Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 101
  1. #26
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,254
    Zorg; this is gold. It substantiates the WTF I feeling I get when people opposed to sharing get up on their hind legs and shake their bony knuckles. I have a kajillion hours in parks, as do my riding friends, and these incidents are not a part ofd our experience.

    It is important that this sort of information is presented live at the Walnut Creek SportsBasement meeting.

    Let's add this to our list.
    I don't rattle.

  2. #27
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Obi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,189
    Off Topic, aside from the opportunity for the venue hosting, has SB offered any internal support? Maybe Pros (pronounced Proz) and other's (Owner's or Employee) may or may not have a voice to express support for this.
    You have given out too much Positive Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.
    Awesome!

  3. #28
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Zorg; this is gold. It substantiates the WTF I feeling I get when people opposed to sharing get up on their hind legs and shake their bony knuckles. I have a kajillion hours in parks, as do my riding friends, and these incidents are not a part ofd our experience.

    It is important that this sort of information is presented live at the Walnut Creek SportsBasement meeting.

    Let's add this to our list.
    Yeah, I thought so too. There is a lot to read in there, too much for me to read through in detail, but the gist of it vindicates our position that trail conflict is more perception than reality. And this comes from State Parks, not exactly a strong ally of the MTB community.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  4. #29
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,254
    A recent response from one of the the EBRPD exec's to a hikers usual overstated complaint letter about a mountain biker was really telling of the changing tide. Essentiallly he said, I understand but these events are very rare.

    I'll dig it up.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 10-21-2012 at 05:05 PM.
    I don't rattle.

  5. #30
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Obi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    ..Essentiallly he said, I understand but these events are very rare.

    I'll dig it up.
    Please do because I'd love to read or have heard that. Add the ending of "..and we've found it to usually be the complaining party that amplified/exacerbated the situation." and we'll be good.

    Ultimately I am of the opinion I just want to see more visible chunks instead of cursory bits of change.
    You have given out too much Positive Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.
    Awesome!

  6. #31
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post

    Ultimately I am of the opinion I just want to see more visible chunks instead of cursory bits of change.
    Obi, you are a true romantic.
    I don't rattle.

  7. #32
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,862
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    I'm a little disappointed that...
    ...this thread is wilting.
    Woah!! I saw the title of this thread and thought it had something to do with some rule changes for a local park (with the intials "DPR") in the Bay Area. Doesn't affect me. Whoops! This is BIG!

    Perhaps LWright can change the name of the thread to something more descriptive? A call to action? e.g. State Parks finally seeking input on trail usage -- Please provide comments by Dec. 4th!

    Now, I have some reading to do.. (I still don't know what DPR stands for)

  8. #33
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Obi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    (I still don't know what DPR stands for)
    Does People's Ride? Deep Pockets Revealed?


    Seriously thoh, Dept of Parks and Rec: DPR Archaeological Reports
    You have given out too much Positive Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.
    Awesome!

  9. #34
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,667

    the new, improved DPR is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    (I still don't know what DPR stands for)
    Photobucket

    Sort of apropos this change of abbreviation, The "new" CSP is becoming officially rather toxic to the sport as we now know it.

    Here's a link;
    California Department of Pesticide Regulation Home Page

    Just back from a weekend of volunteering at Coe; next post will be back on topic!
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  10. #35
    PRETENDURO
    Reputation: Leopold Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6,830
    Irony: Sacramento. Flat.
    QUOTE from MTBR.COM: You have given Brewtality too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

  11. #36
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post
    Best discussed offline. Offhand, pages 4.10-19 through 4.10-24 comes to mind as there's an issue I see in acknowledging something that's used against our kind elsewhere. The following pages to those while spelling out specifics don't properly address all sides of the interest groups in (what I feel is) a fair and equitable fashion.

    Short Version: I ain't gonna goto that thar courthouse whilst I see the man putting up the gallows.
    Those pages are about what is being used now anyhow so the inclusion of them into the PEIR really won't change the outcome of things; just speed it along. Don't lose focus that the PEIR is mostly about re-routes and changes in use; not new routes (trails) or new parks (projects).

    The PEIR allows the CSP formerly known as the DPR to skirt having to do a full blown EIR for every project that winds up in the "in box". It's all about the CSP staff that sign off on projects being able to declare a NOD or MND with the backing of the PEIR process.

    (Funny, 7 pages of abbreviations and while they have "NOD" they missed "MND")
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  12. #37
    PRETENDURO
    Reputation: Leopold Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6,830
    Quote Originally Posted by agctongdaihn View Post
    Up lên cho bác, chúc bác bán d?t h*ng.
    Hard to understand you with that cck in your mouth.
    QUOTE from MTBR.COM: You have given Brewtality too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

  13. #38
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,254
    [QUOTE=pliebenberg;9803361
    the inclusion of them into the PEIR really won't change the outcome of things; just speed it along. Don't lose focus that the PEIR is mostly about re-routes and changes in use; not new routes (trails) or new parks (projects).
    [/QUOTE]

    The EBRPD Master Plan Review is doing a similar thing. This is progress.
    I don't rattle.

