywhere, I want to add that illegal trail building (something I have done myself) recently cost us access to a large park. There were some sensitive areas of the park that mountain bikes could damage. Could we assure them that mountain bikes would stay on the trails (that we had freedom to build)... no. Thus, no access.

[R57]

most stunts and steep sections also have a second, easier route.
the expectation of avoiding conflict on a trail is unrealistic, slow riders cause conflict with faster riders, fools fixing a flat with their bike layed out across the trail cause conflict, the only way to minumize conflict is when we all finally learn that no public trail is "Just for us". conflict is about expectations, if you do not expect to see anybody else on a trail, then anybody you see can cause a conflict.
if the expectation is that you may encounter anybody, the there is less conflict.
Tim may be executive director of IMBA, but I do not think he is representing IMBA with this comment.

[garbanzo]

I was in Tsali a few years ago....

There are several trails there, each trail is a loop. They have a rotation system in place, having half the trails for bikes only, and half for equestrians/hikers. Every other day or so, they rotate the access so the trails that were bike only are horse/hiker only and vice versa. I thought it worked out alright.

[Evel Knievel]

I was in Tsali a few years ago....

There are several trails there, each trail is a loop. They have a rotation system in place, having half the trails for bikes only, and half for equestrians/hikers. Every other day or so, they rotate the access so the trails that were bike only are horse/hiker only and vice versa. I thought it worked out alright.


This is my favorite solution. It keeps all trails open to all groups and in the long run the other users will see how we MTBers have equal right to the trail as they do.

The whole bell idea is good. But I would like the hiker or horse to wear them.

[Mr. Relaxo]

The "horse" trails will be signed for "no bikes" and the bike trails will be signed "no horses".

We have a nice trail system a few miles from here that has separate bike/hike trails from the horse trails. Trouble is the horse's ass riders camp there all year 'round and have taken it upon themselves to ride on whatever the hell trails they want, hikers/bikers be damned. The result is biker/hiker trails that are all chopped up with hoof prints and very few riders who can accept the diminishing returns we get from riding there. Truth be told the damn horses are more of a danger to the bikers/hikers than vice versa but those chunks see it just the opposite.

I've proposed to various "authorities" that horse's ass riders should have to purchase the same type of riding permits that 4x4's, 4-wheelers and dirt bikers do. The horse's ass riders leave shit (literally and figuratively) on the trails, chop up the trails and NEVER show up when it comes time to build/repair trails. I really can't stand the humps around here.

[EBasil]

Well, my response to your situation, Relaxo, is based only on what you wrote, so I don't know the demeanor of the Rangers. However, I think my tactics would be generally the same: documentation and complaint by cyclists.

Documentation means digiphotos of the "no horse" trail signs and also of trail damage from them on the "wrong trails", maybe of horsemen on the trails, etc... Still in a friendly mode, I'd then request the Rangers to do a little more to enforce the seperated trails designations. If they're gung-ho, then they'll go out and talk to the horser community. If they don't care, then the question to them would be whether it was cool for cyclists to ignore the same type of signs that the horsers are, and then to go do it. Upon contact with horsers, the bikers would be polite and explain that the Rangers have said it's okay for the horsers to ride bike trails and vice versa. Either everyone will get along, or there will be a clamor for obedience to the posted rules. :)

[phlatlander]

The first (and last) time I ever rode on a "shared" trail I encountered a trio of horseback riders. Being courteous, I slowed and made my presence known at a distance as to not scare anyone. The ladies were pleasant and thanked me for yielding to them. Our short conversation somehow shifted from "beautiful day, isn't it?" to trail access. One of the ladies surprised me by saying "We like you guys (cyclists) because you build lots of trails for us." - Now it's not my nature to be an ass, but I (a little dumbfounded) couldn't let that comment go. So I calmly replied, "Why would you - when your horse can do all the hard work for you? Unfortunately, you can't teach horses how to understand the nature of erosion, so the trails eventually end up being mostly unrideable for cyclists." - and rode away. It likely fell on deaf ears.

I like my singletrack to be single, and feces-free. Cyclists and automobiles may have to share the road, but leave the railroad tracks to the trains. By separating trail use, construction & maintenance, you'll then see which group has the better responsibility on impacting (lack of, that is) the environment.

............................

On a side note (and this should in no way be a blanket statement about "horse people"), but I spent my summers in high school hauling enough bales of hay to literally pay for college (50K-70K bales per summer, tax free). Aside from chronic back pain, there's alot I acquired from this experience: 1) No matter how much my current job sucks, no job will EVER suck that much. 2) Hard work really pays (geez, hope I don't sound like a Capitalist ;)); 3) Farmer's tans and cyclist's tans are nearly indistinguishable; 4) Farmer's know more than meteorologist's do about weather forcasting; 5) Farmer's (livestock & crops, not horse people) are some of the smartest, logical people I know. Their livelihood depends on respecting and replenishing the land; 6) Horse people are evil. Most every horse owner I delivered to was generally rude, snobbish and so finicky they tend to care more about their precious equine than their own children. More than once I had to unstack several hundred bales that I had already delivered because some crazy lady found a blade or two of fescue grass in one bale of alfalfa. Lesson: You can't speak logic to these crazy people. So let them have their own trail.

