Northern California Message Boards

Our rideable trails are decreasing in number. Please get involved.

______________________________

Dear Mr. Apple and Citizens for the Preservation of The Forest of Nisene Marks,

I am writing in response to some of the points outlined on your webpage, with the hope that I can open a bit of dialogue with you and your organization regarding your stated position on trail usage in Nisene Marks. Up front I should let you know who I am and what I believe, which hopefully won't dimly color your reception of the rest of my letter- my day job is laboratory research in molecular biology at Stanford. My primary hobby of the last 15 years is mountain biking. I am not affiliated with any national or local MTB advocacy groups, and although I have bicycled in nearby Soquel Demonstration forest, I have never been to Nisene Marks. For the purposes of the discussion below, I feel the latter point is not incredibly relevant.

I realize that the scientist/mountain biker might sound like an odd juxtaposition of realities to some people. I have little time for recreation, so I have to satisfy several needs at once; simply put, better than *any* other form of recreation that I have attempted (this is a long list, so I won't bore you), MTBing allows me to (i) manage stress by plopping me deep into nature and sharply decreasing the volume of ubiquitous people and cars and noise that comes with being an urbanista, (ii) counteract the sedentary inertia coincident with working huge hours, and (iii) allows me to connect with friends whom I otherwise wouldn't see often.

To distill my discussion into one sentence: restricting mountain bike access to trails near urban centers needs to be done only under exceptional circumstances. From your case, your group has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. It sounds like your group simply doesn't want to share the trails with bicycles.To enable this you have successfully argued the original land deed written by the Marks family with a dangerously literal and exclusionary interpretation.

Here's an example:

4. That the use of the Property shall be limited to camping, nature study, hiking, and associated activities

'Hiking' is defined as "to go on an extended walk for pleasure or exercise". I didn't realize that the spirit of mountain biking is contrary to the spirit of hiking. Is mountain biking not "to go on an extended bicycle ride in the woods for pleasure or exercise"? Would you be against climbing trees in Nisene Marks, or swimming, or picking flowers, or hunting morel mushrooms, or photographing your spouse because these were not explicitly stated in the 6 point land usage guidelines by the Marks family? Mountain biking is an associated activity to hiking. I think you will have a hard time disagreeing with this in your heads, even though it is central to your argument.

Extending this point one step:

6. That there shall be filed no complaint in an action of condemnation whereby it is sought to condemn all or any portion of the Property, *or any interest therein*, whether or not the State shall participate in or accede to such exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Is a suggestion of banning responsible user access to the upper 9,000 acres of the park not contrary to the implicit language of the land deed?

What you also know is that like any large group of people, there are responsible people, and jerks. While I have a hard time defending 13-year olds with full-face helmets and reckless abandon for authority and their own bodies (it's amazing that any of us survive beyond 18), I can say that I, like most of us, have never hit a hiker, a domestic or wild animal while riding my bike, and that there are numerous solutions to user conflict that are cheaper and less severe than trail closure; mountain bikers can wear cowbells under their seats. Trails can be designated one-way at times of peak traffic.

Here is why banning bikes is a bad idea: people will not all of a sudden ride less because the trails they used to ride have been deemed illegal. This is a myopic victory for people who champion a shrinking amount of recreation space for overtly selfish reasons. Decreasing the trail volume only increases the burden on legal trails, which in turn gives the anti-bike people more of a reason to close trails. Too many bikes. Too much trail damage. Not enough quiet.

Give me a break. In 2004, we live in an urban reality. The more that different groups of trail users unify their efforts, the more likely it is that *real* threats to our nearby open space won't gain a foothold. A glaring example of what can happen is sadly happening right now in Orange County: Aliso Woods, which has arguably the most famous 'illegal' bicycle trail network in the country, is on the edge of being developed into a golf course! What is worse, having bicyclists and hikers share the trails, and responsibility for their preservation, or the wholesale loss of open space?

Thanks for listening.

Sincerely,
El Santo, Ph.D.