Fri, 1 Dec 2006:

From: "Patty Ciesla" <>
To: "'Ed Scott'" <>, "'Josh'" <>
Cc: "'ROMP'" <>, "'Brian Simon'" <>
Subject: Re: [ROMP] What? Logging in La Honda? Meeting 12/3
List-Subscribe: <>,

If ROMP's mission were primarily environmental in nature, it would make

sense for ROMP (as an organization) to comment. But the Jones Gulch logging

plan won't have any effect on mountain biking trails, so I don't think ROMP

needs to concern itself with this issue.


ROMP's members who have a personal concern for the environment may want to

familiarize themselves with the issue by visiting the links at the bottom

and comment on it. It is a good idea for mountain bikers who have an

interest in local environmental issues to get involved and work with our

sister environmental organizations, so that they see that there are mountain

bikers who have broader concerns for the environment. It helps us make

friends with groups that tend to view mountain biking with concern.




Fri, 17 Nov 2006:
From: "sk00kes" <>
Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers

The old guard is leaving, and good riddance as far as i'm concerned.

Sorry but i find it backwards to give respect to this guy.

And to tie in Wilderness and logging into this discussion is also
telling. As if our access to any of these areas is synonymous with an
area being logged, or developed.

The fact is mt. biking came waaaaay late to the party, but we're here
now. Harvey Manning's fat ass could have used the cardio workout
enjoyed by climbing beautiful mountain singletrack. i weigh 244 lbs
right now if i just resign to hiking i'm afraid i'd turn into that
guys twin haha.

Ok sidetracking here.

i believe i'm in the majority in that i just don't buy it. Whatever
side of the fence you are on we are in a club that is trying to fight
for access to mt. biking through advocacy. Whatever level you think
we should approach that, we should all be on that same page, let's see
how many trails we can responsibly win access for. Especially since
our history is filled with way more losing than winning. The success
we have now, i think we should not let up, and not be resigned for
loss of trails just to support your idealogy. Yes i've just accused
the accuser.

Wild Sky we are not going to lose too much trail access. But other
places where there are groups pushing for more like Kettle Crest and
Gifford Pinchot area we would lose BIG TIME. If the Kettle Crest goes
into Wilderness Designation out of the 110 miles of singletrack now
currently open to us not only would we loss all of it. But at least
50 miles of the singletrack would be decommisioned since they depend
on equestrians with chainsaws to clear trail. And Wilderness you
cannot bring in a chainsaw to even do trail work, you have to do
everything by hand.

And Collonade is good in the fact that sure it's not a true
backcountry experience which many of us enjoy. But it's an excellent
showcase for mountain biking. i truly believe that a majority of
people that peruse the park will see not only us riding in there, but
what we create, will enlighten people into a "glimpse" of what we're

Check out that stupid art tree feature that cost 80 large. Now look
at all that incredible rockwork just above it, that we've built in a
, for no charge to the public.

Seattle only little more than a hundred years ago was a beautiful
forest. With rock, stone, dirt, and small structures, we're taking
back a wasteland into a little playground. Sorry if the structures
were obtained thru logging, oops our bad....

i say forget that dude and his selfish ways, share the trails. And
here i thought i'd give up doing these kinda rants on the net for a

Thu, 16 Nov 2006:
To: <>
From: "Brian" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers
I'll give the guy credit, credit for being a jerk.

I'm sick and tired of trail nazi, Tom Murdoch, serria club members that constantly and consistently kick us around. If there were more people like him we would riding our trainers as aposed to the few miles of trails we have left.

I for one have serious issues about getting kicked out of one or two areas a year. At this rate we will all be riding our trainers as aposed to trails. I mean for Christ's sake, we are pumped up to ride under a freeway. this has just got to be telling us 'somthing'

I'm angry and unhappy too, people like Manning are naro minded NIMBYs that lump us into a motor cycle user group and I am deeply offended. I love to mt bike too... Hope we can continue to do so in the future.

----- Original Message -----
From: Glover
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers

Yeah the guy was gunning for mt bikers but give him the credit he is
due. From everything I've heard and read in the past he IS the reason
why there is a Cougar Mt (and Squak) without houses from top to
bottom. I guess then you could road ride it if that was your thing.

I love to mt bike but I for one don't have any issue with not being
able to bike some areas including Cougar. If that is the price for
protecting an area from development then so be it. If wilderness
designation is the price for keeping an area from being developed or
logged then so be it (yeah I'm talking Wild Sky proposal). There are
huge amounts of non-wilderness designated areas that we can't bike
now...I'd rather get access to those than worry about losing a couple
of trails to wilderness with all of the protection that provides.

Manning was an angry, unhappy guy but he protected some suburban areas
that are jewels and for that I'm indebted to him. Get out and hike the
Issaquah Alps and you may find any anger that you have at him
disapearing and you may even have fun without the bike.


Thu, 16 Nov 2006:
From: "Kenobonn" <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Re: Harvey Manning

It is politicians, influenced by high profile narrow minded
individuals (lobbyists), who created the mutual exclusivity of
mountain biking and wilderness.

