Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 169
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,062
    A few things occur to me as I read this, but maybe the biggest, over-riding thought is that I'm going to send Sorcerer and Pliebenberg off line messages, because that over riding thought probably ought to be private.

    That said:

    Pliebenberg makes a great point about the overall impact of demanding a 48" wide bench for the entire trail. I could see requiring that width in terrain where sight lines are poor and there needs to be safe room for passing. But in open areas where riders can see each other coming?

    Likewise, Sorcerer and Diesel make great points about the environmental and labor costs of clinging to outdated drain ideas.

    Hang in there, guys!

  2. #27
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,893
    I've only been to Coe twice, and I don't remember too many trails that actually met the 48" standard.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  3. #28
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,670

    4.8" standard

    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    I've only been to Coe twice, and I don't remember too many trails that actually met the 48" standard.
    This is very true but you'd be amazed how many were 48" wide (or even much more) when first constructed. The popular Anza and Jackson single tracks were once 4'+ SWECO-built trails. It only takes a couple of years for nature to begin to reclaim what was taken.

    I guess that's the point; only make a trail as wide as it really needs to be---and use will establish what that is.

    It's one of those squared functions; for the same effort (and impact on the environment) 4 miles of trail can be built at 24" as compared to 1 mile at 48". (24" is the IMBA standard for multi-use single track)
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  4. #29
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    This is very true but you'd be amazed how many were 48" wide (or even much more) when first constructed. The popular Anza and Jackson single tracks were once 4'+ SWECO-built trails. It only takes a couple of years for nature to begin to reclaim what was taken.

    I guess that's the point; only make a trail as wide as it really needs to be---and use will establish what that is.

    It's one of those squared functions; for the same effort (and impact on the environment) 4 miles of trail can be built at 24" as compared to 1 mile at 48". (24" is the IMBA standard for multi-use single track)
    The problem with your thinking is that 1) it's rational and 2) it's not in the little DPR book. So, right there, it just won't work for Coe.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Biking Brazilian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorcerer View Post
    Typically DPR maintenance workers and skilled laborers and personnel from many agencies in the USA take this multi-week and multi-year course. My classmates are from State Parks, US Army Corp of Engineers, CCC, trail building groups, National Park Service, various county and city parks, and from other land management agencies like open space districts and water manageent agencies. Some Santa Clara County and Mid-peninsula Regional Open S9ace employees have attended this program.
    Which local equestrian/hiker groups have joined this effort? I figure that a lot of them would show up to help. Or do they just make themselves known when it's time to complain about how others are building their trails?

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    235
    Chainsaw for that low hanging tree branch? I have a 4' bucksaw that I picked up at a thrift store in logging country and had it sharpened. Just give me the go-ahead and I'll take care of that 10'
    clearance issue myself.

    I have used it to cut through 3' eucalyptus trees that had fallen across a certain private trail. Took a while, but sheesh, I enjoy the workout.

    That low branch on JDT can be taken down in multiple cuts, and I will commit to it, assuming that tree 'pruning' is not going to be looked upon like I am killing all vegetation on the planet.

    Hell, I'll even offer up some Pliney to helpers if this is OK-ed. (I might have to retract that since
    it might be considered 'fun' to the DPR, and denied for that reason alone.)

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,339
    Jeese, instead of massacring a beautiful old oak tree, that is probably being somewhat supported by that branch, just decommission the portion that goes under it and use the lower route.
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  8. #33
    Is now still the time?
    Reputation: Sorcerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    831

    Coe Park Hikers, Equestrians and Cyclists Help Each Other

    Quote Originally Posted by Biking Brazilian View Post
    Which local equestrian/hiker groups have joined this effort? I figure that a lot of them would show up to help.
    The Uniformed Volunteer Program at Henry W Coe SP is composed of a multi-modal variety of park enthusiasts. Yes a lot of them have shown up and helped, and will continue to do so. While it is true that the mountain bikers are the more active volunteers in the DPR permitted trail maintenance and construction activities, it is wrong to take the attitude that hikers and equestrians aren't helping. They do. They help a lot, and consistently. But keep in mind that they are people, individuals with names and faces; not just a stereotypical group. The bike riders are not all the same either.

