Ride Report Mt Waterman thoughts and input

[dstepper]

Roberto thanks for all the work you all have put in, I really want this to work out for the MTBing community.

A quick comment, you do not need to put a weight restriction on the bikes that ride waterman but education on how to ride a muti-use trail. Like fix the damage if you drift off the trail, don't create new lines or cut switchbacks, and don't drag your rear brake around corners. I also suggest that your staff take a rake down Waterman Trail and fix the damage, it can be done in a hour or two. If you want I can send you the pictures I took.

Dean

 

[Dufferin]

Weight Restriction, what?

To really make this work, we should not put any weight restrictions. Lift assisted riding is meant for gravity riders. Its like building a Formula 1 race course, and then telling the drivers, "Sorry, only 4banger Civics can drive", does not make any sense. I agree with the other stuff you said about preserving the trail and not going off creating bootlegs. Make these rules and for the violators, give them a stiff fine. Don't make this another Big Bear. I went there last year with my trail bike, and there were probably only 20 riders the whole day, hardly successful. Waterman has a chance to do it right, maybe even better than Mammoth or Northstar - Whistler in LA, not that is cool!

Roberto thanks for all the work you all have put in, I really want this to work out for the MTBing community.

A quick comment, you do not need to put a weight restriction on the bikes that ride waterman but education on how to ride a muti-use trail. Like fix the damage if you drift off the trail, don't create new lines or cut switchbacks, and don't drag your rear brake around corners. I also suggest that your staff take a rake down Waterman Trail and fix the damage, it can be done in a hour or two. If you want I can send you the pictures I took.

Dean

 

[Drop D]

Roberto thanks for all the work you all have put in, I really want this to work out for the MTBing community.

A quick comment, you do not need to put a weight restriction on the bikes that ride waterman but education on how to ride a muti-use trail. Like fix the damage if you drift off the trail, don't create new lines or cut switchbacks, and don't drag your rear brake around corners. I also suggest that your staff take a rake down Waterman Trail and fix the damage, it can be done in a hour or two. If you want I can send you the pictures I took.

Dean

^^^ this comment - I like! :clap::clap::clap: we can all live happily ever after

 

[Mt Waterman]

This is why we need to have a meeting. I need your experience. You need my mountain. We all need peace!

 

[dstepper]

Lift assisted riding is meant for gravity riders.

Please read the posts carfully before commmenting. I am not advocating for restrictions on bikes that use the runs on Watermans property. It is Waterman Trail that has us concerned. Again Waterman Trail is a multi use trail outside the boundaries of the ski resort and one of the more popular hiking trails in the Gabs. It is right across the street from one of the larger campgrounds in the San Gabs...Buckhorn Campground. There are spots on Waterman Trail that touch the boundry of Sheep Mountain Wilderness, do you think the the Sierra Club would love to extend the wilderness boundary to enclude Waterman Trail...I think they would love to.

Dean

 

[pinnacle10]

I would say that once more DH trails get built on the mountain, most people on big bikes wouldn't even want to ride the Waterman trail. The climb back up the road to the lift is enough by itself to discourage riding on it. But right now there just aren't many other options.

 

[roach]

Wow, it really happens quick. Pay $25, and start building trail where ever looks good on the slopes. Amazing! 3 or 4 more weekends and there should be plenty of skid marks to ride.

Again, Mt. Waterman, remember to feign ignorance when the FS questions all these new "routes".:?:

 

[CalEpic]

Wow, it really happens quick. Pay $25, and start building trail where ever looks good on the slopes. Amazing! 3 or 4 more weekends and there should be plenty of skid marks to ride.

Again, Mt. Waterman, remember to feign ignorance when the FS questions all these new "routes".:?:

Mr Positive, take a bow

 

[sauce]

Wow, looks fun! Dean you said it was just XC!!! I wish I could have made your bday ride. Happy birthday Dean! The shuttle plans with Winston did not fall through, so shuttle we did.

 

[ANF FS Ranger]

Hi All -
I have been following this thread and feel it is time to post the same post i did on Mtbr.

Please be advised, that contrary to the statements attributed to Roberto Martinez/Mt Water, the co-owner (who we have no record of in terms of the permit), that it his mountain and they have a multi-use permit, the following is for real.

The Forest Land Management Plan states that Mountain bike use is restricted to designated roads and trails. Cross-country travel is prohibited due to sustainability issues.
Creation of unauthorized trails do not qualify as designated trails.

As of right now, the use of mountain bikes as described in this thread puts the ski owners in violation of their permit which means they may be subject to administrative restrictions.

I have also posted a lengthy response to questions posed on the other website so i would encourage you to visit there to see where the Forest is in terms of mountain bike opportunities.

 

[CalEpic]

Hi All -
I have been following this thread and feel it is time to post the same post i did on Mtbr.