Hypocrisy alert: Then again, family & friends think I'm a little crazy having a "stable" of bikes that occaisionally get treated like royalty. More garage space is devoted to bikes than the car (which gets to sleep outside often), and I've been a little finicky myself as to what parts I buy for them. I guess we're more alike than I tought. Hmmmm

[EBasil]

In places where it's either infeasible or inappropriate to build more trails, we are faced with either sharing them or excluding someone. In my experience, it's better to share them and to import responsibility for trail maintenance as a factor in access and rights. I don't like riding through manure any more than the next guy, but I do like riding.

[JAS]

I'm with Ebasil here. We have biking folks in Western NY complaining about horse use. There are definitely some problems. But what I recommend is this: next time you decide you want to complain about some other user group, figure out what you were goign to say, and repalce horse/ATV/whatever with "biker" and "biker" with "hiker" and see if you still want to say it, see if you want someone making that argument against you as a biker.

The principle that should hold is that all have access so long as the trail remains in good shape. If one group is causing it to not be in good shape, then give them opportunity to fix it. If they don't then they get booted. Sure, not easy to put into practice, but that's how it should be.

The other perspective that is lost is the issue of near-city vs. farther from city trails. If single-use trails are appropriate anywhere (and I am not convinced they are), then it would be at heavily used parks near cities.

Yes, I was disappointed too in the single-use talk I read in Phil's latest column.

[davkatreb]

Gotta agree, equestrians are some of the most obnoxious dicks around. Never met one yet that I wouldn't give a month's pay to take a u-lock to for just five minutes. Whatever. And yeah, it does sort of make me want to roll the sons of bitches around in a bigass dung heap until they're nicely covered from head to toe when they tell me horseshit is "just a part of nature". So's hot lava.

But my biggest gripe against Alpo operators is this: That giant untapped source of protien the bastards ride can be dangerous and unpredictable. Was on the towpath recently and encountered a string of them. Pulled off to the side (in a clump of blackberries, thank you very much), and waited my turn like a good little second-class citizen. FINALLY saw the end of the column. Reached down with my toe and spun the crank up, just out of sheer force of habit. Horse must have caught the movement and heard my freewheel, because it jumped about two feet. The Alpo operator managed to bring the animal under some semblance of control, but I've got to wonder: What happens if these bastards come up on a family out for a bike ride, and Cindy Lou Who (who's only two) shouts out, "Look! Horsie!", or maybe decides to try out her brand-new bell and ends up getting kicked in the face? No sir, I don't believe these stupid, dangerous, unpredictable animals should be allowed in such close proximity to other trail users. Nor should their horses.

[gofast-err]

We have a pretty good relationship with the three equestrians at my local riding spot. They even show up for some of the work days. However that is not the case with some of the other trail systems in the area that have more equestrian traffic. The general attitude that I've seen with most equestrians is that it's someone elses job to maintain the trails and pick up the landmines that are left behind by their animals.

I say dish out trail/land use to specific user groups, and base it on the amount of volinteer hours that each group puts in. Put up or shut up! More work = more trail!

[Evel Knievel]

One major real complaint other users have with MTB'ers is that we are out of control. To them at times it may seem so. Like when I'm airbourne over a rockgarden. And this is my REAL BIG complaint with the Horser's. Where we may seem to be out of control ,yet we have brakes at a fingers touch , we have high action steering in hand. THEY have no brakes , no go pedal, no off switch , and no steering percision. Facts are they suck and have marginal control over their beasts. A lawyer should be able to get them banned on this but it's his daughters ,wives, and polo buddies he would be screwing.

I have yet to see a whole line of bikers taking dumps in the trail.

[EBasil]

I have been using a line I got from my equestrian friends in L.A.: "If you can't control your pet, don't bring him to the park."

This applies to dogs, llamas, parrots, boa constrictors and even, gasp, horses. When we go out to a public place, we assume the duty to act responsibly. If the nature of my pitbull/parrot/paint is that "Fluffy" reacts oddly to different situations I can reasonably expect to encounter (like, say, people) and I know I might not be able to control Fluffy in that situation, then the "responsible thing to do" is not to put others in jeopardy.

Use this analogy at public hearings, but focus on dogs. Most areas have leash laws, but back them up further with rules or expectations that we should not be in public if our dog reacts poorly and cannot be controlled. It's not the fault of the small child or terrified senior when my dog gets aggressive or overly exuberant (well, it may be, but we "say" it's not, right?), and I'm expected to control it or stay home. AFTER securing the general consensus to this, ask why anyone would treat 2,000lb pets differently. :)

If the horsemen can't control their pets on the trail, then they should stay in the corral, instead of endangering the public and themselves. Once they're properly trained and experienced, they can come back out to interact with the rest of us.