Lpq News

[el_d00der1n0]

I'm in carmel on the crackberry, so I can't thank you guys by clicking "thanks" it would take way too long.

All I have to say to SDhoarseman is

[92se-r]

Sounds like an E-Thug. LOL. "My horse is bigger than your horse!" Yeah? Well my Iron Horse has DW-Link biyatch.

[el_d00der1n0]

So I read they plan to sanitize the $hit$...

[Liquid55]

My dog likes horses.......j/k

[sladnas]

Originally Posted by SDCountyHORSEMAN

LOTS of us ride horses that are not afraid of bikes. We would be willing to share space with you. But some of you don't want that.

el d00der1n0 said: "It's a shame it has to come down to us vs. the horse people" I agree.

el d00der1n0 also said: "Get ready for some chocolate pain B!7c#" Horses are LIVESTOCK, and it is ILLEGAL in California to harrass/threaten livestock, so YOU have just made a documentable THREAT. (Thank You for the screen capture in case this winds up in COURT someday). You are doing WONDERS for your cause. Keep it up.

So what IS chocolate pain? Are you going to run into my horse with your bike? She is a draft horse and weighs 1700 pounds! If you do it, the horse will probably get cut up some and need some stitches, but your bike will be trashed when she steps on it, and you could get hurt pretty bad. Frankly, it would be like hitting a wall, and then having it step on you (and if you run into her on purpose, I would NOT try to prevent her stepping on you).

For everyone's benefit, you should know that I am forwarding this webpage to every equestrian group in San Diego County.

Comments welcome

Warrick is that you?

He probably meant Chocolate Rain.

[EBasil]

There are actually a number of emails and links to this thread floating around the internet and email lists. Most of them arose out of falsetto outrage by particular anti-bike folks that reacted to the Multiuse Trails Coalition newsletter that was republished in November, 2007 by the SDMBA and is the first posting in this thread. Alarmed that parents of kids, kids themselves or other "cyclists" might increase participation in the political process that regulates our communities' trail access, they've been sending it around as an alarm bell.

So, if you're reading this thread on the STR site because you were alerted to all the horrible things the evil mountainbikers are saying and doing, please note the following:

--Each and Every statement in the original article has been either confirmed by those mentioned, or they have specifically declined to deny the facts as true, when asked.

--There has NEVER been a call by the Multiuse Trails Coalition nor the MTB community to close trails to equestrian use, although equestrian advocates repeatedly seek to close trails to the rest of us. Do you support the anti-bike advocates' actions on your behalf?

--As you can see from the postings here on STR, the vast majority of persons here support multiuse trails and are willing to share our trails with responsible equestrians as much as we are with responsible cyclists, trail runners and pogo-stick enthusiasts (if there are any). Can you claim the same standards? Many equestrians with the skill and responsibility to control their horses do and we welcome them onto our trails.

If you're reading this on STR because you're a cyclist, don't take the bait when "equestrians" talk tough on the internet. Haven't you seen mountainbikers do the same? Does it get us anywhere? No.

If you want to do something about "things", show up at Los Penasquitos CAC meetings and hiss at any wacko that tries to cast aspersions at cyclists because we are trying to organize to have even 1/3 the influence the special interests do over access to our trails. Reject their repeated claims that San Diegans who ride bikes value and protect our preserve any less than those with horses or birkenstocks. Show them that we'll eagerly welcome them to the table to share in our bounty of trails, but that table manners require they share and don't get to take all the dessert for themselves.

[el_d00der1n0]

Originally Posted by sladnas

Warrick is that you?

He probably meant Chocolate Rain.

it was a quote from south park. tay's cartoon character said that before blasting the leave britney alone guy.

[EBasil]

Ah, lastly, to "SDCountyHORSEMAN" who says he rides a draft horse: if you're the fella with the drays off of the Del Mar Mesa, many of us know you to be both pleasant and skilled on those big horses. If you're that rider, or one of those on the other drays, then you're in the practice of telling riders to roll on by, or to let our kids check out your horses while we all hunker down under the shade at Carson Crossing.

If that's you, then you're the type of equestrian that deserves the same multiuse trail access we all do, and we wish you'd come out to advocate more often. If that's you, you're not one of the hate/fear-based opponents of shared trails and you understand that your responsibility to control yourself and your animals are the same as the resposibility of others to control themselves, their dog or their bike.

So, if that's you, do us all the favor of reminding your fellow equestrians that find such alarm in San Diegans' support for multiuse trails that we don't want to fight with you -- unless you pick fights with us. Rein in your advocates that oppose multiuse, that inflame meetings with ridiculous claims about bicycle use or riders and that preach to us in patronizing tones how we "should be happy with the seats at the back of the bus". We have an amenity worth protecting and it does equestrians no long term good to fight with the majority of trail users.