Please be advised, that contrary to the statements attributed to Roberto Martinez/Mt Water, the co-owner (who we have no record of in terms of the permit), that it his mountain and they have a multi-use permit, the following is for real.

The Forest Land Management Plan states that Mountain bike use is restricted to designated roads and trails. Cross-country travel is prohibited due to sustainability issues.
Creation of unauthorized trails do not qualify as designated trails.

As of right now, the use of mountain bikes as described in this thread puts the ski owners in violation of their permit which means they may be subject to administrative restrictions.

I have also posted a lengthy response to questions posed on the other website so i would encourage you to visit there to see where the Forest is in terms of mountain bike opportunities.

^ legit FS employee

 

[kanga]

Thanks Ranger Mike for joining in on the discussion, hopefully it can be continued face-to-face in the near future.

There is definitely precedent for the forest service to support the creation of a MTB specific destination in a place like Mt. Waterman. Ski resorts around the country are surviving their summers with mountain biking on FS leased land. The film Freedom Riders documents the way the FS and a local mountain bike community came together to solve everyone's needs. Something similar could come to fruition here.

I see the possibilities at Mt. Waterman nothing but positive on both sides. Allow mountain bikers an area in which to build trails and trail features to suit their needs, and the fact that it just happens to have a chairlift is a win-win for everyone.

I agree with others that lift-access to the existing Mt. Waterman multi-use trail is likely to be a problem. Presently there are no other single-track routes available from the top, only fire road.

Trail development at Mt. Waterman could help take pressure off other mutli-use trails in the san gabes, and help fulfill a need of which the local MTB community and the FS are both aware.

Everyone's thoughts may differ as to how to make this happen. There is great potential there, but also a lot of work ahead, and lots of different ways that it may be accomplished.

I look forward to being a part of those discussions and seeing all parties come together to find solutions to these problems and fulfill the demonstrated need for a MTB specific area. It will take time and patience, and a co-operative spirit on both sides, but it can happen.

 

[1080P]

http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=5944953&postcount=32

Respond to All
I am pleased to see all the responses to my original post as I have tried to engage the Mountain Bike Community to come to the table to discuss illegally constructed trails and courses, and to collaboratively develop a trail system that addresses all user needs. The response has basically been nill.

For those that need a name with the moniker (it was a requirement of the website to have a "nickname" to post), I am Mike McIntyre, District Ranger on the Los Angeles River Ranger District of the Angeles National Forest. If this information still is not enough, you can call 818 899 1900 and they will patch you to my desk.

I will try to answer the questions of HHMTB as they seem to cover most everyone's concerns.

1) The rules and regulations of the Angeles National Forest are the same for all National Forests and can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Management rules and regulations can be found in the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan.
2) Waterman is public property under special use authorization for the operation of a ski facility. As such, the rules of the Forest apply here.
3) This was a loaded question. Only trails on our transportation system are "legal". If it is not on our system then it is "illegal". That is not to say that there is not going to be a route that is safer or meets the public's needs now that the "legal" trail doesnt but there is a process in place by which trails can be incorporated into our system. However, that process does not mean to go and build the trail and then petition it into the system. We are faced with trails being illegally constructed without proper environmental analysis or provisions for sustainability. We try to have a travel network for recreation use that allows most users access to recreation areas. Waterman has dirt roads that bikes can use.
4) That is a good point. And to avoid long posts in posing questions and resulting answers, I would be willing to meet with the mountain bike community to talk about solutions or criteria to provide more options.
5) See #4.

What is critical is to move off this "us vs. them" undercurrent that exists. We have already received to calls from other public complaining on the mountain bike use at Waterman. One i received personally and he was a hiker who said his wife was almost hit this weekend by two mtn. bikes speeding downhill on the hiking trail, and heard third hand of a fight that almost occurred between a hiker whose daughter was almost hit by a bike and the operator of the bike.

This sets the stage where options for solutions get really narrow and we, on the management side, have to resort to more restrictive options as other options arent working.

I hope this helps.

Mike

 

[dstepper]

I hope the Forest Service sees the resort for what it is and not aply the same conditions as the rest of the forest. I have yet to be in a ski area that did not already look like a bomb went off. Hillsides striped of trees, water pipes, towers, roads and equipment scattered around the property. In my mind part of the reason to encourage the use of Waterman is to get the shuttlers off some other of the trails in the San Gabs.

 

[gooseaholic]

Im so f-ing tired of all the red tape BS. Time to leave California. If only I could. Why did I ever leave Seattle? Its a freaking mountain bike and some dirt. We are bitching and whining about this as a new high rise is being built.I for one would rather see a trail with braking bumps, than another Taco Bell. Flame away!!! Two f-ing pages of BS is the only thing I see. Sorry for the rant, im just frustrated with all this.

