Sun, 4 Nov 2012:
Subject: [morca] Rules of the Trail
From: Darius Rike <>
To: "Monterey Off-Road Cycling Association (MORCA)" <>
List-Subscribe: <>

Heard from a local, casual mountain bike rider that he had a head on with another rider yesterday coming hot down a trail (sounds like they are both OK).  Looks like there are more of us on the trails of Ft. Ord these days so don't forget your trail ettiquete and the "Rules of the Trail". (Especially numbers 3 and 4.)

We Ride!!!!


Mon, 05 Nov 2012:
From: "Meg" <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Re: new bike

What's your current ride and what can't it handle? That might give The Collective a better direction to point their advice.

I have a buddy that got back to MTB at well over #200 and I knew he rode hard back in the day... I kept hammering that whatever he bought to hold some $$$ back for a new wheelset. He thought I was nuts but fortunately went along with it. The original rims lasted maybe 3 months tops. He had a beefy set built next, which have taken a heck of a beating since then and survived.


--- In, "mrdrfreddy" <mrdrfreddy@...> wrote:
> Hello I am looking for a new bike I will be riding mainly cross country.
> probably full suspension. My main problem is i am 6' 1" and 250lbs and my current bike just cant handle the beating. Any help would be great thanks.

Sun, 04 Nov 2012:
From: "mrdrfreddy" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Subject: new bike 

Hello I am looking for a new bike I will be riding mainly cross country.
probably full suspension. My main problem is i am 6' 1" and 250lbs and my current bike just cant handle the beating. Any help would be great thanks.

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:13:27 -0800
From: "" <>
Subject: Trail Love

You need a hug and some love!!!! We all need to find a solution to work together in the parks. Your suggestion only continues the building of illegal and unsustainable trails. Which is a losing situation for everyone. Mountian biking is not going away so we need to find a solution.
We like to use the word "trail flow" not "shredding the trails".

Trail Love

Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa LaScala <>
Subject: Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks
To: Mike Vandeman <>

Share the trails. I have heard you have assaulted a mountain biker. That is so wrong. You have no credibility. Everyone should be able to enjoy the trails as they are not just yours. I am a female mountain biker. I ride. I enjoy it and I always will and you can never change that because you are irrational and uneducated. But should you ever make an attempt to threaten me on the trails, and if I ever see you on a trail and you try to put your hands on me like you have towards others, l will rip your head off and crush it with my bike.


Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:57:55 -0700
From: Anya Thrash <>
To: "'Monterey Off-Road Cycling Association (MORCA)'" <>
Subject: [morca] Demo Ride on Oct. 28th
List-Subscribe: <>

A fellow mtb addict from the UK is coming to town, and I've promised to take him to Demo. The ride is on October 28th... If any out there are up for the adventure, please join! We plan to start out mid-morning, and finish up with lunch somewhere after the ride. It'll be a no-drop sort of affair, all in the name of pure fun... I know this will disappoint a few of you, but there will be no podium after this ride. :)

Let me know if you're interested!



To: bbtcmembers <>
From: mark fisher <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:17:20 -0700
Subject: Breakin Bones

You don't have to do parks to do it. 4 years ago at capitol, on an easy left down turn, hit some mystery thing, down hard now. I think a big rock in the trail did the damge of upper three ribs in back separated. Laying there with a buddy standing over me stating I saw that wimp. Yea, like I'd do as I attempted to get the wind back into me. Then had to ride 6 miles out to an aid station. It had to be funny to see me laying head down the trail, bike above me, one foot hooked in. Fortunatley it was October for the recovery.Then last winter at newberry. On the twisty stuff at 2 miles an hour. Hook a root with the rear wheel. All ahead stop. Front three low ribs this time into the bar and then a bounce on the ground. This one hurt more in recovery, so break the rear ones.Overall no lasting effects from the breaks, both on the same side also. Still wonder as I get older and sometimes run into stuff I did not see, what's next?

Wed, 29 Aug 2012:
To: bbtc group <>,
        Preston and Meg <>
From: tony <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Re: The Dark Side

Ouch! I was up at Whistler this past weekend too, and finally rode the park for the first time. On my 1989 Stumpie Team no less. Did "B-Line", "Ninja Cougar" first two runs, then followed up by going through "Crank it Up" wow....those rollers on some portions were huge! Remember, no shocks at all for me so it was a wild experience getting down the mountain on that one as dudes flew the air just to my left. Otherwise, the first two runs mentioned are totally doable on an all-rigid ride.

On Saturday just a we finished up a run for the last time an ambulance headed up the hill as well, so unfortunately it was a weekend where at least two people went to the hospital.

So, we must've been by each other at one point. We didn't take Fitzsimmons chair either, the gondola is the way to go. Passed my buddies on the way up the first time, they went Fitz and I took the gondola, they didn't know about the gondola so the look on their faces when I was already waiting for them was a blast for me! The only problem was trying to follow my buddies down the mountain on 8" travel bikes on a rigid Stumpie, hard to keep up...

 Tony Pawley

Tue, 28 Aug 2012:
To: bbtc group <>
From: Preston and Meg <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: The Dark Side

We know that BBTC er I mean EMBA trails coordinator extraordinaire Mike
Westra broke his leg up at Whistler this year.
Although I know Mike and have often enjoyed his company at Duthie and on
the trail, I can't say we're close. Even though hearing the news was a
bit of a gut punch, at the same time there is a certain anodyne distance
from the reality. Not always so -

The Legend, Janitha, and I were up at Whistler this last weekend.
Armando! was supposed to join us but some work scheduling snafu got in
the way at the last minute.
We had a great weekend, riding Friday night, Saturday, and....Sunday.
I've ridden with Janitha lots this summer and knew he'd do just fine.
But I was really impressed with Len's progression. Taking a Shaums March
clinic and renting a "real" bike for the weekend had him really railing
the mountain. I didn't realize he hadn't been there since riding the
opening of the park in 1998 !
I even got them to try a few of the mellower double diamond runs.