Such idiots are the cause of a division which pits mountain bikers
against wilderness. It hurts both of our causes. Mountain bikers love
wilderness, just not the fact that we are outlawed there. If not for
such idiots, hikers and bikers would coexist much better, being on
the same team to appreciate nature.

I would like to support Wilderness AND mountain biking. I believe a
couple years back the Wild Sky wilderness was slated to be a
protected wilderness recreation area, which would have given
protection to the forest while allowing mountain bikers to continue
to enjoy the area.

It distresses me to see people in our ranks take the bait. That is,
we should not be seen as anti-wilderness just so we can have trail
access. Similarly, we would not be celebrating idiots who champion
their cause at the expense of ours. Just condemn the outlawing of
bikes in wilderness, and support alternate designations which allow
us to ride our bikes in a protected area.

I wonder where Harvey Manning fit in here? As I understand he was
very vocal against mountain biking, I would expect he directly caused
such division, whose consequence is a loss of a group which would
otherwise be aligned with his cause.

For the record, I am for wilderness protection.

My opinion of Harvey Manning? Pretty damn low. RIP you stupid killjoy.



Thu, 16 Nov 2006:
From: Linda <>
Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers

Thanks Glenn for giving us this well-written post and defense of Manning and
wilderness areas. I guess that makes you a Nazi-enviro...according to
some.... With all the bashing going on, I'm glad someone stood up against
the crowd. I didn't have the heart for it but whole-heartedly agree with
what you said.


On 11/16/06, Glover <> wrote:
> Yeah the guy was gunning for mt bikers but give him the credit he is
> due. From everything I've heard and read in the past he IS the reason
> why there is a Cougar Mt (and Squak) without houses from top to
> bottom. I guess then you could road ride it if that was your thing.
> I love to mt bike but I for one don't have any issue with not being
> able to bike some areas including Cougar. If that is the price for
> protecting an area from development then so be it. If wilderness
> designation is the price for keeping an area from being developed or
> logged then so be it (yeah I'm talking Wild Sky proposal). There are
> huge amounts of non-wilderness designated areas that we can't bike
> now...I'd rather get access to those than worry about losing a couple
> of trails to wilderness with all of the protection that provides.
> Manning was an angry, unhappy guy but he protected some suburban areas
> that are jewels and for that I'm indebted to him. Get out and hike the
> Issaquah Alps and you may find any anger that you have at him
> disapearing and you may even have fun without the bike.
> Glenn

Thu, 16 Nov 2006:

From: "Glover" <>
Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers
Yeah the guy was gunning for mt bikers but give him the credit he is
due. From everything I've heard and read in the past he IS the reason
why there is a Cougar Mt (and Squak) without houses from top to
bottom. I guess then you could road ride it if that was your thing.

I love to mt bike but I for one don't have any issue with not being
able to bike some areas including Cougar. If that is the price for
protecting an area from development then so be it. If wilderness
designation is the price for keeping an area from being developed or
logged then so be it (yeah I'm talking Wild Sky proposal). There are
huge amounts of non-wilderness designated areas that we can't bike
now...I'd rather get access to those than worry about losing a couple
of trails to wilderness with all of the protection that provides.

Manning was an angry, unhappy guy but he protected some suburban areas
that are jewels and for that I'm indebted to him. Get out and hike the
Issaquah Alps and you may find any anger that you have at him
disapearing and you may even have fun without the bike.


Thu, 16 Nov 2006:
Subject: Please remove me from your email list
From: "Troy Waskey" <>
To: "Mike Vandeman" <>



Take me off of your email list


Thank you




M. Troy Waskey


Graduate Research Assistant

Arizona State University


Tue, 14 Nov 2006:
To: <>, "Jeff Dunning" <>
From: "Brian" <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Re: Harvey Manning Obituary
<snip> Is our method not hard hitting enough?
I dont think so
<snip> Do we need to go in and be bastards to get what we want?
Only if we want to ride

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Dunning" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:33 AM
Subject: Harvey Manning Obituary

> Yeah, I know what some of you are thinking, buts thats not my point here.
This may be common knowledge, but not to me. Harvey was a hellcat. Quoting
from the obit: "He was loud and he was obnoxious" "outsized passion matched
only by his girth" "Mr. Manning's combative but effective style". Seems he
wasn't interested in making friends just trails. Is our method not hard
hitting enough? Do we need to go in and be bastards to get what we want?


Thu, 09 Nov 2006:

From: "daveschuldt" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Subject: Re: How can we be more effective at recruiting volunteers for work parties?

I have the same question about why folks wont show up for WTA work parties. (On
trails that we can ride) The WTA is on track to do 70,000 hours of work this year.
Some MTBers complain about how powerful they are, well there's a reason. Most of
the folks that turn out for the local winter parties arn't hard core hikers, just folks
looking to do some volunteer work. Maybe we have something to learn from them.
Seems like riders don't understand how important it is to kiss land manager booty.
My 2 cents.

Wed, 08 Nov 2006:

From: "Thom Iverson" <>
Subject: Re: How can we be more effective at recruiting volunteers for work parties?

I'll hang my whatever in the breeze with just a thought for discussion....