  14. #39
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,667

    "4.10 Hydrology,..." and elsewhere

    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post
    Best discussed offline. Offhand, pages 4.10-19 through 4.10-24 comes to mind as there's an issue I see in acknowledging something that's used against our kind elsewhere. The following pages to those while spelling out specifics don't properly address all sides of the interest groups in (what I feel is) a fair and equitable fashion.
    This is a minor part of the section Obi suggested focusing on but since it is repeated in all the chapters dealing with various "impacts" it is worth considering as a topic for submission as a comment. The CSP Trails Handbook is to be used in the PEIR process:

    Photobucket

    What's wrong about this is that the CSP Trails Handbook is an 18 year old document and was written before it was understood how sustainable trails for use by bikes should be constructed. The IMBA Trails Solutions offers a much better guide for this purpose and should be leveraged to get the CSP to update their document.

    I still hope to create a separate thread discussing the CSP Trails Handbook but I have to go about this cautiously as it could imperil my standing as a CSP Uniformed Volunteer.

    (IMHO; that the CSP is relying on the archaic Trails Handbook has to do with that a significant portion of the CSP hierarchy does not want MTB park users to experience "fun and flow". This is an issue larger than the PEIR or the Trails Handbook separately or combined.)
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  15. #40
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,254
    We should get Tom Ward, IMBA's California Rep, involved in this. He had a long career with the DPR. He is out of the country right now but I bet he has ideas and the right language.

    Karl Knapp is in charge of Trails Building with the Parks and I imagine he will take a great interest in this issue.

    Keep the ideas coming. The gathering of ideas is our first step, next clarifying the points, and then we figure out who says what so it all gets covered at the meeting.
    I don't rattle.

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,062

    Worth repeating!

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    We should get Tom Ward, IMBA's California Rep, involved in this. He had a long career with the DPR. He is out of the country right now but I bet he has ideas and the right language.

    Karl Knapp is in charge of Trails Building with the Parks and I imagine he will take a great interest in this issue.

    Keep the ideas coming. The gathering of ideas is our first step, next clarifying the points, and then we figure out who says what so it all gets covered at the meeting.
    Absolutely on all 3 points.

    I'd like to suggest getting Mr.Toad of MBOSC involved as well. He was away, but I think is back in the area. He was a key player in organizing the Zayante meeting I mentioned earlier.

    Speaking to Pliebenberg's points, if state parks is going to reference their trails handbook and make it part of the process, then IT MUST be available to the public. Saying it is an internal document and can't be released is a stall tactic, and quite possibly an abuse of authority by whomever made that claim. In this day and age, there are very few things that the public doesn't have a right to see, and a trail handbook doesn't seem like it would be one of them.

  17. #42
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,254
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan View Post

    if state parks is going to reference their trails handbook and make it part of the process, then IT MUST be available to the public. In this day and age, there are very few things that the public doesn't have a right to see, and a trail handbook doesn't seem like it would be one of them.
    Another point but I doubt that they will let go easily. We might best simply posit IMBA Standards, but the trails at issue are for all user groups.
    I don't rattle.

  18. #43
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,667

    Stall tactic and more...

    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan View Post
    Absolutely on all 3 points.

    I'd like to suggest getting Mr.Toad of MBOSC involved as well. He was away, but I think is back in the area. He was a key player in organizing the Zayante meeting I mentioned earlier.

    Speaking to Pliebenberg's points, if state parks is going to reference their trails handbook and make it part of the process, then IT MUST be available to the public. Saying it is an internal document and can't be released is a stall tactic, and quite possibly an abuse of authority by whomever made that claim. In this day and age, there are very few things that the public doesn't have a right to see, and a trail handbook doesn't seem like it would be one of them.
    As a matter of fact the Trails Handbook can be obtained by the general public; I believe our Mr Toad has a copy (which he had to pay serious coin for). Perhaps he can take the risk and post a PDF of the 300+/- pages.

    There's a grey area here (we need a lawyer!); if a copyrighted document is used as a pretext for law (rules and regulations?) then it is in the public domain and can be freely copied and distributed. (there's an important case involving the Uniform Building Code that has set a precedence) But does the Trails Handbook qualify???

    I have a separate issue because I am limited as a CSP Uniformed Volunteer as to what I can disclose about CSP operations. (Am I in trouble for disclosing even that!?!?)
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  19. #44
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,667

    "Trail Solutions" is top-notch...

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Another point but I doubt that they will let go easily. We might best simply posit IMBA Standards, but the trails at issue are for all user groups.
    The Multi-Use Trail (MUT) construction techniques as proffered in IMBA's Trail Solutions are totally acceptable for all user groups and have roughly 1/4 the environmental impact than do the MUT's as mandated by the CSP Trails Handbook.

    Besides MTBing I hike a lot and also have 4 horses of which I occasionally ride; IMBA knows their stuff when it comes to MUT's.