Even though we were a bit burnt, Sunday morning dawned sunny and
enthusiastic. We started as per our wont on Garbanzo as soon as it
opened, aching muscles but smiling faces.

Coming down Freight Train over a rather innocuous jump, we came across
an individual writhing in pain and face down. One other person had got
there first and we began securing the trail and trying to contact the
patrol as well as assessing this guy. Despite the full face helmet he
had some impact damage to his mouth but by his moaning and thrashing we
knew it was worse. Its haunted me all week, and I only looked at i
briefly, but I saw both of his forearm bones sticking several inches out
of the top of his arm, meat hanging off them and his hand hanging very
unnaturally below. Ugh...I admit I felt a bit nauseous a few minutes
later trying to get it out of my mind. The battlefield cries from his
shattered body and psyche added to the pain of the scene. The patrol got
there reasonably fast, thanks to janitha's cell phone, and we moved on.
We figured he didn't get any drugs until after a good assessment and the
helicopter took at least another 25 minutes to land by which time we
were back to riding.

But, you know...our heart wasn't in it. Our bravado had left us and
wasn't to be found and we went for an early lunch and headed home.

Circling back to Mike, I have a new emotional appreciation for the pain
and suffering of him laying on A-line, broken.

Combined with the teenage kid with the dislocated shoulders I helped
down the course at Port Angeles last spring, I'm beginning to get a bit
spooked - this DH stuff seems kind of dangerous.

Tue, 7 Aug 2012:
To: "'J
me ARNAUD'" <>,
        "'Tom Fitzpatrick'" <>
Cc: <>
From: "Rick Rohwer" <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: RE: If State Parks are not funded by the state, are they still State Parks?

Mountain bikers are not just people! Almost godlike really! Isnt that how
the Incans felt about the Spanish on their horses? Same concept.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of J
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:49 AM
To: Tom Fitzpatrick
Subject: Re: If State Parks are not funded by the state, are they still
State Parks?

Isn't this an opportunity for us (actually, for you as I don't leave here

Reading from the news below, parks will compete to attract people. Mountain
bikers are people.

They also lack resource for park maintenance (loss of 66 rangers).

Mountain bikers can help maintain and develop trails for the benefit of all.

Maybe we can be a solution to parks rather than a problem.

Of course, with a yearly $30 NW forest pass + $30 state park pass + $75 to
ride Tokul our windshields are getting crowded.


Le 5 aot 2012 ࠰5:47, Tom Fitzpatrick a
it :

> On Aug 1, 2012, at 7:14 PM, justinmpierce wrote:
>> Lawmakers have given Washington's parks system an unprecedented mandate:
Begin operating with no state funding in 2013.
>> Looks like it is time to contact your representative. If you don't know
who yours are, you can look them up
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> ------------------------------------
> Please help us protect and create trails through your donation or
volunteer effort. Support Evergreen.
> Have questions, comments, or concerns? Please contact us; see for contact info.

Thu, 28 Jun 2012:
From: papa-g <>
Subject: [morca] Sad run-in on the trail
List-Subscribe: <>

I spoke with Ranger Tammy of the Fort Ord National Monument the other day.  She relayed information from a MTB/Dog Walker run-in that had a sad ending...(You have thus been forewarned!)  As follows:
A dog walker was hiking with three smallish dogs near the Creekside Terrace parking area when she saw a man riding towards her at high speed.  She was pulling the dogs towards her and looking at the man to be sure she was not going to be run down.  One of the dogs did not get pulled far enough out of the way and was hit by the rider.  The dog was somehow tangled up with either the drivetrain or between the frame and wheel.  The woman asked the rider why he did not slow down or stop.  The rider replied that he figured that she would just get out of his way...The dog was elderly and had a stroke later that day and had to be put down the next day.
Please remember that your actions can have a lasting positive or negative impact on others.  Also keep in mind that bikes are to yield to other users.  If this man had slowed down and passed with more care, the dog might not have been injured.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups email list for the Monterey Off-Road Cycling Association (MORCA).
For more options, visit this group at

Mon, 25 Jun 2012:

To: <>
From: Phil Wolff <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: wild olympics

Protect from development? - it is USFS land which has a designation of doing
the "greatest good"

We should also think about other trail users moto / equine and how they are
impacted after all we often ride on "their" trails

For me and many people who work and play in forest in the Olympic pen are
NOT supporting this proposal

That being said I understand how negotiation works and I am glad evergreen
had a voice.


Mon, 25 Jun 2012:

From: "glennevergreen" <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Re: Wild Olympics Wilderness designation and Mtn biking

Hi Jack,

Over the last 3 - 4 years Evergreen has worked hard to identify and protect access to the trails open to mountain bikes on this landscape. Our goal was to find a compromise that had minimal acceptable impact on mountain biking while still meeting the Campaigns goals of land protection. Really most MTBers are also interested in land protection although we certainly won't always see eye to eye on the tools used, particularly Wilderness which does not allow mechanized transport including bicycles.

I give the Wild Olympics Campaign groups a lot of credit for seeing the importance of working with the MTB community and doing so in good faith. Across the country this level of collaboration is definitely the exception. It took a long time and a fair amount of back and forth but the most important MTB trails are now outside of Wilderness and still open to our form of low-impact recreation. A Wild or Scenic River designation does NOT close trails to bikes and that was an important tool both sides were able to use that protected the land and free flowing rivers while allowing us to continue to quietly enjoy.

As far as the Lower SF Skokomish, that is one of the trails negotiated out of the Wilderness in its entirety. Other significant ones removed from the Wilderness, but included in W&S River, at some point in the process include the West Fork Humptulips and the Lower Big Quilcene. These will never get logged or dammed and will stay open to mountain bikes.

We'll be putting out more information soon but the WO Campaign recently agreed to our final condition for support of this proposal which was removal of the last 1.5 miles of LSF Skoke from Wilderness. With that last agreement Evergreen now supports the proposal and is proud to have helped protect this much access to high quality mountain biking in the Olympic National Forest.

Why would a mountain bike organization be involved in a process that will result in reducing the potential for new access in the future? One reason is because the alternative is to not be involved in the process at all and to simply take the position of opposing wilderness protection. This is simpler but less likely to be successful in preserving even the existing access. Another reason is that most mountain bikers are as interested in ensuring the protection of land from development as the environmental community. We ride in beautiful, wild areas for the same reasons that hikers go there - to experience and connect with nature but we do it on two wheels.

Feel free to post here or email me directly with questions or comments.


Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance

--- In, Jack D <jackd49@...> wrote:
> Read this article and got to thinking.....
> I wrote to these guys(my note at the bottom) concerning the Wilderness
> designation and this new bill. My question was specific to L. South
> Fork Skokomish River Trail. I am not sure if there are other bike
> trails in this proposal. In the interest of keeping the redundancy at
> a minimum I thought I should share their response. I guess the REAL
> question to ask would be "If a trail currently open to mountain bike
> use is included in this new Wilderness Bill, will bike use be
> grandfathered in or will it be eliminated?"
> Map is here:
> his answer is here:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tom Uniack <tom@...>
> Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:18 PM
> Subject: RE: [Wild Olympics Submission: Contact Form] Wilderness
> designation and Mtn biking
> To: jackd49@...
> Jack:
> Thanks for your question. My organization is one of the ten members of
> the Wild Olympics Campaign.
> The Wild Olympics Campaign and Senator Murray and Congressman Dicks
> have worked closely with mountain bike advocates over the past couple
> of years while developing the proposal. We understand that despite the
> fact that mechanized use is not allowed under the 1964 Wilderness Act
> that many mountain bikers care strongly about protecting wild areas.
> As for the Lower South Fork Skokomish Trail, you are correct that this
> is a trail open to mountain bike use. In the legislation introduced
> yesterday this trail is not included in Proposed Wilderness and
> therefore any current or potential mountain bike use would not be
> affected by the proposal. The majority of the trail, however, is
> included within the wild and scenic rivers designation for the South
> Fork Skokomish River. A WSR designation does not impact mountain bike
> use.
> I hope that answers your question.
> Tom Uniack
> Conservation Director
> Washington Wild (Formerly Washington Wilderness Coalition)
> 206-633-1992
> 206-632-3290 FAX
> tom@...
> Washington Wild has been protecting and restoring wild lands and
> waters in Washington State through advocacy, education and civic
> engagement since 1979.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jackd49@... [mailto:wildernesscampaign@...]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:02 PM
> To: webmaster@...; Jonowen22@...; tom@...;
> Ben.greuel@...
> Subject: [Wild Olympics Submission: Contact Form] Wilderness
> designation and Mtn biking
> jack deguiseppi sent a message using the contact form at
> HI,
> I am wondering how this wilderness designation will affect mountain
> biking on trails.  Specifically, mountain biking is now allowed along
> the South Fork of the Skokomish River.  Will it still be allowed if
> this stretch of shoreline is included in the Wilderness Designation?
> Thanks,
> Jack DeGuiseppi

Mon, 18 Jun 2012:
From: "Preston" <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Capitol Forest Ride Report


Depending on our experience rather than a map combined with re-routes got us lost and riding way too many gravel roads on the way up in the cold rain. No matter how rutted, soupy and gnarly the moto trails were riding roads is awful. We would have turned around but the way back was worse than the way forward. Cold, windy, Junuary rain riding.

The trails were worse - Not just huge moto induced mud lakes, but constant never ending clay filled soupy spray. 23 years of PNW riding I've never been so filthy. I put a full season of wear on the Dreamliner in one day and will have to rebuild my pedals and replace my derailleur AND brake pads. I'm not sure how much fitness I built but I definitely trained for character.

We talked about how much this ride sucked all day right up until the point we got back to the truck. After that it became really fun.

I will admit Green Line has come a long ways and was a pretty awesome trail even in muck.

Gee I sure wouldn't want to do a 6-12 hour endurance race there anytime soon !
Hopefully there is nothing like that scheduled but if there was maybe you will be like us and it will be the best race you ever did as soon as it is over.

Mon, 18 Jun 2012:
From: Craig Mckinnon <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Brushed trails. the things I now avoid on the trail

I just read wendys post about brushed trails and it set me off this odd subject. I've been riding for a lot of years. And the first thing I learned to to do was to avoid black berry's either duck or grab quickly out of the way while riding.
The nettles just know what they look like helps.
Snakes, I used to ride over them but now when i see them i try and stop and maybe get a stick and help them off the trail. Snakes like to sun them self's too.

The latest avoidance is the darn slugs. I now avoid running over slugs.It's really hard cuz there are so many of them. But we all know what a stickey mess they make on the tires and all. Keep swerving.

Craig S. Mckinnon
9006 NE 133rd PL
Kirkland, WA 98034

Sunday June 17, 2012:

Kindree wins 2012 Test of Metal

Squamish native wins in wet, muddy contest

"In a race deemed by onlookers and spectators as the wettest and muddiest on record..." -- are we soon going to see a news repeat of 2007 ToM's Montezuma's Revenge?

Ditto, for Red Bull's Divide and Conquer triathalon on Grouse and Mt. Fromme.....Campylobactor (mmmmm, yummy)


From: "kenobonn" <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Sun, 17 Jun 2012:
Subject: Re: tokul,  day pass

Totally agree with you there. $8 is just about enough to pay for a growler at Snoqualmie Brewery. If it came to it, I'd rather do a stinkin fire road climb and have a decent beer or two or three, than offer money to the owners of a trail system the very same year it got destroyed.

Wed, 13 Jun 2012:
To: david <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Re: Issaquah alps trail club wants grand ridge / mtn bikers using
 Grand Ridge for race training


funny you should mention riders going fast around blind corners.about 3 weeks ago i was doing a mellow bro-ride on Grand Ridge to Duthie and back.

on the way back, there was this 55-60 year old guy in full kitted up Hagens- Berman race gear head to toe and get this, he's climbing up super fast  while i'm going down slow because i know  there are a bunch of blind corners and a variety of trail users on a saturday afternoon here. 

this guy comes around on a $8,000 Specialized Epic race bike around a blind corner a warp speed and is about 15 feet away from me with his head totally down and not looking to what is ahead of him ......i say, 'rider up' and dude grabs a ton of front brake and launches himself over the bars in front of me.he smacked his head on the ground pretty hard and had a concussion.i stayed with him for 15 minutes until he was calm and made sure he was ok and with a friend to finish the ride.he had a bloody cut on his nose from his glasses as well.....and get this, it was all while he was climbing! to see someone climbing at this pace around blind corners would have scared the crap out of any causal cyclist or hiker.i later learned that this racer almost ran into my friend who was 500 yards ahead of me....and after that occurrence he still didn't slow down.

granted Grand Ridge is a great place for racers to help with their climbing fitness, but i'm starting to feel that many are using this as a full blown race-training course with little regard for the casual rider or cyclist.i'm glad this cyclist was ok, but for the racers out there, please try to remember that this is a multi-use trail....and we don't want a few bad apples to spoil all the hard work and efforts of those who have done countless hours of trailwork to keep Grand Ridge open and in great shape to ride.

hopefully with some gentle communication to racers we can ask them to be mindful of other types of users on the trail and ask them to slow down around the many blind corners on Grand Ridge.




Fri, 8 Jun 2012:
From: Craig Mckinnon <>
Subject: Issaquah alps trail club wants grand ridge

Look out !, IATC yuk!

I heard at the Big finnhill meeting tonight. That the Hiking group the Issaquah Alps trail club wants Grand Ridge! to be hiking only.
Although they told us mt bikers to go to Grand Ridge Years ago So they could continue to have most of tiger and all of cougar mt to hiker only to themselves.
Perhaps you rember the IATC at the big meeting in Issaquah last winter.
They have power and they are not our friends.

Craig S. Mckinnon
9006 NE 133rd PL
Kirkland, WA 98034


Sun, 27 May 2012:
From: Craig Mckinnon <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Re: St Edward State Park is not Duthie

Hey '
After sleeping on it. I'm kinda wanting to ride the revamped trail some more. I like the way they used the existing trail without hacking up the woods.
The problem I have with unauthorized trail work is that they usually tear out bushes and stuff so the wooded land starts to look like a barren dirt lot.

I don't care for making dirt ramps over every downed logs that easily ridden over. Or half broken wooden stuff that is either falling down or can only be ridden by a few people. Trails should be built so that the most or all people can enjoy them without it becoming a bunny trail.

FLOW. Flow is the future of trail building. Like Sandy Ridge east of Portland is a flow trail.

They did tread work, So it will drain better whats wrong with that? Ride it and you decide.

Craig S. Mckinnon
9006 NE 133rd PL
Kirkland, WA 98034


Sat, 26 May 2012:
Cc: "Mohammad (PARKS) Mostafavinassab" <>
To: mountain bike <>
From: Tom Fitzpatrick <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: St Edward State Park is not Duthie

On our usual Sat. am ride today we discovered some person/s decided to turn a two-way, multi-use trail segment just north of Holmes Pt. Drive into a one-way steeper version of Boot Camp. Whoever you are, you need to stop. I plan to take out all the jumps and berms I can in a couple hours by myself. I will be out there at about 10 Tuesday morning if you'd like to come by and discuss trail maintenance and improvements with me.

Tom Fitzpatrick

Tue, 22 May 2012:
To:, ebxtreme <>
From: Tim Banning <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Re: $75 fee at Hancock, and they want us to do the trailbuilding and not them??


i understand the want to preserve-reclaim-and expand what exists out there. You raise some valid points, as far as why to move on the opportunity that does exist.i don't want to really argue that.

But when i assess the whole scope it really doesn't look like a good deal.

On point 1 when you bring up the struggle that our user-group in particular has with access and opportunity.Our losses of access to natural places are not over.And i'm sure you didn't mean to infer this, but i hope we as a community don't "settle" just to take the scraps of the scraps.Otherwise our next mt. bike park will likely be at Hanford. 

On point 5, i really don't like the undertone of what this means.It's a tone that we should all accept that pay for play is a reality, and just fork over the cash.If i reflect some logic that you use in making your points, then the statement that if Hancock is successful in this permitting program, then what are the chances that other private landowners decide to move in that direction as well?