That could be a good point about the burnout. Its a small core of people
that have the patience to bust their whatevers working on trails for the
Forest Service and hikers and horses so that MAYBE in ten years, the mtn
bikers might get a scrap of trail for 3 months out of the year and/or on
alternate weekend days. The track record for successful trail access of
OFFICIAL LEGAL TRAILS in our area is pretty slim and has taken many many
MANY years of hard work by some very plucky and very patient individuals to
push it through.(and I certainly applaud them!!!)

Thats a lot more patience and commitement than the average Joe and Josette

Even in a best case, people doing trail WORK are a tiny percentage of users,
but it SEEMS that the "gray trails" sometimes have an easier time of getting
volunteers than the "official" trail work. (Maybe???) Maybe this is because
they get a lot more instand gratification for their sweat equity investment?
Even if the gray trails might go away in a few years, which isn't THAT much
worse track record for longevity than many "official" trails.

My GUESS is that in places where they seem to make more headway with
volunteers, the volunteers get better rewarded by TRAIL ACCESS, which is
probably even more important to most mtn bikers than a hoody? Might be
interesting to correlate GOOD trail access with volunteer rates for
different areas?

They get North We eventually will get Tiger year

Just a thought....

Thom Iverson

Mon, 18 Sep 2006:

From: "Jim Preston" <>
To: "'romp'" <>
Subject: Re: [ROMP] clean up after horses
List-Subscribe: <>,
Josh, I doubt equestrians who don't approve of MTB'ers will become friendly

because of this, but it does give leverage for disputes, which we will need

in some areas.  I'm avoiding mentioning those areas for now.  Those issues

are coming up over the next few years and we can discuss them at the

appropriate time.  I'm personally working on such issues, as I believe other

people on this list are.


What would improve relations would be if some 5% of MTB'ers that ride in

certain places would slow down, even less than 15 MPH, and quit rounding

corners and driving into riders.  There is no reason equestrians, birders,

and other trail users should have to live with the anxiety created by



Nuisance laws generally get enforced only when there a specific complaints.


I mentioned pollution issues with horses.  Again, this is a heads up

situation that many people may not be aware of.  The effect on air pollution

is not immaterial and is an issue in the animal husbandry industry,

especially with cattle.  There is significant academic research underway to

find feed solutions and we will probably see legislative action within a few

years, feed solutions or not.  Don't be surprised by legislation that

regulates "polluting pets"  :-)  Large animal care will have to change,

especially in California. 


This is good for MTB'ers involved in trail advocacy to be aware of but I'm

not sure what we can do with this information yet.  It may be another way to

add balance when we are being dumped on in planning meetings.  Several years

ago on this list we worked on a list of reasons why horses are a problem on

trails.  The idea was to make it hard for vocal equestrians to oppose MTB

use on trails, to push back.  The recent and lengthy San Mateo Parks

discussion certainly attests to the relevancy of this issue within ROMP's



My personal preference is to see about a billion less people in the world.

That would solve a lot of environmental problems :-)


- jim


Fri, 15 Sep 2006:

From: "Patty Ciesla" <>
To: "'ROMP'" <>,
        "'San Mateo County Mountain Bicyclists'" <>,
        <>, <>
Subject: [NorCAMBA] Future bike trails in San Mateo County
List-Help: <>



When I proposed the Squealer Gulch trails for bikes in Huddart Park,

sed3.pdf I knew there was only a slim chance that it would be approved. I

also knew that it would open up a debate about bikes in all of San Mateo

County Parks, and that we would finally have a chance to get the 1964 policy

excluding bikes abolished. I am committed to this advocacy effort and will

do everything I can to make sure that we GAIN ACCESS to NEW and EXISTING

trails in San Mateo County.


I want to say thank you to all the other advocates who have worked on this

issue, especially Josh Moore, Jim Sullivan, Berry Stevens, and Susan

Dougherty, who have selflessly volunteered hundreds of hours on this effort.

If you want to support our work, please renew your membership in ROMP or

make a donation to NorCAMBA on our membership page.

My work as a paid professional advocate is funded by your memberships and

donations. Thank you.


The draft master plan for Huddart was lawfully prepared and approved. The

supervisors only approved a plan which excludes bicycles. No person has been

denied their right to access the parks. If we want to use Huddart park, we

can. We just aren't allowed to ride our bikes on the trails there. You might

not appreciate hearing this, but it's true. This is not a matter of civil

rights, unless if you want to make the claim that you use your bicycle as an

assistive device to provide mobility in the case of disability. Our argument

doesn't really have anything to do with the ADA, though.


The DRAFT master plan for Huddart was approved.,2151,5556687_10575186,00.htm

l#HudWund Next step is an EIR. During the environmental review, the county

will evaluate a wide range of alternatives for their environmental impacts.

According to Director Holland, one of the alternatives to be evaluated is

the proposed Squealer Gulch bike trail. Once the EIR has been completed in

about a year, the supervisors will be presented with the FINAL master plan

for approval. It isn't impossible that the Squealer Gulch trail could

re-appear in that final plan and be approved in the end.