 

[kanga]

I hope the Forest Service sees the resort for what it is and not aply the same conditions as the rest of the forest. I have yet to be in a ski area that did not already look like a bomb went off. Hillsides striped of trees, water pipes, towers, roads and equipment scattered around the property. In my mind part of the reason to encourage the use of Waterman is to get the shuttlers off some other of the trails in the San Gabs.

I agree entirely. The difficulty lies in the length of time it takes to get a trail approved. The NEPA process is time-consuming and detailed. However, like you, I find it ironic that a ski-area, scarred and denuded of trees, criss-crossed by fire roads, towers and machinery, would require a NEPA process. The area has already been environmentally impacted more than it will be by any new, well-designed and sustainably built trails.

I don't know the specifics of the special use permit of Mt. Waterman, but I'm sure there are ways to change the conditions of a permit to include other recreational opportunities. In fact in May a bill was introduced in congress that would encourage/allow ski-resort permit holders on FS land to offer year-round recreational opportunities:

Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR 2476)

Quoted directly from that Bill:

• • (4) National Forest System land that is used for skiing and other snow-sports can provide additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities, which promotes jobs and enhances the economy of local communities that serve these areas as well as the State and the United States;

• • (5) the authorization of increased use of certain National Forest System land for seasonal and year-round recreational activities and associated facilities can reduce the impact of such activities and facilities on other National Forest System land; and

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2476.IH:

So even some politicians are supportive of expanding ski-area permits to year-round use. Who knows how far it will get through congress though...

 

[dstepper]

:bang:

Im so f-ing tired of all the red tape BS. Time to leave California. If only I could. Why did I ever leave Seattle? Its a freaking mountain bike and some dirt. We are bitching and whining about this as a new high rise is being built.I for one would rather see a trail with braking bumps, than another Taco Bell. Flame away!!! Two f-ing pages of BS is the only thing I see. Sorry for the rant, im just frustrated with all this.

Good luck on your pursuit to find a place worth living that does not have red tape.

I think that this thread has been worthwhile especially now that the Forest Service has agreed to engage in dialogue with us. Very nice Ranger Mike, welcome aboard and I hope to hear more from you in the future.

Dean

 

[gooseaholic]

Dean
Im just frustrated. Sorry brother.

 

[1080P]

:bang:

Good luck on your pursuit to find a place worth living that does not have red tape.

I think that this thread has been worthwhile especially now that the Forest Service has agreed to engage in dialogue with us. Very nice Ranger Mike, welcome aboard and I hope to hear more from you in the future.

Dean

Dean,

They've always agreed to engage in dialogue with users of the National Forest. That doesn't change what their Mission Statement is, which is to Protect and Conserve National Forest, by being restricted to only allowing usage that is sustainable.

In some areas, they found out that Cattle grazing is unsustainable, like up on the Kern Plateau and areas north of Kennedy Meadows. That grazing right has pretty much come to an end.

The problem lies in mountain bikes being vehicles and continuing to be used in manners on Forest Service Property that are unsustainable, with skidding and erosion problems. Enough Mountain bikers have proven time and again that mountain bikes and Decomposed Granite like in the San Gabriel Mountain Range is incompatible usage and unsustainable. It's in the nature of the material that the mountain is made of that makes it unsustainable on steeper slopes. You can't change that fact. The same lovely weather that makes Los Angeles what it is has broken down the mountain range known as the San Gabriels, and made it sensitive to decomposing, which in turn makes it unsustainable when ridden on by mountain bikes on grades exceeding 10-12% without huge erosion problems.

The other issue that continues to rear it's ugly head is complaints from other users of USFS property with being assaulted or almost assaulted by mountain bikers that ride in a manner that is out of control, despite agreeing to the terms of use on USFS property, which is to yield to hikers, pedestrians, and equestrians. The pedestrians and equestrians aren't doing anything wrong, or violating their terms of use of USFS property.

Mountain bike riders need to adjust their expectations on what the San Gabriel Mountains can support for mountain bike usage that is at a sustainable level with a population in Southern California of 24 million and growing. Building illegal trails is just going to give mountain bikers a black eye and get them banned altogether.

The trend for free ride, and downhill bikes, and the areas they ride in continues to back door them and slam riding opportunities shut as the vehicles and their intended usage are too extreme for use on public property due to liability issues.

 

[Gnutz]

Sophisticated downhill bikes have been around well over ten years. I don't think trend is the right word to describe them.

Skateboarding was a huge problem until city's stepped up and started providing a place to ride them legally after the huge growth. It took time but it happened. Large companies in the industry even had to kick in a bit. Kona seems to get it.

Eventually there will be places in SoCal that are not 6-8 hours away that DH and FR bikes can be used at full potential. How do MX tracks pull it off? People get hurt doing that and track building has an impact on land. Maybe we need to be looking at the land around Private MX tracks for a place to set up DH trails.