What if they start charging for Galbraith?

Tell you what i'd be way more willing to fork over the cash for Galby than for Tokul.If Tokul is 75 bucks, then Galbraith should really charge double at least.Can i get 200 hundred for a 2 year pass?Anyone?What a bargain.

The whole deal sucks, but to me there's more to it than that.

1. Who is to say that rates for passes won't go up?
2. Who is to say that ownership won't change hands like it did at Galbraith.Galby is still open, but look at all the energy that went to keep it open, and there are still no guarantees.
3. Pay for play we start to lose our inclusiveness in our community.Which is fine for most, because most are not looking at trail builds as a way to build that.But it's a part that really makes projects alot more meaningful.i think EB you understand that part of it.
4. A land manager whose priority is to turn a buck, we marry ourselves with them.If i were looking at land managers as chicks, King County would be the one to bring home to meet Mom, she funds our parks with grants, and she wants recreation for the long haul.Hancock is pretty hot, but she's really fucking shallow, want's your money, and if trails get in the way of turning a buck you will get kicked to the curb.

At the end of the day your point still stands.Our choices are indeed still quite limited.i have no qualms with buying a pass in 4 years and riding there when things have been rebuilt, maybe maybe not.

Tom Fitz's email really summarizes it well for me,

"I think this is the logical end of a long, sad story of lost
opportunities by state and local govt. King County and Cascade Land
Conservancy should have negotiated a public recreation easement when
they purchased the development rights from the timber co (at that time
Weyco, I think). But farther back, a public recreation easement should
have been part of the deal in 1970 or so"

At the end of the day i think we would all be well served to move forward but let's place honest value in any endeavor we invest energy/time/money toward.And finally i think with what we have had as a community to work for, has really payed dividends.We should expect and want for better.

i for one would prefer to hold out for a better deal (for what little that's worth).:)

--- On Fri, 5/18/12, ebxtreme <> wrote:

From: ebxtreme <>
Subject: Re: $75 fee at Hancock, and they want us to do the trailbuilding and not them??
Date: Friday, May 18, 2012, 9:16 AM


A few thoughts.

1. Folks who build trail on a tree farm (which is what any DNR land or Hancock land is) knows exactly what they are doing. They are 100% aware that the land they are building on WILL be harvested in the future. These are 3rd growth forests we're talking about here people - not some pristine old growth. If you're building in a 40-60 year old Doug Fir stand, you expect it to be harvested and that's the reality. If these lands were, say, a conservation area, do you think building trails would be acceptable to the eco-nazi's? What do you think WTA or Sierra Club would say about that? If we opposed logging of an area because of our trails, do you think the timber companies would be accomodating? The absolute realitiy is a lot of these trail networks exist because they are in commercial working forests.

2. Building and maintaining trails in a clearcut sucks. The initial buildout is a b!tch - unless you can use machines. Then, you've got annual (at least) brushing to take care of and then the trails get dry and marbly from June-September due to the extra exposure to sun. You're looking at 10+ years before you can start to get some trees to help shade the area. When the trail is in, however, you basically know that the trail you've built will be there for the next 50 years and will remain largely untouched.

3. That said, when you've got an area that's been harvessted, you have almost limitless potential for routing and any "rebuild" almost always gets better and trails tend to get extra length during those processes. We've had almost ~800 acres harvested on Galby this year alone and, IMO, most of the trails have gotten better during the rebuild processes. It becomes an opportunity to make adjustments where it might not have been possible during an initial build out.

4. After the trails are rebuilt (and they will be) by the gnomes, I'm guessing all of the sanctimonious folks will quickly get off their high horeses and be back out there riding their bikes and taking in the views from the recent harvests....all-the-while complaining about how "the man" is sticking it to them.

5. Paying $75 to ride on Hancock land is something each person can decide on their own, but if things work out as I hope they will, the area will be better than ever due to the potential for additional riding and building. Up here, a group of builders is working on an agreement with a timber company to continue to ride/build on their land. As part of that, they're going to have to pay several thousand dollars annually for an insurance is that any different than the $75 per head that Hancock is asking for? I pay that much for a one-day lift ticket in the winter. Food for thought.



--- In, Brent Perez <brent.perez@...> wrote:


> The arrangement with Hancock is offensive. They have extensively logged the areas worth riding. Now, we are welcome to pay for the privilege of cleaning up their mess! I don't want to rebuild trails in a clear cut. I don't want to ride in a clear cut. I wouldn't do it for free. How dumb do they think we are?


> Sent from my iPad


> On May 17, 2012, at 6:12 PM, "Bob Bournique" <bbtcrides@...> wrote:


> > If any indication of recent trail use is key, I'd say trail use is down

> > about 75% so there's your number. Just got off the phone with Glenn and

> > mentioned this thread but I am cautiously optimistic that good things will

> > come from the Evergreen/Hancock relationship in the future.

> >

> > I have also learned through this that we're pretty lucky here as "pay to

> > play" is fairly common elsewhere in the country.

> >

> > From: [] On

> > Behalf Of STOBSTAR@...

> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:17 AM

> > To:

> > Subject: $75 fee at Hancock, and they want us to do the trailbuilding and

> > not them??

> >

> >

> > d-permit-requirements-748698-9.html#post8594222

> >

> > i'm wondering what % of people out there think that for $75, it's a good

> > deal to be able to ride out at Tokul for just a year, with no promise that

> > any amount of the $75 fee is going to go back to preserving the trails......