    Go IMBA!
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  20. #45
    Like a boss.
    Reputation: Piranha426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    656
    I've been traveling for the past few weeks but I was alerted during that time that this had been released. Now that I'm back, my plan is to review it line-by-line and consult with some of my CEQA colleagues. Off the cuff, I find the emphasis on pinch points interesting. I was speaking with a veteran trail advocate a few weeks ago about the proposed pinch points on Bill's Trail, and he made an excellent point - once the pinch points are in, you can't get equipment up there. No SWECOs, no ATVs, nothing. My primary issue with the pinch points is disturbance to the trail bed; I hadn't even considered about maintenance/emergency response access issues once they're installed. Can anyone point to local examples of where CSP has installed pinch points?
    Quote Originally Posted by jbt56
    Are you a whiny Marin liberal, or a hand-wringing Berkeley liberal?

  21. #46
    Medium?
    Reputation: Fast Eddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,657
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    (we need a lawyer!);
    :cough:Plim:cough: WG has direct access to some people as well. One of my buddies who's a fellow CSP Uniformed Volunteer is also a lawyer and sold his business, so not currently working. He's not a mtber, so I don't know how motivated he would be, but I'm sure he'd answer email questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    There's a grey area here (we need a lawyer!); if a copyrighted document is used as a pretext for law (rules and regulations?) then it is in the public domain and can be freely copied and distributed. (there's an important case involving the Uniform Building Code that has set a precedence) But does the Trails Handbook qualify???

    I have a separate issue because I am limited as a CSP Uniformed Volunteer as to what I can disclose about CSP operations. (Am I in trouble for disclosing even that!?!?)

  22. #47
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Obi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    This is a minor part of the section Obi suggested...

    What's wrong about this is that the CSP Trails Handbook is an 18 year old document and was written before it was understood how sustainable trails for use by bikes should be constructed. The IMBA Trails Solutions offers a much better guide for this purpose and should be leveraged to get the CSP to update their document.

    I still hope to create a separate thread discussing the CSP Trails Handbook but I have to go about this cautiously as it could imperil my standing as a CSP Uniformed Volunteer.

    (IMHO; that the CSP is relying on the archaic Trails Handbook has to do with that a significant portion of the CSP hierarchy does not want MTB park users to experience "fun and flow". This is an issue larger than the PEIR or the Trails Handbook separately or combined.)
    ^That. I wasn't going to try and elaborate from my iPhone. I trusted you guys would get the inference. Anyone wanting to talk just give me a heads up. I'm out of the office more lately and home Internet sux because comcraptic is the provider. Antiquated ideals placed in new context don't always work. It's a blanket guide. Major revision is way overdue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Piranha426 View Post
    ..Off the cuff, I find the emphasis on pinch points interesting. I was speaking with a veteran trail advocate a few weeks ago about the proposed pinch points on Bill's Trail, and he made an excellent point - once the pinch points are in, you can't get equipment up there. No SWECOs, no ATVs, nothing. My primary issue with the pinch points is disturbance to the trail bed; I hadn't even considered about maintenance/emergency response access issues once they're installed. Can anyone point to local examples of where CSP has installed pinch points?
    Even I missed that part, as a responder who often pulls anchor or assist this is a critical error is overall logistics in regards to public safety. Which is easier, realistic controls or a helipad?



    Sent from my iPhone via big greasy thumbs.
    Last edited by Obi; 10-22-2012 at 03:57 PM.
    You have given out too much Positive Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.
    Awesome!

  23. #48
    weekend worrier
    Reputation: sactojesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    558
    Having a programmatic approach to streamline the change-in-use process seems like a great idea, but that cuts both ways in that changes to a less restrictive or more restrictive use policy for a particular trail will be easier to implement. I printed out the executive summary and project description chapters and will peruse them in my spare time.

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Piranha426 View Post
    I've been traveling for the past few weeks but I was alerted during that time that this had been released. Now that I'm back, my plan is to review it line-by-line and consult with some of my CEQA colleagues. Off the cuff, I find the emphasis on pinch points interesting. I was speaking with a veteran trail advocate a few weeks ago about the proposed pinch points on Bill's Trail, and he made an excellent point - once the pinch points are in, you can't get equipment up there. No SWECOs, no ATVs, nothing. My primary issue with the pinch points is disturbance to the trail bed; I hadn't even considered about maintenance/emergency response access issues once they're installed. Can anyone point to local examples of where CSP has installed pinch points?

    It sounds like the pinch points are seriously flawed based on your points about safety and maintenance. There are other ways to control traffic speed, grade reversals, switchbacks, and probably a lot more I'm not familiar with.

  25. #50
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,254
    The State wants to make the trails "bullet proof" against any usage and that is a direct quote from Karl Knapp.This includes durability against legal challenges as well. I doubt that disturbing the trailbed with pinch points is their concern. Pinch points are likely no less restricting than your basic lovely singletrack from where they stand. My call is that both points are likely to be seen as far too purest or picky, or yet another thing mountain bikers want for their special desires, but lets put them on the list.

    The greater point is to confront the fallacies traditionally used to keep us out; to resist and redirect the haters aways from influencing our future possibilities in the State Parks.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 10-23-2012 at 07:02 AM.
    I don't rattle.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •