Request Feedback for LA Times article

[tedfulton]

Malibu Creek State Park in socal is planning to build a 7 acre RV Park and Equestrian Campground inside Malibu Creek State Park at the request of a special interest group (ETI Equestrian Trails International). I am leading a campaign to preserve the open space. See details at
http://savethemeadow.blogspot.com/ The official state park website detailing the project is here: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25400

Malibu Times Story is here: http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/...news/news7.txt

LA Times is planning a story as well. Your feedback is requested for this story. Please add comments to this thread. Your comments may be referenced in the article and you may well influence the park service's plans.

Thank You

Ted Fulton
Save the Reagan Meadow Foundation
www.savethemeadow.com

[CalEpic]

Without casting any negatives or positives on this, it should be noted that Ted Fulton does not represent the LA Times.

Craig
STR Moderator

[Abui]

Click on http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25400
then "Why Support the Reagan Equestrian Campground"
and you'll get a shocking statistic.

There are more horses in Southern California than in Texas.


That's too many horses for our limited resources. Let them ride in Texas.

And please, no horse owner should plead poverty:

Danielson Ranch in Point Mugu State Park requires a $40 ranger escort fee for driving each time in and out of the campground, in addition to the campsite fee.

[carbonman]

Let me get this straight, This is the same state parks system that is planning to close other state parks and now they want to build an RV park/equestrian campground? Something doesn't make sense here.

[Fewinhibitions]

Originally Posted by carbonman

Let me get this straight, This is the same state parks system that is planning to close other state parks and now they want to build an RV park/equestrian campground? Something doesn't make sense here.

Makes total sense. Follow the $'s.

Equestrians have money.

Lobbying groups channel money.

Politicians live for money.

Learn the game, play the game, shape the game.

The game is here to stay.


However, politics being what it is, the whole bedfellows thing comes into the picture.

It's way past the time we expand our connections to those outside of the MTB world.

I address this to Mr Fulton and others - if we (the MTB community) were to find this action in our best interests and help and support your cause, what are you, and your cause willing to help and support on our behalf?

Like minded groups need to be working together on access.

[MountainCycler]

So will this end in the same fate as mountain biking in Griffith Park? Granted, this is a LA park, but still, I can foresee more trail conflicts if this happens.

Given that, when i have ridden in MCSP, all equestrians and hikers have been more than friendly to mountain bikers.

[0gravity]

How specifically is this going to impact bikers? Does this necessarily mean there will be new trail closures for mountain bikes? I didn't see anything to suggest that.

[tedfulton]

The Save the Reagan Meadow Foundation supports equal access to all of California's parks including Mountain Bikers and Equestrians.

This project was not widely publicized. I am publicizing it for public comment. It was aproved in 2005 but the majority of the public is just learning about it now.

We believe this is a bad location for this RV park/equestrian campground. We also believe the facility is too large.

We support open space for everyone to enjoy; mountain bikers, painters, joggers, hikers and equestrians. We believe commercial type facilities should be built on private lands with private money.

Sincerely,

Ted Fulton
www.savethemeadow.com

[tedfulton]

I believe the direct impact on mountain bikers will be the view and reduced access. Why do you ride in Malibou Creek State Park and not Compton? Let's preserve the open space for eveyone to enjoy. There is currently a small free day use parking lot which provides mountain bike access to the park at the proposed location of the RV Park. If this facility is built there will be a facility dedicated to equestrian RV camping and an entry fee will be charged.

Actual impact on mountain bike trails will probably be neglible except the view from several trails will become that of an RV park instead of a scenic valley as is now the case.

Ted

[Abui]

Originally Posted by tedfulton

I believe the direct impact on mountain bikers will be the view and reduced access. Why do you ride in Malibou Creek State Park and not Compton? Let's preserve the open space for eveyone to enjoy. There is currently a small free day use parking lot which provides mountain bike access to the park at the proposed location of the RV Park. If this facility is built there will be a facility dedicated to equestrian RV camping and an entry fee will be charged.

Actual impact on mountain bike trails will probably be neglible except the view from several trails will become that of an RV park instead of a scenic valley as is now the case.

Ted

Correction - there is not mountain bike access from the meadow. The connecting trail is off limits to bikes.

[Fewinhibitions]

For the record, I am very much against this type of facility in this park. It monopolizes the park for a select few instead of keeping it open for everyone.

I will be happy to write a response to this proposal.

Can you imagine the lies and anger that would boil over if plans for a bike park were being kept on the down low and to be this far along for the same site?

[tedfulton]

Why is the connecting trail off limits to mountain bikes? I just drove over to the free parking lot. The sign says, no dogs, no smoking no open flames. It says nothing about bikes. I believe any trail a horse is allowed on should also allow mountain bikes....bikes don't crap on the trails and ruin the water shed. Why are moutain bikes restricted? (Sorry for the stupid question I'm not a mountain biker)

Ted

[Abui]

Originally Posted by tedfulton

Why is the connecting trail off limits to mountain bikes? I just drove over to the free parking lot. The sign says, no dogs, no smoking no open flames. It says nothing about bikes. I believe any trail a horse is allowed on should also allow mountain bikes....bikes don't crap on the trails and ruin the water shed. Why are moutain bikes restricted? (Sorry for the stupid question I'm not a mountain biker)

Ted

You'll have to hike a bit to see for yourself. The master plan shows several types of trail on the meadow but the connector is limited to hikers and horses.

Last time I was in the canyon the trail sign had a bike with the slashed circle symbol. Nearly all trails are closed to bikes. The exceptions are the Tapia Spur Trail (opened by CORBA) and the Grasslands (Talepop) Trail.

[tedfulton]

Ok, I just broke out my Malibu Creek State Park Map and you're right....it says Mountain Bikes are only allowed on fire roads within the park. I got one question.....what the fu#k? Why has the mountain bike community accepted this discrimination? I think you could make a pretty good argument that bikes are less destructive to the natural environment than horses, which apparently have far fewer restrictions. I guarantee you that if mountain bikers showed up to the park planning meetings like the equestrians have been doing for years you could get these restrictions lifted. I will be urging all members of the Save the Reagan Meadow Foundation to support equal trail access for mountain bikes. FYI the Gillette Ranch (the park next to Malibu Creek State Park) is currently developing it's general plan and solicits input from the public. You can email the planners directly at arteck4mtc@msn.com

Here is the official website to provide public input on how Gillette Ranch will be used to serve the public:

http://www.smmc.ca.gov/KGRP/publicInvolvement.html

Here is an article that describes the process:
http://www.allbusiness.com/entertain...2004551-1.html

You guys seem well organized, I would not accept this discrimination. The parks belong to you as much as anyone else.

Sincerely

Ted Fulton

[Fewinhibitions]

I have been trying to find the Sierra Club sponsored study from the 80's - or even an updated version where all use of trails was studied.

From small animals to 4x4 trucks. It had a tier graphic of the erosion and negative impacts of each "user" of a trail with MTB's being far below horses.

Anyone know where to find it? Or a similar sudy of impact? It would be a great tool to have and submit as an exhibit.

I know in Hawaii, the Sierra Club supporters looked foolish after the survey was released as they had been touting how the survey was going to prove once and for all that MTB's should not be allowed or at least very limited on trails used by hikers and horses. They never mentioned the survey again in it's quest to block/limit MTB access in the islands.

EDIT

OK, I found this and it has some interesting info:

http://www.americantrails.org/resour...enImpacts.html

"The statements/claims in the EA are certainly well founded and number of different studies back up the generalizations made.

A 2001 study performed by botanist Richard Reader of the University of Guelph (Canada) noted that "We've found that hikers have the same effect as bikers do, regardless of the number of trips along the path. In reality, both are equally damaging to the environment, but there is increased trail wear because twice the number of people are now using the trails." (Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest - Eden Thurston and Richard Reader).

A trail impact study from the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute comparing hiking impacts to horses and llamas noted: "Horse traffic resulted in statistically significant higher sediment yields (the primary indicator of trail deterioration) than either hiker or llama traffic. The low level (250 passes) horse treatment caused more impact than the high level (1000 passes) llama treatments, suggesting that horses can cause at least four times as much impact to trails under the conditions simulated in this experiment. In addition, under dry trail conditions horse traffic caused significant reductions in soil bulk density (a measure of how compacted the soil is) compared to llama and hiker traffic. Horse traffic also caused significant increases in soil roughness compared with the other 2 users. This suggests that the greater impacts of horses on trails is a result of soil loosening of trail surfaces that are otherwise compacted, thereby increasing the detachability of soil particles and increasing sediment yield and erosion." (Llamas, Horses, and Hikers: Do They Cause Different Amounts of Impact? - Thomas Deluca (University of Montana) and David Cole (USFS - Wilderness Research Institute) 1998 study)"

[G-Ride]

I also found another article that has some additional info.

http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/...news/news4.txt

What is the direct impact to mountain bikers? They're only asking for 7 acres from a 153,000-acre open space area. Are we really losing anything? It says there are 10,000 horses in the immediate area. That's a lot of horses with no real access area (according to the article) to the open space. Certainly just as mountain bikers enjoy and fight for our relatively easy access, their relative lack of it for them doesn't make it seem like they are asking a lot for a group this large in an area this size. As for the funding, although it looks like the plans were developed cooperatively with the state parks department, it will be funded privately by a local equestrian trail preservation group, not too dissimilar from mountain biking trail advocacy groups. I admit I don't know that area, but I don't see exactly what this means for mountain bikers. The article shows fire risk and pollution as the main objections. Clearly real concerns. But it also says the current plan is only conceptual, so it looks like they are willing to listen to those objections. What exactly do mountain bikers lose here?

[Abui]

Originally Posted by G-Ride

I also found another article that has some additional info.

http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/...news/news4.txt

What is the direct impact to mountain bikers? They're only asking for 7 acres from a 153,000-acre open space area. Are we really losing anything? It says there are 10,000 horses in the immediate area. That's a lot of horses with no real access area (according to the article) to the open space. Certainly just as mountain bikers enjoy and fight for our relatively easy access, their relative lack of it doesn't make it seem like they are asking a lot for a group this large in an area this size. As for the funding, although it looks like the plans were developed cooperatively with the state parks department, it will be funded privately by a local equestrian trail preservation group, not too dissimilar from mountain biking trail advocacy groups. I admit I don't know that area, but I don't see exactly what this means for mountain bikers. The article shows fire risk and pollution as the main objections. Clearly real concerns. But it also says the current plan is only conceptual, so it looks like they are willing to listen to those objections. What exactly do mountain bikers lose here?

There is no such thing as "open space". There are a few miles of trails. Horses in MCSP are rarely seen even on weekdays. On the weekends the trails are filled with hikers. Adding even one horse to the mix is dangerous. 10,000 is absurd.

[bwolmarans]

I don't like my tax money (or park fees) getting spent on something that doesn't benefit me, but in this case, I don't see how this would take away from my riding, personally.

I often ride the grasslands trail into malibu creek and then on the fireroads mostly.

There are a lot more mountain bikers than horse riders, so this isn't fair.

It's too bad that as mountain bikers, we don't all speak with one voice through one strong, large central organization that represents mountain bikers for california.

\

[Fewinhibitions]

"What exactly do mountain bikers lose here?"


What we, and others possibly lose is access and future claims of use.

If allowed, it establishes a physical plant that supports one singular group over ALL others. Once they have that established, all other users could be considered 2nd class users.

Also, once a large setup of this type (for any type of activity) is established, it tends to give that entity more pull and control of the surrounding area in future deliberations of use - and tacit approval by the governing bodies for that grab of power as it has become an established acceptable use for the area in question.

It's not just what MTB's might lose here, it's about what all other groups might lose when a publicly designated and funded area is allowed to be developed for a special interest.

Would the MTB community be allowed to put up such a facility for our use and enjoyment in the same area? Permanent buildings, facilities and campsites for our exclusive use?

Or a religious group? Concert promoter? Sierra Club?

Puhleze...

[tedfulton]

I would point out that equestrians already have easy access to Malibu Creek State Park from a variety of locations (Paramount Ranch, the current campground in Malibu Creek SP, the free parking lot I spoke of earlier, Gillette Ranch etc etc. Plus there is this operation: http://www.maliburiders.com

I don't think it's a question of what the mountain bike community has to lose. I think it's a question of what you have to gain. Reading the articles sited above I can't see why the State Park service restricts mountain bikers but promotes equestrians....it just make no sense and certainly doesn't seem fair to me. I was unaware of the restrictions on bikes until starting this thread. I will add comments to this effect to my blog: www.savethemeadow.blogspot.com

Ted Fulton