    The Mounted Assistance Unit (MAU) at Coe park, as I've mentioned earlier is an established equestrian horse patrol group that regularly conducts trail maintenance activities in the park. The Coe MAU is much older than the bike patrol and I'll bet that they have logged more trail construction and maintenance hours than the mountain bikers have.

    To put it in perspective though, you need to open your heart up to the idea that folks who enjoy using trails are on the same ground. "We protect what we love." - Louie Schwartzberg. The park enthusiasts at Henry W Coe SP, whether they be uniformed volunteers or casual, are together protecting what they love. I'm one of them. We do it with our time, labor, money, words, deeds, plans, innovation, and creativity. There's a hell of a lot more to it than just digging trails. Everyone is doing what they can.

    Coe is exceptional. Do not apply the politics of Woodside/Portola to SW Santa Clara County. Divided we fail. I try to resist the conception that hikers and horses are conspiring against the mountain bikers who are building the JDT by anonymously lodging complaints to the Supervising Ranger. It may well be true though. I'll concede that. All the same, I welcome comments, be they negative or positive, and I will honor those who come forward in the open.

    I don't like the way the Supervising Ranger presents the findings, their origins shrouded in a bureaucratic obscurity, their anonymity protected, the passive-aggressive mode, but that's the way the system malfunctions right now, and it's what we have to deal with like or not. Paradigmatic revision of the CA DPR hasn't occurred yet. Boo hoo for our side - okay I can deal with it - can you? What are we anyway? Do we think we are entitled to something? That underlined word is a hot button code word these days isn't it? The Ranger is doing his job, that's all. Same goes for the Trails Supervisor we are now going to be working with. I'm still willing to go forward. The Ranger's, Supes, Resource Ecologists, Historians, and all the gate keepers of policy and action in the DPR have the authority to enable better processes.

    Which local groups have helped? Well if it were the local mountain bikers of Morgan Hill, you would think that Specialized would be right there helping out, since their corporate HQ is only 15 minutes driving away from the Jim Donnelly Trail. But Specialized is not helping at all, even though we see Mike Sinyard riding the trail from time to time as we are picking away at it. I've tried to get them involved, and I would love to see some of the Big-S staff help in any way. Let them know they are welcome.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biking Brazilian View Post
    Or do they just make themselves known when it's time to complain about how others are building their trails?
    No they do not just make themselves known when it's time to complain. We are friends and we discuss the issues we face together. My point of view is that we are on the same side. The idea that horse riders and mountain bikers and hikers cannot be friends is one that serves to divide and weaken the community of people who love to get outside and enjoy nature. That would include motorsports too. That said, this triggers a huge conversation about real world modalities and compatibilities on trails and roads, that is apart from what I'm getting at here.

    A position of self-righteous idealism is not tenable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nine View Post
    Chainsaw for that low hanging tree branch? I have a 4' bucksaw that I picked up at a thrift store in logging country and had it sharpened. Just give me the go-ahead and I'll take care of that 10'
    clearance issue myself.
    Hi. Yeah I don't doubt you. Perhaps your assessment is correct, but I disagree to cut this limb without more deliberation and consultation. Maybe you've been there and seen it. Ichabod's Oak is split and leaning on the hillside. That limb is one of a number of large limbs that are holding the tree up. If that limb is cut, there is a good chance the tree will lean further, and thus, we could lose overhead clearance over-all...maybe not right away, but over time. I still think that we can dig the trail-way down enough to obtain clearance to 9', but not 10'. This should be acceptable. I'm sure that Diesel, Plymmer, Pliebenberg, or myself can easily cut this limb given enough time, safely with a hand saw. Believe it or not we are careful and duly respect these monarchs of the landscape, the majestic oaks of Coe. We will do anything to spare damages. Think and double, triple check your measurements before you cut. If it's something alive that you might cut, you better be as careful as a surgeon.
    SOrCerer

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    235
    Massacre? Wow....save the planet...and the kittens then. I am gong to stop pruning my yard!
    Yeah...that's sarcasm.

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,339
    It's a very interesting old oak and that branch only adds to it's beauty and is helping stabilize it. In case you have not noticed there are not many new oaks trees growing in Coe (I challenge you to even find one), the non-native pigs gobble up all the acorns. The solution is simple go around it, the route has already been created.
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  11. #36
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorcerer View Post
    I still think that we can dig the trail-way down enough to obtain clearance to 9', but not 10'.
    We should use North Shore construction techniques. Build some skinnies over the branch.

    Is that in DPR magic binder?

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    235
    I went back to the pictures and now realize which tree this is. For some reason I thought it
    was in a different spot with no obvious re-route. I agree, going around it is simple enough.

    However, your idea of beauty and mine are at odds. That and the fact that I am not so
    concerned with new oak trees. Perhaps an indication why I am definitely not a Sierra Club
    supporter. I guess I'll just buck the grain rather than use the buck saw.

    I shall retreat to my shack of sawed tree limbs and drink my Pliney alone.

  13. #38
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Nine View Post
    That and the fact that I am not so
    concerned with new oak trees. Perhaps an indication why I am definitely not a Sierra Club
    supporter. I guess I'll just buck the grain rather than use the buck saw.
    I prefer oak trees to poison oak.

    I have had a chance to run straight across Coe's terrain for a whole day on last November' foot rogaine orienteering race. Very nice (but frigging steep) where there are oaks. Not so nice where there are few.

  14. #39
    Is now still the time?
    Reputation: Sorcerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    831
    The decision about what to do with the Ichabod's Oak section is now up to the Trail Supervisor, and that cutting the limb in question was not an option due to the knowledge that this decision required due diligence.

    TahoeBC has a great suggestion. I saw that option and discarded it. The Supe said the lower bypass will be rehabilitated. He reserves the right to change his mind on this. That area will have lots of shade too, and I think there is enough side-slope. At this point the line under the branch is easy to rehab.

    We're still at a place where either line is still an option. the more I think about it, the more I agree with TahoeBC. Crazy to think that this would turn out to be such a discussion and a point of contention, but there it is. Interesting.
    SOrCerer

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Nine View Post
    However, your idea of beauty and mine are at odds. That and the fact that I am not so
    concerned with new oak trees. Perhaps an indication why I am definitely not a Sierra Club
    supporter..
    I not even close to being a Sierra clubber, I think most of them would dislike me very much. Believe me I have no problem with pruning trees, thinning out forests for fire safety, allowing trails to be used and built for multi use enjoyment. Cutting a limb that would likely speed up the death of an old majestic tree when there are easy ways around it, I just don't see the point. I feel sorry for you that you cannot appreciate and see the beauty of the world around you when you ride or care that there may not be trees around for future generations to enjoy and provide habitat and food to the locals in the park.

    Guess it's up to the DPR at this point, all hail the all mighty DPR, we are not worthy!

    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    Cutting a limb that would likely speed up the death of an old majestic tree when there are easy ways around it, I just don't see the point. I feel sorry for you that you cannot appreciate and see the beauty of the world around you when you ride or care that there may not be trees around for future generations to enjoy and provide habitat and food to the locals in the park.

    Point 1....Speed up the death...who says? I could argue that the support that branch is
    giving the tree is merely to counteract the weight of the branch itself, which seems to
    make the tree lean, and possibly be uprooted. Cutting it off might just increase the life
    span. I do agree, there is no point in cutting it just to cut it. There is a bypass that is
    completely acceptable and simple.

    Point 2...I do care about the trees, can see the beauty in them, and do hope future generations might enjoy them along with all of the other good reasons for having trees.
    I think you made a bit of a leap here and penned my name to it. On a personal note, the leaning branch isn't so beautiful to me.

    My off the cuff remark about not caring for new trees deals more with what you had
    pointed out about Coe in particular: regeneration is not occurring because of the pigs. I
    am certainly not suggesting to cut down all of the trees, just trim some. The regeneration
    problem still exists regardless.

    If your point about future generations of people being able to see new trees is a concern
    here, I could stir the pot some more by suggesting a pig hunt to protect the new growth.
    Although some might even agree with that, this is yet another snide remark, so everyone
    please iron your chonies.

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    993
    Those videos of people salaaming are making me dizzy. I feel carsick. I can't look at them!

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: M3ichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    120

    Good Post

    Good post I need not say more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorcerer View Post
    The Uniformed Volunteer Program at Henry W Coe SP is composed of a multi-modal variety of park enthusiasts. Yes a lot of them have shown up and helped, and will continue to do so. While it is true that the mountain bikers are the more active volunteers in the DPR permitted trail maintenance and construction activities, it is wrong to take the attitude that hikers and equestrians aren't helping. They do. They help a lot, and consistently. But keep in mind that they are people, individuals with names and faces; not just a stereotypical group. The bike riders are not all the same either.

    The Mounted Assistance Unit (MAU) at Coe park, as I've mentioned earlier is an established equestrian horse patrol group that regularly conducts trail maintenance activities in the park. The Coe MAU is much older than the bike patrol and I'll bet that they have logged more trail construction and maintenance hours than the mountain bikers have.

    To put it in perspective though, you need to open your heart up to the idea that folks who enjoy using trails are on the same ground. "We protect what we love." - Louie Schwartzberg. The park enthusiasts at Henry W Coe SP, whether they be uniformed volunteers or casual, are together protecting what they love. I'm one of them. We do it with our time, labor, money, words, deeds, plans, innovation, and creativity. There's a hell of a lot more to it than just digging trails. Everyone is doing what they can.

    Coe is exceptional. Do not apply the politics of Woodside/Portola to SW Santa Clara County. Divided we fail. I try to resist the conception that hikers and horses are conspiring against the mountain bikers who are building the JDT by anonymously lodging complaints to the Supervising Ranger. It may well be true though. I'll concede that. All the same, I welcome comments, be they negative or positive, and I will honor those who come forward in the open.

    I don't like the way the Supervising Ranger presents the findings, their origins shrouded in a bureaucratic obscurity, their anonymity protected, the passive-aggressive mode, but that's the way the system malfunctions right now, and it's what we have to deal with like or not. Paradigmatic revision of the CA DPR hasn't occurred yet. Boo hoo for our side - okay I can deal with it - can you? What are we anyway? Do we think we are entitled to something? That underlined word is a hot button code word these days isn't it? The Ranger is doing his job, that's all. Same goes for the Trails Supervisor we are now going to be working with. I'm still willing to go forward. The Ranger's, Supes, Resource Ecologists, Historians, and all the gate keepers of policy and action in the DPR have the authority to enable better processes.

    Which local groups have helped? Well if it were the local mountain bikers of Morgan Hill, you would think that Specialized would be right there helping out, since their corporate HQ is only 15 minutes driving away from the Jim Donnelly Trail. But Specialized is not helping at all, even though we see Mike Sinyard riding the trail from time to time as we are picking away at it. I've tried to get them involved, and I would love to see some of the Big-S staff help in any way. Let them know they are welcome.




    No they do not just make themselves known when it's time to complain. We are friends and we discuss the issues we face together. My point of view is that we are on the same side. The idea that horse riders and mountain bikers and hikers cannot be friends is one that serves to divide and weaken the community of people who love to get outside and enjoy nature. That would include motorsports too. That said, this triggers a huge conversation about real world modalities and compatibilities on trails and roads, that is apart from what I'm getting at here.

    A position of self-righteous idealism is not tenable.



    Hi. Yeah I don't doubt you. Perhaps your assessment is correct, but I disagree to cut this limb without more deliberation and consultation. Maybe you've been there and seen it. Ichabod's Oak is split and leaning on the hillside. That limb is one of a number of large limbs that are holding the tree up. If that limb is cut, there is a good chance the tree will lean further, and thus, we could lose overhead clearance over-all...maybe not right away, but over time. I still think that we can dig the trail-way down enough to obtain clearance to 9', but not 10'. This should be acceptable. I'm sure that Diesel, Plymmer, Pliebenberg, or myself can easily cut this limb given enough time, safely with a hand saw. Believe it or not we are careful and duly respect these monarchs of the landscape, the majestic oaks of Coe. We will do anything to spare damages. Think and double, triple check your measurements before you cut. If it's something alive that you might cut, you better be as careful as a surgeon.

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    993
    I enjoy debating the Jim Donnelly unfairness in this forum, but what we need to do is take action and save that trail as currently, and expertly, constructed.

    Here's what I'm going to do, and I would request that others do the same.

    First, I'm going to email the State Parks employee who I gather issued the stop-work order. I believe that's Stuart Organo, email address sorgano@parks.ca.gov, Monterey District main phone number (831) 649-2836. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.)

    I'm also going to email my state legislators (senator and assemblymember) to complain. Who's yours? Here's the list, with contact information.

    Space down to around No. 18 for assemblymembers and find the one geographically closest to you:

    Members | Assembly Internet

    For senators, space down to Nos. 10 through 13 and find the one geographically closest to you:

    Senators | Senate Internet

    After I write a message I'll post it on this thread in case people want to borrow from it.

    We have to do this. People like Sorcerer can't. They are in too close a relationship with the state parks bureaucracy to be able to speak frankly to it or their state legislators. We who have less to lose have to do this. Thanks.

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drew p's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    160
    I hope the "rehab" work will wait a little bit so we can ask our elected representatives to encourage state parks to have a bit more reasonable approach towards good trail construction techniques.

    could also cc state parks director rcoleman@parks.ca.gov (I'm not sure if that is her email but it probably is)

  21. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    993
    Great idea, Drew P. Yes, that is Ruth Coleman's email address and we should all cc: her.

    In fact, here's an excellent complaint letter about another State Parks overreaction that's a model we could follow. Note that the sender emailed Ruth Coleman but also seems to have figured out the email format for copying his state assemblymember and senator. We could give that addressing format a try as well as fill out the forms on each legislator's website (but go to the legislative websites first to figure out who represents you).

    Here's the letter. Check it out:

    http://www.icmj.com/UserFiles/file/r...tate-Parks.pdf

  22. #47
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,670

    Date for rehab not set...

    FWIW; I don't think most of the the rehab work will start immediately---the 4000'+ section that VOCal will be working on probably will need finishing first. There are several corners that won't be dealt with during the VOCal weekend and being DPR-standard switchbacks will take a large amount of labor. A couple more weekends at least.

    The highest priority rehab is the situation at "Ichabod's Oak"; that'll be first on the list. I'm not sure what comes next; the turns, the RGD's or in some combination. The non-compliant RGD's could all be taken care of in one weekend. However, we may very easily run out of good soil conditions before many of the turns have been dealt with this season.

    A "proper" (by-the-book) DPR switchback can easily take 40~50 hours of labor given where they are sited on the JDT. It's hard to have more than 3 or 4 bodies working a given switchback at the same time; with typical volunteer labor that's a couple of weekends per.

    I'm saying all of this because there's plenty of time to compose thoughtful letters to the authorities. Please be polite!

    The rest of us Uniformed Volunteers are kind of stuck; we've already voiced our concerns---if we do anything we have to do it the way the DPR wants. The DPR is our boss.
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    993
    I sent this:

    Dear Mr. Organo:

    I'm a San José resident and regular paying visitor to Henry Willard Coe State Park in Morgan Hill–Gilroy.

    I recently learned that you have ordered a stop to all volunteer-created improvements to the once-dilapidated Jim Donnelly Trail near the Hunting Hollow entrance to Coe. In addition, reportedly you want the volunteers who have performed this work to undo part of it.

    This is extremely disappointing and a step backward for Coe. I trust that you're aware that the volunteers who are working on the trail, with State Parks authorization, are to some extent the same people who have saved the park rangers' jobs there. Had it not been for their private fund-raising efforts, I suspect the park would soon be closed and the rangers transferred to frigid Bodie or rainy and remote Sinkyone, if they managed to keep their jobs at all. This is unwarranted recompense to them for all that they've done.

    Moreover, the efforts of these volunteers, involving probably thousands of hours of backbreaking labor (I did some of the work myself, admittedly only on one weekend, but enough that I saw how hard it is), are likely to attract many new users to Coe each year, with a near zero environmental impact. These people will pay fees that will further help to keep the park open.

    These volunteers are led by highly trained trail-building experts and there's a broad consensus that their work is exemplary and in compliance with the highest standards of contemporary trail construction knowledge. To not only countermand it but order them to undo some of it is a mistake. This is all the more true when one looks at the woebegone state of Coe's existing trail network—trails that are overgrade, rutted, overgrown, and generally in a dilapidated state. The new Jim Donnelly Trail replaces the old one, which was so bad as to be unusable and had grown over for lack of use. The new one is extremely popular.

    I respectfully request that your order be temporarily set aside for further consideration and examination and, if necessary, a public hearing following an opportunity for public comment. We who are the users of Henry Coe State Park should have a say in what we would like to see there. This new trail is exactly what we want to see more of.

    I'm taking the liberty of including State Parks director Ruth Coleman and my elected representatives in this email so that they may be made aware of this situation. I realize that the order to drastically modify the work on Jim Donnelly may have come from a high level within the State Parks administration, and so calling their attention to the problem may prove efficacious in addressing it.

    Sincerely,

  24. #49
    Is now still the time?
    Reputation: Sorcerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    831

    Thank you for the compliments

    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    I sent this:
    Thanks for expressing terms of support for the trail work.

    Two comments:

    The Supervising Ranger's job doesn't necessarily hinge on the funding arrangement because his job oversees the many rangers in parks of the Monterey District.

    If Coe were to close, staff could have positions made available in other units even if all 70 closure list parks would close (which is not happening). There are vacancies in the park system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nine View Post
    I went back to the pictures and now realize which tree this is. For some reason I thought it
    was in a different spot with no obvious re-route. I agree, going around it is simple enough.
    Nine, my posts about the tree do not adequately portray all of the factors that lead to the present circumstance. I knew full well that we really couldn't construct two trail benches, an alternate a, and an alternate b, around an obstacle because this is specifically not allowed by the standards. Even if we could have operated a chain-saw, and even though a hand-saw could do the job too, none of us would've cut the limb because of the already delicate situation with the alternate b line, the concern for the tree, the safety of the people cutting the limb, and the irreversible commitment of the cut. It was and still is important to keep our options open. I actually think we have done the right thing. As the Supervising Ranger pointed out, the situation triggers consultation. We've got it now. The bypass for the horses was intended to be a temporary thing, unless staff would approve (we did plan to bring it to their attention, but not as a surprise). We did not dig in a trail bench on the by-pass, but raked the path so as to be obvious. Later Pliebenberg took the initiative and made a couple of signs explaining the situation. The non-standard signs on an unsanctioned bypass were received poorly. There's more to this, and I wonder if someone else here will add more detail.

    In practice there are many places in the park where multiple volunteer bypasses spring up from time to time for all kinds of reasons like fallen trees, rocks, slumps, wash-outs and other natural obstacles and alterations, or failures of artificial structures (such as the trail itself). These instances of entropy and unplanned bypasses are not DPR compliant, but acceptable due to their origin. However, the mechanical results are equivalent to what is happening on the JDT construction site on the JDT. I don't think the Superintendent's tenor is appropriate at all. The DPR does no trail work at all in Coe. It's all up to the volunteers to get anything done.
    SOrCerer

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorcerer View Post
    I knew full well that we really couldn't construct two trail benches, an alternate a, and an alternate b, around an obstacle because this is specifically not allowed by the standards.
    Which part is not standard? The signage or the fact that there's 2 trails depending on the users?

    I just saw this on Skyline trail in Castle Rock State park. The left side for pedestrians is not passable to bikers and equestrians, because rocks protrude into the trail with a steep drop off on the downhill side.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Jim Donnelly enters rehab...-summittrail.jpg  

    Correct number of bikes: n+1 bikes
    Correct body weight: m-10 pounds

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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
  •