[OldDogDan]

Originally Posted by EBasil

"should be happy with the seats at the back of the bus". .

Thanks EBasil for your good work and well-spoken replies. You put the line above in quotes -- did someone actually say that about MTB'ers at a meeting?!

[EBasil]

No, it's in quotes because it's a concept they espouse. They have said and do say things like, "you should be happy with the trails we allow you on", "mountainbikers don't care about anything but going fast", "bikers don't need singletracks", "we need trails where we don't have to see bikes", "bikers just don't appreciate the preserve, anyway"...etc.

[Anastasia]

Good morning, everyone!

I am an equestrian, and if you'll bear my instrusion for a few minutes, I would like to share my opinion on the trail situation as well as Erik's post.

Just so that you know, I am a member of the Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve Volunteer Patrol with my mare, Raven (although we haven't been out in a while due to the birth of a second child, and I tore my ACL and need to have that repaired). Erik Basil and I went through the same volunteer patrol class. Raven and I were members of the first official volunteers to go out in support of the new volunteer patrol effort instituted by Ranger Gina, and our partner was a MTBer named Eric (different Erik). A couple of years ago, I was a member of the CAC (I had to quit because of the same lack of time issues I encountered after having my second child). Before coming to San Diego in the early 90s, I was an active equestrian in the Pomona Valley foothills (San Dimas / Claremont / etc.) of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Those trails are also multi-use, as are our trails here, and I participated in the same sorts of discussions between hikers / equestrians / bikers from back in the 80s.

Since the arguments I have heard have been essentially the same for at least 30 years, regardless of whether we're talking Marshall Canyon in the LA area or the Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve in San Diego, I summarize it as this: While each group wishes it could have its own trails with which to do as is best for the interests of that particular group, the bottom line is that there is not enough money nor land available for each group to have its own trails. Therefore, we must ALL play together if we are to have access to the wonderful resources that we are all so passionate about.

Each of the three primary groups (and I say "primary" because there are other groups that make use of our trail system, but are loosely lumped under the heading of one--or more--of the three primary groups) has its own challenges with using the trails. I don't want to write any more of a thesis here than I am already composing, so I will only describe the equestrian's challenge, and that is that the very nature of horseback riding is that you're dealing with a very large animal over which you have substantial control...but never complete control, because it has a mind of its own. This is why the triangular trail use yield sign indicates that hikers and bikers yield to horses. It's not a power thing, it's a safety issue.

I have heard all the arguments about horses and bikes not being able to mix, and frankly, they're not right. Raven is considered an exciteable horse, and she "bonded" with Eric and his bike as we went on patrol, jumping the same little dips in the road that Eric was jumping with his bike. However, Eric, a non-horse person, respected that I knew my abilities and that I knew my horse, and from my side of the bargain I deliberately did not put Raven in a situation that would endanger either her or the two humans (Eric and me). If I was concerned about something, I communicated it with Eric, and in that four hour patrol, we had absolutely NO issues.

So...if horses and bikes CAN get along, what's the real story here? It's that of respect. I would say that 85 - 90% of all bikers I have encountered in all of my years of trail use in California and Colorado, as soon as they see a horse, they stop and make sure that everything's kosher before proceeding. Usually, we all comment on what a glorious day it is, often the children on their bikes will come up and pet the horses, as do the hikers and their kids, and everyone gets an opportunity to enjoy the "walk in the park". Of the 10 - 15% of the bikers that I refer to above, the VAST majority are simply ignorant of the nature of horses, and don't realize that as prey animals, things that predators such as people and dogs would find ridiculous (the sound of a breaking branch, the flash of a colorful bike in the distance, small children running into the brush) are by instinct a cause for concern. The horse thinks: Is this something that will eat me? Then I must run away (since "fight" is a distant option to "flight" for horses). Once those bikers see that the horse has gotten upset, they usually slow down or stop, and with explanation from the rider, the bikers learn. It is the responsibility of the equestrian to help those that don't understand the nature of horses to learn how these creatures react. It is the responsibility of the equestrian to keep control of his animal to the best of his ability. It is the responsibility of ALL of us to be courteous!

...and then, of course, there are the jerks. Each group has them; NO group is immune. I have had bikes rip past me at Mach Five; thank goodness the horses I was riding didn't freak out...although it scared me, an experienced equestrain, and I couldn't imagine beginner riders remaining in control of their horses in those situations! I have seen equestrians be rude and haughty to hikers and bikers. I have seen fewer "attitudes" with people on the ground, but there have been those few cases as well.

Please: Let's not allow ourselves to be poisoned by the acts of a few jerks. We ALL need to be respectful to each other. Remember: We're all on the same side: We all want to use the trails! Respect the rules (no blazing new trails, no dogs off leash, no bikes competing for the Tour de France since there IS a speed limit, no horseracing). Abide by the trail use yield triangle. Try to understand each other. It REALLY isn't that hard.

As far as the original post, the thing that concerns me is that I see this as a "call to arms", that one group feels like it's getting screwed "once again" and has to circle its wagons to protect its interests. I have heard that some of the "facts" indicated in the article are not true although they may have been perceived that way when Erik heard them. I understand where Erik's coming from: He's very passionate about the LPCP and about mountain biking. Now, let's turn the discussion around. Equestrians also feel that they're always getting screwed. Equestrians have far fewer numbers than bikers because owning a horse is a tremendous committment of time and money and effort to learn to ride and train the horse. Owning a horse requires resources, either land or boarding stables, both of which are becoming less and less available at a frightening speed with each passing year. Hikers are not happy as well. They have to contend with bikers "racing" past them and having to watch where they're going lest they step in horsey "remnants". They would prefer the peace and solitude of the trails to themselves without having to worry about sharing the trails with large animals or faster modes of transportation.

Is anyone seeing a pattern here? EACH GROUP FEELS PICKED ON. EACH GROUP WANTS THE TRAILS TO ITSELF. Guess what? EACH GROUP CAN'T HAVE ITS OWN TRAILS! Please: Let's all work together to have the most number of people enjoying these precious resources. If it's safe to do so, have the majority of trails available for all three groups. Designate trails for specific users when they don't make sense for other users (example: that one crossing in LPCP where some horses have been injured because horses are not safe to be using that area). Let's make this a win-win situation, rather than an us-versus-them thing. I have seen it before, so believe me: Divided we fall. We're all feeling the same thing, so let's act AS ONE.

Thank you for listening.

[EBasil]

Thanks, Anastasia!

From what I've seen, you're representative of most of the horseback riders coming into Los Pen from Canyonside, and it's always a pleasure to interact and discuss trails issues with persons like yourself. As you know, most cyclists, hikers and runners share your idea that we can and should all simply share trails.

My posting back in November was indeed intended as a wakeup call for hikers, cyclists and equestrians supportive of what just seems like common sense: Trails are For Everyone. I put out the word because my experience and third-party reports confirmed that certain members of the equestrian community do not share our beliefs and were, once again, rustling about in the apparent belief that the happy, coexistence by the rest of us on our trails signified complacency by the majority that could be exploited. Some of those folks are, now five months later, still trying to distract attention from their own conduct by dickering with their spin on "facts" or crying alarm over having been pulled into the sunlight.

It's been said, over and over, but bears repeating: Los Pen and the trails network in it should be a resource for preservation and use by all members of the community, without caste systems, without country-club rules and without restrictions based on nostalgia or tax brackets. When we all work together, great things happen. Only one group, through particular representatives, have ever proposed discrimination against other trail user groups. If equestrians don't support inflammatory conduct, change your representation...let them know.

Check out this pair of good-looking trail riders...

[Esqo]

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of both Anastasia and Ebasil -- the future of trails like LPQ depends on the ongoing co-existence and cooperation between bikers/hikers/and horse riders. But it seems to me that most of the time its mountainbikers who get criticized and ultimately end up with the short end of the stick.

[el_d00der1n0]

It appears to me that it is a fight for access for us, and a lesser fight (somewhat tedious involvement?) for continued access for everyone else.

I really appreciate the fight or flight description of horse behavior. I've always looked at it before with the analogy of taking my dog to the park, and the need for control over him, but I get that the analogy doesn't work because there are two differing biological responses to the stimuli.

[Anastasia]

Good afternoon, Esqo!

I was just thinking: Could the "perception" thing you referred to be simply a matter of numbers? In other words, looking at the numbers of bikers, hikers, and riders, if the most are bikers, then couldn't that be why it appears that bikers are criticized more often, despite the "precentages" within each group possibly being the same?

[Anastasia]

Good afternoon to you, too, el_d00der1n0!

Yes, you're 100% right in the basic biological responses between predators such as dogs and prey animals like horses. I use the following analogy with my non-horse friends: Pretend you're carrying a stack of books, and you sneak up on a dog and drop the books behind him. The dog will most likely whip around and face the loud noise in order to investigate it. Do the same to a horse, and if you're lucky it will simply take off like a speeding bullet before stopping at a great distance to see what it really was that created the racket. (If you're unlucky, you'll get a pair of hoofprints in your face before the horse takes off.) Therefore, you can't apply "dog rules" to horses and vice versa because each species is hardwired to react to stimuli--especially scary stuff--in almost completely opposite ways.

[OldDogDan]

Hello Anastasia, just want to thank you for your excellent, articulate posting, good attitude, and for providing more insight into the equestrian viewpoint. It is very true that the three groups have a common desire for more singletrack trails (in general, not just at LPQ), and our best interests are served by getting along (in general, especially at LPQ!). Yes, win-win. Thanks, Dan