Concurrent with the EIR for Huddart, the county is going to convene a "Blue

Ribbon Committee" to review and revise the Countywide Trails Master Plan. To

view this plan, see the links at the very bottom of this page:,2151,5556687_10575186,00.htm

l . The committee will be charged with the specific purpose of looking at

various recreational USES of the trails and where they should be allowed in

the future. This county-wide review will look at ALL public lands, including

lands managed by other agencies. The committee will make recommendations for

which trails should allow which uses. This could result in vastly increased

access for bikes to San Mateo County Parks, including places like Huddart,

San Bruno Mountain, San Pedro County Park, Edgewood (probably not),

Pescadero, Sam McDonald, etc. To view the locations of these parks, use the

Park Info map database provided by the Bay Area Open Space Council at .


Additionally, rumor has it that the San Francisco Water Department may relax

their rules about public access to the 40,000 acre Crystal Springs Watershed

lands.  POST will be

turning over the 4000 acre Corral de Tierra parcel (see their map at ) to the National Park Service to

be added to the GGNRA. This land abuts the watershed at the ridge behind

Montara Mountain (part of McNee State Park). There is a road up on the ridge

that is inside the watershed and just outside the Corral de Tierra land.

Most likely, access will be granted to that road at some point in the

future, and potentially other roads in the area that would connect Sweeny

Ridge with Montara Mountain. It is possible that San Mateo County Parks

and/or the GGNRA will develop partnerships agreements with the National Park

Service to build and manage trails in the watershed.


GGNRA is revising their General Management Plan. They are going to look at

Phleger Estate, which they acquired in 1996  for possible

revisions to the park master plan.


The Bay Area Ridge Trail Council is working to complete the trail between

Huddart and Hwy 92. This trail is supposed to be multi-use. The Ridge Trail recently hired

Bern Smith, who is on the San Mateo County Parks Commission, and a former

ROMP president, to help work on completing the trail around the bay.


ETRAC has proposed a new bike trail that would connect from the end of

Edgewood Road, up through the watershed north of Pfleger and south of

Filoli. I haven't seen the proposal, but I'll get a copy. I have had several

private meetings with ETRAC representatives and will continue to work with

them to resolve our differences.


MROSD has expanded their boundaries to the coast in San Mateo County. They

recently acquired the Driscoll Ranch, on Hwy 84 in La Honda. This addition

to LaHonda Creek Open Space offers the opportunity for a regional trail

between El Corte de Madera and Pescadero County Park. MROSD is working on a

master plan for this Open Space MROSD developed a

Regional Open Space Study map in 1998, which includes ideas for many

regional trails in San Mateo County  This plan now

needs to be revised given the changes in the district's boundaries, and

other developments in the county.


To repeat:


I am committed to this advocacy effort and will do everything I can to make

sure that we GAIN ACCESS to NEW and EXISTING trails in San Mateo County. I

have not given up on the Squealer Gulch trail in Huddart, either. If you

want to support this work, please renew your membership in ROMP or make a

donation to NorCAMBA on our membership page. My work

as a paid professional advocate is funded by your memberships and donations.

Thank you.




Patty Ciesla

Executive Director

Northern California Mountain Bicycling Association

PO Box 785

Los Altos, CA 94023-0785

650-917-1741 office

650-867-4485 cell (when in range) 


Sat, 05 Aug 2006:

Dear Editor,

With reference to 'Two extreme sports' (North Shore Outlook July 27). Monica Cravers letter seeks to find a solution or compromise between safety and the environmental damage versus the activity of mountain biking has upon it. She may very well have found the solution; isolate it like any other sport such as her example of skate boarding. Some may then argue that you then must isolate the other activities in our forests such as hiking since; if hikers can use the trails why cant we sort of argument. Maybe, but I know hiking has a negligible affect on flora and fauna.

I love mountain biking, it is my favourite outdoor activity, it is fun, very social, exhilerating not to mention the health benefits.

My fellow mountain bikers may hate me for writing this but during my 12 yrs of XC mtn biking local hills I have definitely seen first hand environmental damage and serious erosion problems on the forest floor due to bad riding skills from skidding tires. Make no mistake about it.

Case in point is the trail, 'Ned's Atomic Dust Bin' on Seymour Mountain. When I first rode this trail in 1994 with a few  local riding bros. it was a wonderful, narrow, windey singletrack all the way down to Mystery Creek. Twelve years later it is mostly a concoction of man made ladders, bridges and jump ramps. Alot of it not for the faint of heart. The natural trail left is mostly eroded beyond recognition from twelve years ago.

Dirt biking (Motorcycles) have been banned in many forested areas such as the UBC endowment lands and other areas for safety and environmental reasons. I can tell you that many of the 'mountain bike downhill rigs' are little more than a motorcycle without an engine so make your own conclusions.

In Marin county California, arguably the birthplace of mtn biking in the early 1970s, the trails were completely closed in the mid 90s because of environmental damage and safety reasons. All the mtn bikers who use our forests to ride here must appreciate what we have when you think of the zero tolerance mtn. biking received in Marin county and other area in the US.

Banning the sport here I would not want to see but a more comprehensive management of it is definitely in order when there are environmental and safety concerns. If this means certain trails need to be closed then so be it because the environment comes first. Immediately determine what trails are causing unsustainable damage to the forest and close them indefinitely!

Please don't misunderstand me, I know that the N.S.M.B.A puts many painstaking hours of volunteer trail maintenance and improvements and I applaud them for it but its almost impossible for it to be anything but 'too little too late'. N.V.District council seems to bow to pressure form mtn biker lobbyists when it comes to election time but does this serve the best interests of the community as a whole?  Why is there so much area on our mountains put aside and supported by district council for so few relative users. It's has been like a free-for-all where the mtn bikers have claimed all the trails. Makes you think its a way of getting votes doesn't it? And most know Mayor Walton is an avid mountain biker as well.

Grouse Mountain Resorts and the GVRD should put their money where there mouths are with regard to the coveted and illusive Alpine Plan but so far they are not and so the district taxpayer end up with the bill due to leniency and favoritism from NVDistrict council. God forbid we should implement a fee or user permit for riders to use the trails like they do for golf greens, ski runs, and swimming pools. We could use these fee monies for trail maintenance and mitigate further damage to the forests.

We need a strict plan in place for local mountain biking including strict maintenance of the trails we decide to keep open.

The party at the expense of the forests is definitely over!

John Sharpe

North Vancouver, B.C.

Mon, 26 Jun 2006:
From: Pete Fagerlin <>
Subject: [BTCEB Talk] Re: Important article in SacBee re more fed Wilderness
List-Help: <>

The Berryessa riding is nothing mediocre, let alone spectacular.


It would theoretically suck to "lose" access to Cache Creek but those

lands are so remote, and so  unused, that enforcement of a

non-mechanized Wilderness designation would be impossible, practically



Ted Stroll wrote:

> I personally think it would be terrible if we lost access to the Cache

> Creek area off of Hwy 16 in Yolo and Lake counties, and to lands around

> Lake Berryessa (as Michael Kelley mentioned in an e-mail message to me

> and some others today).


Thu, 22 Jun 2006:

From: "Dan Fear" <>
Subject: Whistler

Mr Vandeman,


I just finished reading your letter in our local paper regarding the Mountain Bike "Propaganda" during our current event here in Whistler. I just wanted to make sure you keep your eyes on our paper's letter section next week where you will no doubt find some great responses to your letter. You see, we are a mountain bike community that does care dearly about our environment. We have many programs in place ( and our trail builders in town are world renowned for building environmentally friendly trails. We rely on mountain biking for jobs and bringing in the many great people that visit our area during the summer months. You are obviously entitled to your opinion but perhaps you should keep your environmental propaganda to yourself when it comes to towns you know nothing about. Maybe you should even consider hopping on a bike and having a little fun...getting laid may help also.


Ride On


Wed, 24 May 2006:

To: BBTC <>
From: J Cass <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Subject: Re: Question of the Day

Many answers come to mind. However, two aspects of riding motivations for me are maybe a bit more clear and obvious.
  I enjoy climbing and looking carefully at the plants, rocks, animals, streams, mountain peaks, clouds, etc. Pretty much soaking in the countryside around me and letting thoughts drift around. A rare opportunity for random, wide-ranging thinking. Or good conversation with fellow riders if the slope isn't too steep for talking.
  Then on the descent, scenery becomes an unnoticed blur. This is the time for an adreneline rush that's incomparable to almost anything else in life. A hyper focus on the trail before me also pushes aside any other worries, stresses, etc. By the bottom of the descent it seems like I always have an ear to ear grin that takes a long time to dissipate.
  And of course sharing the trails with the community of fellow bikers is always a supreme joy.

Wed, 24 May 2006:

From: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Subject: Question of the day...

Why do you ride?


Each year when snow season is winding down, I’m pretty stoked to dig the bike out from the back of the garage and get working on my “taint” callous. Sad, but true. But, for me it seems that now, in my state of youth deprivation, I find that the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing. Whether it is on a group or solo ride. Fitness is just a by product of that adventure. Pouring over maps and judging topographic elevation is just part of the ride. The pre-ride preparation, whether it be months in advance or a last minute decision seems to be as much the event as the pedaling itself. Trying to decide with such a limited amount of time which familiar places I will be able to get to this season versus which new ones I may discover is always a struggle. I know that as the days get shorter and the hilltops start turning white, I will be staring at the long list of places I just did not get to in the previous months. It’s bittersweet in reminiscing over great times had and wondering what could have been.


I know we’re not all the same and many of you are perfectly fine playing the part of sheep, being led blindly over the hill and through the woods. And, that’s fine. But, deeper still is why you are out there.


So, all this question of the day is, why? What’s the one basic drive that get’s you off the couch and out the door?


General fitness?


The social aspect? Or, the anti-social aspect for the solos among us.

Training to race? (That’s another question….)






Tue, 23 May 2006:

From: "Greg" <>
To: "Monterey Off-Road Cycling Association (MORCA)" <>
Subject: [morca] Re: bull dozing of the trails
List-Help: <>

Are you talking about the south end of 50?  I noticed that and was

definitely not thrilled with what I found.


I will say the smoothing of the bottom of 43 was necessary - the trail

was just about unrideable with the deep erosion rut and people were

starting to go around spots and make the trail much wider.  Plus, that

would have been definitly unsafe during the 24 HOA.


I haven't noticed any other places that have been plowed under.


Fri, 12 May 2006:

Subject: (no subject)

You are ignorant and an idiot.  You know absolutely nothing about mtn biker's or our culture.  You are very lucky U don't live near me as I would kick your ass if I saw you in public.


Fri, 12 May 2006:
From: "Sherwood Plant" <>
To: "Mike Vandeman" <>
Subject: Re: Mountain Biking Is Fine

The reason you recieved so many abusive emails is because of the manner in which is was posted on a forum.  There were severl people, myself included, who advocated sending reasonable letters, but the majoprity of users on the forum are 14 year olds who feel empowered by the internet.  You'll find we're (you and I) some of the few people left on the internet who even bother to come up with reasonable works.  But at the same time, the internet isn't always a valid representation of a person on a whole.  I try my best to remain civil, but most people, evironmentalist, mountain biker, christian fundamentalist or socialists will lose certain levels of decensy online.

I'm going to address your points in different order for the sake of keeping a linear argument.

I do believe that trail making is a fine pursuit.  If it weren't for trails, the worlds obesity level would be higher than it already is.  Let me explain.  Kananaskis country is a outdoor puruits area near where I live.  It's an amazing place, filled with wild life, epic views, and some really really fun peaks.  If we shut it down to the public, and simply left it to go back to nature, there would be a massive loss in outdoor enthusiasts in my area.  Outdoors-ites like myself are already seeing a noticible drop in numbers, and closing down one of our few remaining refuges would be devastating to the community, and we would see alot more people turn to TV and computers as their soul source of entertainment.  If we can allow people to continue experiencing the grandeur of nature, then we will maintain a healthy society.

Now, I have ridden illegal trails, hell, I've built them.  But I don't think that shutting down legal trails is going to solve a problem.  By giving riders access to legal trails, you limit the us of illegal ones.  For a good example look at Moose Mountain in Kananaskis.  It's one of Alberta's riding hot spots.  With trails going up, down, and around it.  Near Kananaskis is Banff National park, an area closed to mountain bikers (except in the town of Banff itself).  I'm fine with this.  It's more of a reserve than a park.  Certainly in winter it's got the ski resorts, but primarily, due to its size, it's mostly wildlife reserve.  I'm fine with this.  When I've built and ridden illegal trails it's been on small plots of greenspace, and most of the time it gets torn down.

If effeciency is a problem, then I have no idea where you're coming from on any counts.  If a more effiecient car (such as my families Honda Insight) is a problem, then you're confused.  Efficiency is an amazing tool to employ, and if bikes can make use of it, I don't see how being lazy shows any sort of problem.

I don't think I've been aware of my impact long enough to advocate the stopping of road construction for 8 years (I'm only 17), but I don't think that's the best place to start reshaping our world either.  By stopping mountain biking right now, outright, you'll acheive nothing but alot of very angry people.  By stopping the construction of roads, you don't teach people not to drive, you teach people to take longer routes.  Now, look at it this way.  Instead of stopping the increase in the numbers of roads, I advocate for an easier system for people to commute.  Bike paths, improved public transit, or (and this is the big one around here right now) adjusting roads to make it easier for people to use bikes on them.  If you show people, and let people, ride into work, school, etc, you make it easier for them to adjust to the lessened use of a car.  Your stance is the same reason a communist system has yet to work.  You can't make a sudden complete change.  It has to be slow, and done with everyone in mind.  So, instead of tossing Mountain Bikers off the face of the earth, give us our legal trails, and let us enjoy them.  But by shooting us down, you're just aggrovating this "problem".

Mmm, now I'm going to jump off on a tangent a bit, but it fits perfectly with my previous example.  Here in Calgary, we had a problem.  We had alot of skateboarders, and they had no where legal to ride.  They would ride on buildings, and destroy them.  So, after some advocacy from groups all round, Millenium Park was built.  It gave skateboarders a place to ride, and kept them off the buildings.  The same thing is slowly being done here with bikes.  I've had no where to dirt jump, after the city destroyed the last of our jumps last month, so we're trying to get some land so that riders stop "destroying" Fish Creek, and have a safe place to ride.  The same has been done at Moose Mountain with it's trails.  There are very few (none that I personally know about) trails in Banff for riding, so it's obviously working.  Give us a place to ride, and we'll go there.

I may come across as slightly fickle now, that is not the case, I was a little ramped up by the anger expressed on the afformentioned bike forum, and I didn't think through my arguments fully, now I've taken a little more time.  I've been honest, I've explained why dealing with 14 year old internet egos can be difficult, and I've done it civally again.

Thank you,
Sherwood Plant


Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:45:52 -0700
From: Josh Moore <>
To: "'ROMP'" <>
Subject: [ROMP] Coe Back Country Weekend Report
List-Subscribe: <>,

I headed down to the Coe Back Country Weekend Friday with Patty Ciesla.

Despite the heavy traffic on 152, we rolled in about 6:30. We quickly

set up camp near Brian Warkintine and set up the ROMP tent at Kaiser

Aetna and County line Roads. Early the next morning, Philip Strenfel and

Ligaya Yrastorza showed up, followed shortly by Paul Nam and Chris

Vocinam. We hung out and Phil tried to outsell our neighbors, the Pine

Ridge Associations' uniformed volunteers in the new 2006 issue of the

park map. Phil managed to sell 8 or 9, and I doubt the PRA sold half

that many.


That was about when Senor Tomas Oshima arrived. He parked at Hunting

Hollow and rode in to the back country. For mere mortals, those 15?

miles and 3500' would be more than enough, but for Tom is was just a

little warm up.


Tom fueled up on fig Newtons (Where's the bread?) and joined us as Paul

Nam led a challenging ride for us up some crazy Coe ridge to Mississippi

Lake, across the dam, and then up to Bear Mountain, and back. I think

were headed towards Mississippi ridge when we ran into Ross Finlayson.

It was a leisurely 3800' and 21 miles - mellow for Coe.


After the ride, we pounded some chips and salsa, at some real food. Phil

and Ligaya stopped by after a long day of working the tent. Ligaya

managed not to get any Poison Oak, but did get a nice sun burn falling

asleep in the sun. That night we were serenaded by the frogs and

crickets, and reprimanded by a screech owl.


Brian joked about a night ride. . . Tom was serious.


The next morning we were woke by a most loquacious turkey, yoddling in

the valley that Kaiser Aetna Road runs through.


After a nice breakfast, and a few hours in the booth, Ross led us up

passed the Orestimba Corral and up the creek all the way to the border

of the Wilderness and hiked out on the Rooster Comb Trail. I had spent

most of my time in the tent meticulously cleaning and polishing my bike.

I carefully lubed each link of my chain. By the 3rd creek crossing, I

had incredible chain suck, and was stuck in my middle chain ring. I

poured on the lube and it got better. The creek was stunning with wild

flowers, and the Rooster Comb was an impressive rock outcropping, few

ever get a chance to see. This ride was an amazing 15 miles and l500' of

climbing. How often does that happen in Coe?


On the way back, we rode up and over the Orestimba Creek Trail, and back

into the Corral. At one point, I chose the high line over a boulder in

the trail bed and my front shock bottomed out, shooting pain through my

recently healed wrist. Ouch ouch ouch. Ouch.


After the pain subsided I headed on down, in stealth mode. I rode behind

a few hikers really slow, until the trail switched back, and they saw me

and let me by. I caught up with a group of hikers, and I was really

sorry when their llama was the first to hear me and bolted in its

master, who was thrust forward about three steps. It is amazing how easy

it was to startle a draft animal. Master's silence made it clear that

being sorry is not enough. We all need to remember that bikes can be

amazingly quiet, and we need to be vocal, ring bells, or put cow bells

on our bikes when riding anywhere near our hoofed friends.


Brain Tom and I packed up the ROMp booth, and then packed up our camps.

Brian helped Tom pick out a nice route back to hunting hollow. It

included Willow Ridge and Grapevine, as I recall, and I was envious of

spending the rest of the day riding. I wonder if Tom has made it home

yet. Probably just barely. . .


It was a beautiful weekend. I had no idea how wonderful it could be to

volunteer at an event and still be able to enjoy some great riding that

is too far out for most of us to see from Hunting Hollow. I recommend it

to anyone.





Raging Noob Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Total posts: 14 Gender: Unknown


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:57 am    Post subject: Fells Closure


As many of you already know, there has been a red flag warning all over the state the last couple weeks because of extreme fire danger. Last week, a fire broke out in the Middlesex Fells Reservation and the management of the park was forced to take the unfortunate action of closing the park to all users. Signs were posted at ALL the entrance points. The closure was necessary to protect public safety and to allow the fire fighting crews access to fight the fire without concern for the public.


In a meeting with the land manager on Wednesday it was brought to my attention that several mountain bikers ignored the signs and entered the park anyways. In some cases they rode past the fire trucks, over the hoses and through the fire area! The crew fighting the fire had to divert their attention away from the fire in order to deal with preventing people from entering the area. This presented a real danger to the public, the fire fighters and the environment.


This is a real black mark on our record with the land manager. No other trail users disobeyed the signs and entered the area but several mountain bikers did. Keep in mind that the park is officially closed to mountain bikers until April 15th so the people riding had no right to be there in the first place. The damage has been done and there was absolutely nothing I could say to defend these actions. There is a lot of controversy over the mountain bike policy at the Fells and NEMBA is constantly working with the land manager to improve access. This type of incident affects the perception the land manager has of mountain bikers.


Tom Grimble    Fells Liason      New England Mountain Bike Association


From: "Michael & Jain Light" <>
To: <>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:02:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [ROMP] more horse logic on Huddart Park

Here's my 2 cents worth...


Concede NOTHING!  The reason we are in this mess is that we've been the folks trying to get along with an elitist group of people only interested in maintaining their exclusionary ways.  If it isn't the Sierra Clubbers it's the "equestrians".  If we continue to pressure for access they will have to concede to at least some degree.  Their demands for zero access proves our point not theirs.


This is pure politics.  Start looking for allies.  Find them anywhere you can.  Make sure you show up at the planning meetings with a huge number of "constituents".  Make sure you have the business community involved, they represent as much money as the equestrians.  Keep in mind that you are dealing with a very social clique and they feed on rumor and innuendo, not fact.  But the Board of Sups works with facts.  Keep the facts coming.  Be very careful of an "end around", like at Nisene Marks. 


And, do not trust the media.  They are only short term memory!  Out of site, out of mind!




Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:37:24 -0700
From: Shane Reed <>
To: Ian Ramage <>
Subject: Re: [ROMP] more horse logic on Huddart Park
List-Subscribe: <>,

I don't agree with the logic of the Horse people on this issue.

First of all the reason rogue percentages are higher among mountain bikers compared to other user groups is obvious:  We're the ones that are excluded from the most trails.  It's obvious that the numbers of hikers, hiking on trails that they are not allowed on is going to be nill.  And I think that most trails near horse stables are open to horses so they really don't have much reason to poach either.  Most of the trails near my house on the other hand......illegal to ride on.  With gas prices the way they are I want to ride to the trails, not drive.

Second, mountain bike opposition always cites the fact that bikes travel over 20+ mph and that this is proven by the ranger tickets.  The fact they leave out is that these tickets for high rates of speed almost NEVER occur on narrow winding singletrack.  They occur at the bottom of long steep fireroad width trails with a ranger hiding in the bushes to make it look like the trail is clear and free of any other users.  And I can't believe they think that $180 is a cheap citation!


From: "Ian Ramage" <>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:22:04 -0700
Subject: Re: [ROMP] more horse logic on Huddart Park
List-Subscribe: <>,

I'm no equestrian -- in fact, I'd probably be identified as one of rogues --

but I'm inclined to let them have Huddart and Wunderlich if they're that

important to them.  After all, I can understand how a biker coming around

the corner at 20+ mph would spook a horse (and mount) pretty good.


And the equestrians allow that a bike route is appropriate, just not via

those parks: "While equestrians agree that the mountain biking community

deserves a safe access from the valley floor up to Skyline Boulevard, we do

not feel that any mountain bike trail should go through Huddart or

Wunderlich parks."  Surely we'd garner a lot of good willl, and invaluable

equestrian support, by simply conceding those routes and putting our efforts

into the alternatives (the Teague Hill and California Water Service options

seem the most promising).


Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Nam <>
To: "'ROMP' list" <>
Subject: [ROMP] Upper Stevens Canyon Trail Conditions
List-Subscribe: <>,

Upper Stevens Canyon.
Last evening I rode up Monte Bello and saw signs up there indicating that the Stevens Canyon Trail was closed due to a landslide (I geuss the slide may be the old one, the info is that the trail is closed from Table Mtn Trail junction to the road). I last rode up Montebello on Sunday and the signs were not there then. I've been keen to ride around the backside to see how things are but haven't braved it because of either available daylight and rain.
If anyone has seen the slide(s) please let us know the extent.
I've copied the MROSD trail closure info page below fyi.
There's been talk in Santa Clara Co Parks about putting a bridge in eventually where you must ford Stevens Creek. Apparently a couple of years ago a cyclist got swept away and lost their bike. Chris and I actually saw someone this year around New Year's day get swept away. His partner fished up the bike and he got his feet and got out. The guys waterlogged clothing seemed to drag him down.
I don't like the idea of a bridge [Yeah, then you can’t do as much damage to the creek ecosystem! Mike]. But I don't like the idea of people being drowned either. Santa Clara Co Parks is thinking about closing the Canyon Trail during high water events.
So please be careful. I recommend choosing other places or modes to recreate in when conditions are adverse.
One thing about the storms is that all the trails get completely remodeled. It's something I look forward to each spring.

From: "Aaron DelloIacono Thies" <>
To: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:41:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [ROMP] [BTCEB Talk] New MTB trail possibilities in the SF Bay
List-Subscribe: <>,



It is important to note that mountain biking in the GGNRA is already allowed

on some trails.  So simply asking for mountain biking access wouldn't be



It would be more useful to tell the GGNRA at these meetings that:


1)  You would like to see mountain biking allowed on all trails in the



2)  The current trail building and trail use guidelines are outdated,

non-sustainable and dangerous and need to be totally overhauled.


For example, currently biking is only allowed on trails which are at least 6

feet wide.  All of these multi-use 6 foot wide trails are hard pack, smooth

surfaces that are often covered with gravel and which are often built with

steep grades.  Smooth, fast, steep and gravelly multi-use trails are

dangerous because bikers have nothing to slow them down, they erode badly in

rain, and are dangerous.

A narrow width trail with terrain features and built sustainably will not

erode and will be safer due to slower biking speeds.  What they have now is

a recipe for accidents.


I think we should be asking for an overhaul of GGNRA trail building

standards and trail use standards so that narrow width, safe and sustainable

trails are built, which bikers can use.




Tue, 10 Jan 2006:

From: "Mat" <>

To: <>

Subject: [BTCEB Talk] Re: Trail closure info?

List-Help: <>


There were quite a few cars with open bike racks parked on San Pedro Rd. When we tried to warn one group of bikers that the trails were closed they ignored us and proceeded to enter the park anyway. While i can understand the disire to ignore posted signs if you've driven (or Pedaled) a long way just to ride China Camp, it's no excuse and pretty disrespectful if you ask me. We rode Mt. Tam ( RR grade to Eldridge) instead and had a great time.

     While many may have simply not noticed the note posted in the ranger booth as we almost did, an email is hard to miss and even harder to ignore.