> >

> > i hope Evergreen has some luck with working with Hancock for a more

> > reasonable agreement with this.....there's got to be a better way.

> >

> > thanks,

> >

> > eric

Thu, 29 Mar 2012:
To: <>
From: brian _ <>
List-Subscribe: <>
Subject: Advocacy Alert! North Fork Nooksack User Built Trail Closure

In my humble opinion, the DNR is the worst land manager in Washington. Every time I have had contact with them they have had an aura of land ownership (as opposed to land management) they refuse to listen to reason and they will not be bargained with... take for example the closed down trails in the macworth forest behind cherry valley, all the trails and recreation opportunities on sultan basin rd and of course reiter pit. on a side note that is completely unrelated to bicycles, we have also been locked out of 8 excellent trout angling opportunities 2 of them rainbow baring lakes. Washington State Fish & Game say the lakes are open but the DNR says they're closed... you can tell by the big steel gates. I do not buy in to the notion of some single motorized user causing flack either, yeah, i'm calling them out. Sense when do they give a flying frig about anything anybody says to them. If anything like these lies are even remotely accurate i can count about 2000 mountain bikers that could use this same asinine logic to shut down the pacific crest trail and about 7000 miles worth of hiker only trails in this state. Bottom line, the DNR is having delusions of ownership of property that happens to be public land. I do not recognize their authority to lock us out any longer. what government office does the DNR answer to? i would like to go over their head. and yeah, once again, i want to get a bunch of lawyers to crawl up their behinds with a microscope... Sure, they might be somewhat accommodating up at tiger but not very...
i am going to follow through with the recommended action in the mailer and hope you do too but i sincerely doubt very much that any of our words will have much of an impact... see my words about the DNR giving a flying frig about anything anybody says above. thanks for letting me vent... don't bother flaming me, i don't care.


Sat, 25 Feb 2012:
"[Equestrians and hikers] don't want to share [trails]"


Sent to: "Chris Kangas" <>,"'Ryan, Elish'" <Elish.Ryan@PRK.SCCGOV.ORG>, <>, <>, <>, <>,         <>,Paul Nam <>,"Ted Stroll" <>

"'exclusive' trails that are not open to cyclists"

It is utterly AMAZING how mountain bikers continue repeating these lies, I guess in the belief that people will fall for them! Equestrians and hikers have NO PROBLEM sharing trails with mountain bikers! In fact, ALL trails are already open to mountain bikers. All they have to do is WALK, just like everyone else (of course, they are apparently too LAZY to walk). I don't see how they think insulting everyone will help their cause....


From: "Chris Kangas" <>
To: "romp" <>
Cc: "Paul Nam" <>
Subject: Re: [ROMP] Good Things about Calero and SCCO Parks and Rec
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

To net this out and not obfuscate the issue with a meandering dialogue:
Santa Clara county parks has traditionally been very pro multi-use and relatively progressive with their current trail development, and much of what remains closed to cyclists is the result of legacy trails and rules that have not been examined for some time. I was reminded of this during a great ride that I had yesterday at Grant Ranch. Some of the trails there that are closed to cyclists are merely short cattle trampled fire roads that connect between two multi use fire roads. As plans are updated, things like this need to be modified, for consistency within the park, and across county parks.
As Paul mentions, we have seen this type of update happen with Harvey Bear and Sanborn-Skyline.
That's what makes the this whole issue with Calero so egregious. The public planning process was followed, the Nov preferred alternative (itself a multi-use compromise) was released, only to be subverted after the fact by the strong lobbying of those who don't want to share. The "new and improved" preferred (by a few, not most) alternative is severely flawed and inconsistent with the county's overall strategic vision for multi-use, even if the current project planners have tried to convince the public that it best fits everyone's needs.
It is critical that we don't lose sight of the lack of larger loop options and safety issues presented by having to ride on McKean and Casa Loma roads, in order to circle back to Rancho Canada Del Oro or to Calero itself. It is also worth noting that the Feb alternative has many of the non-multi use trails slated for destruction, only to be rebuilt to more sustainable multi-use standards, without opening them up to multi-use. This means that our tax $ that feed the county parks charter fund will be subsidizing a network of new "exclusive" trails that are not open to cyclists.
The next parks meeting is coming up:
Wednesday, March 7th is the next SCCo Parks and Rec commission mtng, 6:30 pm.

County Government Center -

Isaac Newton Senter Auditorium
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110.

And your attendance would be very helpful. I'll be there.
In addition, if you've not already written to Elish Ryan and your county supervisors, to express your displeasure with the new Feb "preferred alternative", please do so:;;;;;

That's all for now. I'm off to spend the day with state parks, building some fully multi-use trail which can be and is currently enjoyed by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians without conflict.


Sat, 25 Feb 2012:
Paul Nam Backpedals Hard, after His Insulting Letter Was Made Public!


From: Paul Nam <>
Subject: [ROMP] Good Things about Calero and SCCO Parks and Rec
To: ROMP Group <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

I want to tell you some good things about Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation and Calero County Park.

At sunset the 3,494 acre Calero County Park is a hidden and beautiful place in the shadow of Mt. Loma Prieta. There is a nice reservoir there, which when filled by a generous season's runoff is a summer-time arena for motor-boat, and jet-ski, recreation. (Further south we find Uvas County Park and Reservoir which is a quieter place for paddling and sailing.) McKean Road is the way to get to Calero Park.

The prospects for future bicycle access to Calero park are good. Currently, according to the Santa Clara County Parks website page showing hiking and equestrian trails there are 12 miles of trails open to horses and hikers at Calero. Currently there is no bicycling permitted in the park. In the future, according to an ongoing planning process, there will be just about 36 miles of trails in this park, in 10 years or so. Depending upon the outcomes of upcoming meetings, either 23 or 28 miles of trail would be open to bicycle riders. This is really good stuff folks.

Naturally I am advocating for the 28 miles of multi-use trails preferred draft alternative.

The planning process being used by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department is a good one. The plans are very progressive and strive for significant bicycle access by planning, building and designating as much multi-use trail (MUT) as may be possible.

Mountain bike access to Santa Clara County Parks is increasing. Many of us participated in the Coyote Lake - Harvey Bear Ranch and Sanborn-Skyline (3,688 acres) County Parks planning processes (both of which are now complete). These plans are now behind us. Harvey Bear Ranch's new trails are now nearly completely built out and mature. HBR is a brand new park. Sanborn-Skyline is the next County Park which is undergoing new trail construction. Both of these park master plans (HBR and S-S) add huge new MUT mileages. S-S will be 38 miles of trail. HBR has 35 miles of trail. Not all of these 72 miles are bicycle accessible, but the greatest majority generously are (I should find the number, but it is not much less than the total). When I consider that prior to these new master plans there was practically no mountain bike access, or single track, to these parks, it is quite apparent that Santa Clara County is doing a lot to accommodate mountain bike use in her parks.

If we just aggregate these 3 park plans (not yet fully constructed) mentioned here (there are many more parks and miles of trail in the system) we find the sum of 130 miles of trail. These 120 miles of trail are going to be a wonderful way to see enjoy parks for generations to come. Now consider that these 3 parks had significantly much lower trail mileage and practically no bike access in the past, you will see how progressive the county is to mountain bike recreation.

All of the above is written as a way of proclaiming that Santa Clara County Parks and Rec is providing cyclists a great deal of expanded and improved trail access.

About the "Critique of Calero's New Alternative":

The foregoing is a much needed summary and perspective to appreciate the positive and constructive aspects of our Santa Clara County Parks. The foregoing appreciation of SCCO parks and recreation is needed because last week I wrote and sent out a truculent and acrimonious essay titled "Critique of Calero"s New Alternative" to the pubic ROMP google group. In that essay I framed the newly released (February 10, 2012) March 7 preferred draft alternative trails plan for Calero as a manipulation by the equestrian community to unfairly shut out cyclists, and compared the circumstance of mountain bikers to the civil rights struggle. Much of that essay, and the civil rights analogy, was couched in a vituperative tone that resorted to hyperbole. That essay could well be a humorous piece of satire if further developed. As it was, it belly-flopped into the pool of the trails advocacy world. I confess that I was quite sincere and motivated when I wrote it. However, since writing it, I have come to learn that my speculation that a small group of equestrians had lobbied for the removal of the Canada del Oro and Figueroa trails from MUT status (allow bicycles) was wrong. Parks and rec did this in response to publicly expressed concerns by equestrians and sympathetic park commissioners.

The critique was composed as a test piece to arouse cycling community interest in the important upcoming March 7 meeting to attract support for the November 2, 2012 alternative. It was not sent to the Parks and Rec planning department, and was not written for that purpose. It was, however, quickly forwarded by a third party [me!] to parks and rec and to a wide variety of people outside of the county. In retrospect with some embarrassment I have come to realize that I committed a number of errors in that composition. I'll spare us the tedium of a critique of my critique here, but I have parsed it in detail for myself over the last five days!

I will share this insight: I discovered and learned from my critique essay that I had improperly resorted to creating a scapegoat and bogeyman to blame for the disappointment I perceived. In contrast, the real situation is in fact that parks and rec [now he has to try to butter them up!] is in the process of determining the best outcome using incremental compromise as a tactic towards the development of a socially sustainable trails plan.

It is better to realize that cooperative opportunities still exist for positive change. I am still against the March 7 alternative.

The horse riding community has a lot at stake. An appreciation of the perspective of other stake holders needs to be made as well.

Equestrians have enjoyed historical privilege and precedent, and continue to enjoy exclusive access to Calero park. Both alternative trails plans may come as a disappointment to equestrians. If you put yourself in their shoes you quickly realize that the horse riders as a whole will lament.

MUT trails plans are functional. Harvey Bear is a great local example of this.

I'll expand on this later. In particular I will write about why MUT access is so highly valued by the mountain bike community on the Canada del Oro and Figueroa trail which were struck from MUT status in the new March 7th alternative

-Paul Nam

Mon, 20 Feb 2012:
Mountain Biker Compares Their Struggle with Civil Rights Movement!


Sent to: Paul Nam <>
Cc: "'Ryan, Elish'" <Elish.Ryan@PRK.SCCGOV.ORG>, <>, <>,         <>, <>,  <>

"The posting of signs excluding bikes on the Canada del Oro and Figueroa trails would be the equivalent of Jim Crow "no negroes" signs on water fountains, seats, tables, doors, and toilets appearing in the 21st century in California."

Of course, there is no comparison, because the EXACT same rules apply to mountain bikers, as apply to everyone else. Mountain bikers are free to WALK on trails closed to bikes, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! Uh, Paul, BIKES ARE NOT PEOPLE! Excluding bikes does not exclude mountain bikers! Bikes are also excluded from sidewalks, but no one has ever called that a civil rights issue! Motorcycles are excluded from most trails, but no one has ever called that a civil rights issue! Cars are excluded from trails, but no one has ever called that a civil rights issue! Your letter is insulting, selfish, and mean-spirited, but, unfortunately, typical of mountain bikers.


From: Paul Nam <>
Subject: [ROMP] Critique of Calero's new Alternative
To: ROMP Group <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

I support the November 2, 2011, Preferred Draft Alternative for Calero County Park.
The proposed March 7 Revised Preferred Draft Alternative for Calero County Park is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the residents of Santa Clara County because it unfairly represents the special wishes of an exclusive and minority stake holder; was obtained in private proceedings outside of the legal terms and public process (perhaps extorted by means of threats and other modes of malfeasance); and closes off around 4.5 miles of appropriate and popularly anticipated bicycle access to the regional loop access of the Canada del Oro and Figueroa trails (and perhaps Cottle trails) to present and future cyclists.
The new alternative is a slap in the face of civil proceedings. Whereas the new alternative is a corrupt subversion of public policy, the alternative agreed to last November represents the noble culmination of a long and fruitful process. The properly and legally established November alternative is superior in legal, popular, and practical terms. It is a shocking scandal that will be uncovered if the new alternative is approved and implemented.
The main trails in contention are the Canada del Oro and Figueroa trails.
The posting of signs excluding bikes on the Canada del Oro and Figueroa trails would be the equivalent of Jim Crow "no negroes" signs on water fountains, seats, tables, doors, and toilets appearing in the 21st century in California. The proposed  "no bikes" signs are the puerile gestures of a spiteful self-serving, mean spirited minority clinging to an outmoded and hopelessly romantic provincial view of reality. The message to the public that the entertainment of this wrong-headed revision sends is that Jim Crow is alive and well; and that Santa Clara County government lacks the gumption to stand for the popular majority wishes of her tax-payers. It would serve infantile and small-minded interests not to share these trails in question with the future trail users of Santa Clara County.  Favoritism of this brand will not stand the test of time.
Bicycling and horseback riding are sound means of recreation and transportation. These modes are compatible. Horses can be trained to tolerate bicycles in the same way that horses can be trained to tolerate dogs and automobiles: by being around them. We don't need to go back one hundred years and recreate the contention that the appearance of the automobile had upon the horse riding community. Nowadays all horse riders use cars and most of them ride bikes too. It is ludicrous to expect more exclusive trail access than has already been generously conceded in the November Preferred Draft Alternative for Calero County Park.
The Figueroa and Canada del Oro trails are primary connections to the multi-use trail system in Canada del Oro Santa Clara Open Space which represent longer and more advanced riding objectives for equestrians. If equestrians are going to ride into another agency trail system, one that is multi-use, they should be on mounts, and with a mind-set, that are prepared to share trails with other users. The burden of education and sharing is upon the trail user. It works when everyone respects the other. I believe that if a trail user, be they hiker, cyclist, or equestrian, wishes to travel on public trails they must moderate their behavior in the spirit of sharing. If they want a private experience, they need to seek and develop private areas. In Calero County Park, if a horse is not accustomed to being around other riders and dogs, the owner may decide to train the animal, and in the meantime stay on trails reserved for the exclusive use of equestrians. More advanced riders can then connect into multi-use trail systems in regionally connecting areas such as Canada del Oro OSP, Santa Teresa and New Almaden Quicksilver County Parks.
I do support the equestrian community and admire the skills, culture, industry, heritage, animal husbandry, and beauty of horses and riding. I have ridden horses, and will do so again, no doubt about it. In no way do I wish to abolish horse riding. I do not support the obstruction of modern mountain bike access for exclusive equestrian use either; especially as exemplified in the SCCO March 7 Preferred Draft Alternative for Calero County Park. I do not prefer it. I detest it. It does not serve the equestrian community to close itself off from the stark reality that bicycling is the preferred alternative mode of trail travel for recreation, learning and experience of nature, and physical exercise for the average resident because it is affordable. Bicycle ownership and operation is relatively cheap and inexpensive compared to the ownership or rental of a horse. Because of this economic fact alone, there will be exponentially more people pushing pedals than holding reins in the future.of Santa Clara County parks.
It is sad to recognize that the most priveleged equestrians who valiantly, but misguidedly, fight for exclusive access to public lands, in a score of years will be pushing up daisies while the living will be pushing pedals and nibbling the browse on the 4.82 miles of public shared use trails here in contention at Calero County Park. (Sad for me to realize that I too will be pushing up daisies in 20 years!)
Please do not allow the March 7 draft alternative to be enacted.
Paul Nam


Sun Jan 8, 2012:

Preservation of Hyalite area is necessary

A recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has supported better protection for a piece of land many residents care about deeply. The court declared that the Gallatin National Forest needs to manage the Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area so that motorized use in this area is of the same volume that existed in 1977. This limits recreation opportunities for some and protects vital habitat for keystone species of the region. As a mountain biker, hunter, snowmobiler and outdoor educator who has worked and recreated in this exact area, I support the decision to limit motorized and mechanized use.

The Wilderness Study Area, extending from the Hyalite area south to Yellowstone National Park along the Gallatin Divide, encompasses many favorite trails and also important habitat for elk, lynx, grizzlies and wolverines. Population growth in Gallatin and Park counties along with technology advancements in motorized/mechanized travel have resulted in a significant increase in pressure to species whose habitat is disrupted by presence of motorized and mechanized recreation.

We have become too prevalent for this piece of the forest to sustainably support all our recreation needs along with a reasonable level of ecosystem preservation. I believe the year-round pressure of recreation in this area is one of several factors contributing to the declining elk population found there. If there is a time and place for everything, this is a place for preservation until we find a way to recreate with less consistent and significant impact. The time to do it is now. It is hard for me to let go of riding fun trails, but prioritizing is necessary.

Sam Newbury


Read more: