# Thread: Rangers passing out flyers today....

1. ## Rangers passing out flyers today....

Two rangers were out at rincon parking lot this afternoon around 2:00 putting these flyers on windshields and giving them directly to anyone in the lot. I took a pic of it to post here but it ain't happening so I'll just quote what it says....

(the first part is in large, bold type w/ pic of ranger badge next to it)
WARNING TO MOUNTAIN BIKERS

"The area of Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park which lies between Highway Nine and UCSC has always been closed to bikes and dogs due to the sensitive habitat. The Ranger staff has not been enforcing the rule (CCR 4360) due to the lack of staffing. However, staffing is back up to levels whic will allow us to enforce the NO BIKE rules for this section of the park.

Starting Sunday, February 18, 2009, any bike entering or leaving he above listed section of Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park may receive a citation for riding in an Area Closed To Bicycles (CCR 4360) and Destruction of Plants (CCR 4306). We are allowing a few weeks to adjust to the renewed enforcement and encourage you to use the designated trails of UCSC and Pogonip for your "Single Track" riding.

If this flyer is on our windshield, we have recorded your license plate as proof of notification."

Nice enough guys (just doing their job), but did find it kind of ironic that now that thier "staffing is back up to levels which will allow us to enforce the NO BIKE rules for this section of the park." Didn't I just see somewhere that the State is broke??

Scare tactics?? Gotta wonder too if the sheer # of trucks w/ trailers full of bikes shuttling these hills had anything to do w/ it (2 of them passed as we talked to the rangers).
Could be a gold mine for the state if they do follow thru. Any thoughts???

2. Originally Posted by rwdbkr
Any thoughts???
I'm about done with backwards state man.
Idaho and Oregon are looking better and better the more I hear of this type of beaurocratic bs.
Go do something constructive with the monies.

I would think the officers who've been on duty and never busted bikes should be stripped of their badge and brought up on contempt for allowing this to happen while on their watch.

Why the big need to start enforcing it now?

And "we recorded your plate for proof..." Give me a flyen break.....useless threats y a bully with a mock badge.

ok.....I just had a dumpy day riding and am in a foul mood....

3. ## any tips on where the line is crossed?

I love riding the UCSC single-track either side of Chinquapin and up on towards Empire Grade. Have never known where a descent towards Hwy 9 becomes illegal... is it posted on the trails as you drop in from UCSC?

We've got all these issues of law and order, a civil society, and then, gee, haven't you got better regs to enforce?

Something must be driving enforcement, maybe citation revenues...? or, maybe the public are complaining?

bike-policing does seem like an odd use of taxpayer dollars {{I got a radar ticket on St. Joe's a year or so back - people just laugh at me when I tell them that... rangers with radar guns???}}, but I'm still not going to advocate getting rid of rangers - those guys do lots of good things!

4. ## It sounds like fair warning to me.

Take it for what it is. If you choose to ride outside that limit it is up to you and I don't want to hear no sniveling about a fine.

However, staffing is back up to levels whic will allow us to enforce the NO BIKE rules for this section of the park.
Threaten to have the staffing reduced. Start leaving flyers about that if the rangers are not serving the community, get rid of the rangers.

6. With the closing of the trail that lets you exit stage right before fully delivering the mail, it appears to be an assault from all directions

7. which trails does this include?

8. Originally Posted by SJensen
which trails does this include?
There was a No Bikes sign at the top of Sweetness about 5 years ago.
I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing signs popping up.

9. Originally Posted by rwdbkr
Two rangers were out at rincon parking lot this afternoon around 2:00 putting these flyers on windshields and giving them directly to anyone in the lot. I took a pic of it to post here but it ain't happening so I'll just quote what it says....

(the first part is in large, bold type w/ pic of ranger badge next to it)
WARNING TO MOUNTAIN BIKERS

"The area of Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park which lies between Highway Nine and UCSC has always been closed to bikes and dogs due to the sensitive habitat. The Ranger staff has not been enforcing the rule (CCR 4360) due to the lack of staffing. However, staffing is back up to levels whic will allow us to enforce the NO BIKE rules for this section of the park.

Starting Sunday, February 18, 2009, any bike entering or leaving he above listed section of Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park may receive a citation for riding in an Area Closed To Bicycles (CCR 4360) and Destruction of Plants (CCR 4306). We are allowing a few weeks to adjust to the renewed enforcement and encourage you to use the designated trails of UCSC and Pogonip for your "Single Track" riding.

If this flyer is on our windshield, we have recorded your license plate as proof of notification."
This program started today. I was notified this afternoon.

Originally Posted by rwdbkr
Nice enough guys (just doing their job), but did find it kind of ironic that now that thier "staffing is back up to levels which will allow us to enforce the NO BIKE rules for this section of the park." Didn't I just see somewhere that the State is broke??

Scare tactics?? Gotta wonder too if the sheer # of trucks w/ trailers full of bikes shuttling these hills had anything to do w/ it (2 of them passed as we talked to the rangers).
Could be a gold mine for the state if they do follow thru. Any thoughts???
I don't believe that they got additional funding for rangers. Not in this economic climate. However, the tensions between local residents towards shuttlers have been escalating over the past year and the State Parks management have to address these complaints. They are not happy with the proliferation of trails and complaints from the neighbors so starting an enforcement program to nail mountain bikers allow them to accomplish a couple of goals.

1. address the concerns of the local residents.

2. Capitalize on the potentially lucrative revenue stream.

The party is over. There never were any trails in Santa Cruz so no harm, no foul.

10. question: "which trails does this include?"
answer: all the fun ones!! (of course)

They kindly explained that once you ride up Pogonip and Uconn to the top where the signage post is, everything on the right side of the fire road as you head towards the tanks, is considered off limits as far as they are concerned. Those who have been ticketed in this area in the past know it aint a cheap one either....in the few hundred dollar range from what i hear. I didn't bother asking them, since i don't ride those trails anyways Oh well, I suspect they will keep close tabs at first until they start seeing the desired results

11. I am guessing the shear number of trucks shuttling riders up is precisely what is driving the sudden interest in making this "illegal" pastime catch notice of some officials. It is quite possible that drivers on the road may have complained about riders coming off of the bottom of MCR, etc... where it kind of just dumps you down onto the road. Little shoulder, some people who should not be driving winding roads, etc... leads to complaints or potential accidents. Also, potential revenues for citing the people on the trails is another place where the state sees an opportunity for making some $$. Last time I was down those trails (been over a year since I have ridden down to 9 that way) there were no signs. Be interesting to see if there are any put up. If you are going to ride those trails, carry a camera that date/time stamps and photograph the top of the trail before you start down. Then if you get accosted, argue that there is no signage and you have a picture to prove it. They can take your bike, but they can't take your camera. (Might be a good idea to have a couple of people photo that, in case one person shows a shot and they DO take your camera, you have one to back it up!) If there is a sign, and you get caught, then, you deserve it. If there is no sign - I'd fight it and press charges for abuse of power and theft of property if they take your bike. Like said before, there are a lot of better things that we should have our rangers do than to keep bicycles off of trails that I have never seen a hiker on before... 12. ## Time for me to move... 13. Originally Posted by mrtoadsc The party is over. There never were any trails in Santa Cruz so no harm, no foul. When does the "Nothing to see here" approach stop being beneficial? 14. I got one of these fliers. It's easy money for the state. They can just sit at the bottom of the trails on the highway and nab people as they come down. Somebody came up with this bright idea and is a hero. I wanted to tell the rangers that they should take the weekends off to spend time with their families. One funny thing I noticed is that February 18 is a Wednesday. Maybe start staffing somebody who can read a calendar. 15. i hope those people who shuttle have fun popping out onto 9 and getting popped with a ticket. will teach them to learn to pedal up 16. Originally Posted by SJensen i hope those people who shuttle have fun popping out onto 9 and getting popped with a ticket. will teach them to learn to pedal up People who shuttle may or may not have provoked the situation but it doesn't look like they will be the only ones who get popped. 17. Try asking the Park Superintendent for bike access, work with them to mitigate the reasons given to deny access. 18. ## Where's Blue Shorts right now? "I told you so" Anyone that did not see this coming was either in complete and utter denial, or is just a fool... Ain't this a peach 19. It's going to be another temporary funding source. Once the tickets start coming, the trails will empty. Then the State Parks will have one less bright idea to bring in revenue. 20. ## maybe turn your lights on? with the minor amount of rain we've had in ca this season it's probably better that these trails close. they're gettin tore up and it's become a highway on the weekends. the no bikes sign @ the top of "****%$$" has been there a long time (longer than 5 yrs ago), people just vandalize it. maybe the folks w/full on dh bikes/armor and nice trucks can afford those tickets. you'd think w/most of 'em gettin busted you may get lucky/be off the hook.

if this weather holds, summer will begin with a dry dusty hardpan forest (well close). folks need to recognize that ca problems are larger than just not being able to ride their mtbs in the forest, look at the big picture and our natural resources (water particularly).

it's time to leave your full suspension bikes at home and break out the rigids. go ride wilder, fireroads, awesome views, and you know where the singletrack is at, keep it/bring back old school style. all i know is that 70 degree weather and short sleeves at the beginning of february just aint right.

21. You notice the OP said "in Rincon parking lot fliers were handed out?"

If you pop out on 9 then your fair game.

How far up the hill are they willing to go?

Stay under the canopy and climb back up?

Seems like they are targeting the FR/DH groups.

I get over there occasionally but they are going to have to work a little to find me in there....

22. Shuttlers ruining it for everyone. Typical, if you can't ride up you shouldn't be riding down.

If they've got enough staff for "no bike" enforcment, then they should have plenty for catching the smash-n-grab thieves at the Demo forest parking lot.

23. This soon will pass! Not like there are trails there anyway!

24. Originally Posted by scfreak
This soon will pass! Not like there are trails there anyway!
so true!

25. So trying to get a mental picture of the targeted area in the flier,, are they saying the area from UCSC down to 9 or or they talking about the stuff on the other side from the tracks up to Henry Cowell along Gram Hill Road? Or all of it??

26. Get the word out, Lay low for awhile and DON'T SHUTTLE ON THOSE ROADS! There's good places to shuttle that make sence... thats not one of them. Small tight roads that resident's likely don't want unessary traffic on.

27. Originally Posted by icantdrive65
....They can just sit at the bottom of the trails on the highway and nab people as they come down.
Sounds to me like we can ride there all we want as long as you stop well before the end of the trail and push/ride back up. Hopefully the rangers won't want to climb up far from the highway and stay in their trucks

28. ## Fwiw

This may be a meaningless distinction, but State park property begins a couple hundred feet North of the Chinquapin FR. As was mentioned above there is a small sign on a post about that distance in from the FR. Several years ago a friend almost literally ran into a ranger up in that part of the "Ridge" tr. looked like he was doing some sort of survey, w/ a GPS.
I wouldn't make too many assumptions about where they will patrol or write tickets. I'd guess some determined soul will build a new exit somewhere that might bypass the enforcement for awhile.
Berry

29. Originally Posted by zon
So trying to get a mental picture of the targeted area in the flier,, are they saying the area from UCSC down to 9 or or they talking about the stuff on the other side from the tracks up to Henry Cowell along Gram Hill Road? Or all of it??
Specifically, the target area is from UC down to 9, since this is where most of the action is. There is NO other side!

30. Let's rally on 02/18/2009. We'll all just sit in the parking lot on our bikes for a few hours and let the rangers scramble to figure out what they're going to do.

And not to worry... Rangers are state employees. Once they start getting IOU's instead of paychecks, they'll stop showing up to ticket people because they'll stop showing up to work.

31. True!

32. I'm not surprised at all, not just because of the shuttling, but because of the new trails popping up all the time. I rode up there for the first time in 2 years last Fall, and couldn't believe how much it changed (yes it was way fun). Without some kind of regulation, trailbuilding will continue, more people will ride it, the environment will suffer, and they will crack down.

And self-regulation? Not gonna happen.

It seems we've reached the tipping point.

I don't personally think just "laying low" is the solution to this problem. Of course it's a pipe dream to think some agreement could be reached whereby the trails become maintained...so I got nothin'.

And shuttling - it's just sad to me that for some people "mountain biking" involves using a car or truck and burning fossil fuels to get uphill.

33. It's a bummer for sure, those trails are pretty fun. However, we as mountain bikers have been breaking the law there for a long time and it has gone unenforced. But apparently there is enough money now to throw at the problem and they're going to try to catch some rascals. There needs to be some sort of action taken on behalf of the mountain biking community to try to regain access in that area; go to town hall meetings, make petitions and submit them to the state congress, get the hiking community on our side, do more voluntary trail maintenence, etc. etc. We need to show the Stat and state employees that we're not bad people and we want to work with them to gain and maintain any and all access that could protentially be granted in the future. It'll be a "baby steps" kind of thing, maybe we'll get one trail back, maybe two, maybe all of them. The thing to consider though is that any increased access in the future is 100% better than it is now. So lets band together to be nice, courteous, and professional people who have a respect for the land and a desire to work with the powers that be in order to re-gain access.

One thing to consider for the reasoning of the rangers is all of the trails that have been built there by mountain bikers. The park is probably not to stoked on the fact that there are trails with huge (and potentially dangerous) jumps and stunts on them. Building there makes the natural terrain an eyesore to the rangers, Building also tears up the ground which hurts the environment. The rangers could be pissed by that.

34. Maybe the actual cost of allowing bikers in there has reached the tipping point, wonder how much the helicopter rides and lawsuits have to do with this.

35. Good idea on the ralley Mike ,Im in!

36. Originally Posted by TahoeBC
Maybe the actual cost of allowing bikers in there has reached the tipping point, wonder how much the helicopter rides and lawsuits have to do with this.
bingo! the cost of non-enforcement has now outweighed the cost of enforcement, so they will bring it! i have heard from sources that recent heli-rides have resulted in lawsuits from parents that became angry when their precious snowflakes air ambulance bill came in.

as a local - i've seen the sheer numbers of riders increase 100 fold just over the last couple seasons. just look at Rincon lot on a Sat at 11am ... looks like Downieville in season =) I don't think it helps to have factory sponsored rides parking their huge vans and pickups in the same lot.

I don't hold any 'locals only' prejudices, but the fact is these trails have gone through the normal lifecycle of any illegal trail system:

DEATH OF A SINGLETRACK
SHUTTLING TO THE END

-Stage one-

An auto-accessible road that leads to a popular hiking trail attracts mountain bikers who shuttle the uphill and coast down the singletrack. Hikers and equestrians who use the trail are treated well by most cyclists and a period of tense cooperation between users is established.
-Stage two-
Mountain bikers practice the trail to the point where everyone in the area can ride it at top speed. Groups who shuttle together begin to race just for fun. Passive trail user, including mountain bikers, abandon the trail. They can no longer enjoy the route because they feel it is too dangerous, or have simply grown tired of having to watch out for speeders.
-Stage three-
New mountain bikers begin to shuttle the trail who never encounter hikers or equestrians. They believe that the trail is and has always been a "mountain bike only" route. When they finally do meet hikers, they curse them for not getting out of the way.
-Final Stage-
Traditional trail users feel cheated because they have been driven off by mountain bikers. Bound by anger, they group together and lobby successfully to have bikes banned from all the local trails - not just the ones that can be shuttled.

ENFORCEMENT ENSUES!

37. You guys got it all wrong. I spoke to the rangers and this has nothing to do with dowhillers and shuttlers. The local NIMBY group petitioned the state to crack down on bikes for another reason. They were getting disgusted with the large number of lycra-clad rigid 29ers showing up and ruining a good sport.

38. Hey, if it boosts money to keep the state parks running, then I'm all for it. Keep up the shuttling, guys.

(I'm going to run and duck for cover now...)

39. Seems to me use in that area has just gotten too big to ignore.

If it was just about the revenue, they'd be charging to park at Rincon and in the turnouts. I'm amazed they don't already. The couple of state parks I know of elsewhere in California with highways running through them, the rangers will stop and ask to see your entrance pass if you park along the road.

40. Originally Posted by Felton_Flyer
bingo! the cost of non-enforcement has now outweighed the cost of enforcement, so they will bring it! i have heard from sources that recent heli-rides have resulted in lawsuits from parents that became angry when their precious snowflakes air ambulance bill came in.

as a local - i've seen the sheer numbers of riders increase 100 fold just over the last couple seasons. just look at Rincon lot on a Sat at 11am ... looks like Downieville in season =) I don't think it helps to have factory sponsored rides parking their huge vans and pickups in the same lot.

I don't hold any 'locals only' prejudices, but the fact is these trails have gone through the normal lifecycle of any illegal trail system:

DEATH OF A SINGLETRACK
SHUTTLING TO THE END

-Stage one-

An auto-accessible road that leads to a popular hiking trail attracts mountain bikers who shuttle the uphill and coast down the singletrack. Hikers and equestrians who use the trail are treated well by most cyclists and a period of tense cooperation between users is established.
-Stage two-
Mountain bikers practice the trail to the point where everyone in the area can ride it at top speed. Groups who shuttle together begin to race just for fun. Passive trail user, including mountain bikers, abandon the trail. They can no longer enjoy the route because they feel it is too dangerous, or have simply grown tired of having to watch out for speeders.
-Stage three-
New mountain bikers begin to shuttle the trail who never encounter hikers or equestrians. They believe that the trail is and has always been a "mountain bike only" route. When they finally do meet hikers, they curse them for not getting out of the way.
-Final Stage-
Traditional trail users feel cheated because they have been driven off by mountain bikers. Bound by anger, they group together and lobby successfully to have bikes banned from all the local trails - not just the ones that can be shuttled.

ENFORCEMENT ENSUES!
you're not local, you're a tranny just like da rest! i heard you wanna buy a dh bike and get rid of your spandex!

41. sorry, double post. beaverbiker, that's what i was tryin to subversively promote in my first post.

42. Originally Posted by nativeson
you're not local, you're a tranny just like da rest! i heard you wanna buy a dh bike and get rid of your spandex!
zing!
ha - i've been discovered, you nailed me.
(hey at least I was riding over the weekend, where were you? prolly doing some artsy fartsy bullshyte =)

43. Originally Posted by Felton_Flyer
zing!
ha - i've been discovered, you nailed me.
(hey at least I was riding over the weekend, where were you? prolly doing some artsy fartsy bullshyte =)
road ridin rode down to pebble beach/monterey saturday, yesterday out to san juan bautista. trails are gettin too crowded. here's to weekdays and switchin da clocks.

44. is that parking lot in santa cruz or felton?

45. This was bound to happen. I'm sure State Parks justifies the crack down based on resource protection. Too many unauthorized trails, getting more and more use, wide and wider, loss of vegetation, bare slopes formerly covered by duff now eroding, loss of undisturbed habitat as the area is fragmented and criss-crossed by trails, etc. And the neighbors complaining about drivers' behavior on their private road. Tipping point reached.

I would assume that they will put a lot of energy into closing and obliterating the trails to restore the habitat. They will probably do this at the same time they crack down with enforcement. I would also assume anyone caught in there trying to re-open or build new trails will get a nasty citation and court date.

Patty

46. Damn...just when I was going to start a shuttle service company.

47. no doubt... If your riding there on a weekend in the middle of the day it's going to draw attention.
I like the idea of getting together with the State Park on some volentier trail work day's. It's working for us over here in Toro Park. There's one planned for this coming saturday 10am to 2pm. We are working on a non bikeing trail this time to try and gain a little more leagal access down the road. And it's a rtail used in the CCCX races.

48. ## Demo just became more crowded

people are going to find places to ride... The trail system grew, right or wrong, because other trail system were crowded or not accessible. Most of the growth the is being complained about on this thread, occured while Demo was largely "inaccessible" due to the slide that closed highland way.

The Demo Trail system is also growing with trails like Cusacks and "other" trails seeing a huge increase in traffic.

Close the SC trails... guess where many of those people are going to go to ride...

Why not charge to park at the lots off highway 9 and empire grade, use the moeny to put in port-a-potties and to build some trails that can withstand the traffic and that offer hikers and horses some place else to go....

49. Originally Posted by icantdrive65
I got one of these fliers. It's easy money for the state. They can just sit at the bottom of the trails on the highway and nab people as they come down. Somebody came up with this bright idea and is a hero. I wanted to tell the rangers that they should take the weekends off to spend time with their families.

One funny thing I noticed is that February 18 is a Wednesday. Maybe start staffing somebody who can read a calendar.
Why do you think this is a mistake? Wednesday afternoon/evenings are busy at UC/Cowell. This program started Feb 1st then 2 weeks notice means enforcement should start on Sunday Feb 15th. Perhaps they pushed it out a few days out of respect to the Tour of California stop in Santa Cruz on Feb 16th. Who knows....

50. no biggee......less traffic.....gives trails time to *heal*...will get me in better shape 'cause i have to climb back up all those damn hills...or ride in from farther out....

win-win IMO....

edit - almost forgot nite-rides!.....good times...good times....

Why do you think this is a mistake? Wednesday afternoon/evenings are busy at UC/Cowell. This program started Feb 1st then 2 weeks notice means enforcement should start on Sunday Feb 15th. Perhaps they pushed it out a few days out of respect to the Tour of California stop in Santa Cruz on Feb 16th. Who knows....
"Starting Sunday, February 18, 2009" <- Says Sunday... is a mistake.

I stay out of the Bay Area must of the time but I've ridden these trails a couple times and they are gems. You guys have my sympathy. I'm glad most of questionable trails I ride get an order of magnitude less attention and traffic.

Overall this area has been a time bomb for some time so it's not a huge surprise.

52. Originally Posted by Internal14
I'm about done with backwards state man.
Idaho and Oregon are looking better and better the more I hear of this type of beaurocratic bs.
Go do something constructive with the monies.
someone once told me
"California is the NO state"
No Loitering
No Camping
No Dogs
No Bikes

53. When I ride this area which is not often, I see full face helmets, & big bikes! Why, because this is one of the only "true downhill" areas in SC. I don't not like these riders, infact I have ridden with some of these kids and they rip! I like steep, rocky, rooty, technical trails, but I also see the problem with new trails being made and people who don't care about erosion, and private property. It's a tough situation, but somehow I don't think people are going to stop riding these trails, there's no way possible the State can keep up the enforcement. I have seen these trails maintained as well, last spring there was work done on many of these great trails, I was part of it! Good luck to the folks who ride these and get caught, maybe it will help in getting my State tax return

54. Originally Posted by SelfPropelledDevo
someone once told me
"California is the NO state"
No Loitering
No Camping
No Dogs
No Bikes

No Money
No Budget
No Marriage

55. account jack. disregard.

56. ... has anyone done any real research on these codes? What their actual implications are if one is to be ticketed?

57. Originally Posted by jakub.sjsu
... has anyone done any real research on these codes? What their actual implications are if one is to be ticketed?
In the past it has been a fine of over $300 58. Originally Posted by icantdrive65 In the past it has been a fine of over$300
I know what the fines are ...

Has anyone with legal expertise dug further into these codes and their applications?

59. Originally Posted by jakub.sjsu
I know what the fines are ...

Has anyone with legal expertise dug further into these codes and their applications?
http://www.saccourt.com/criminal/bai...il/careg14.asp

CCR 4306: Collecting/destroying trees or plants: $270 CCR 4360: Regulations for operation of bicycles$135

Full monty: $405 I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV... 60. ## ? What's all the griping about? I ride up and down Uconn which is totally legal. Sometimes, I cross over in to Wilder and Grey Whale which is also totally legal. Thanks for the heads-up tho. Can we kill this thread now? 61. Originally Posted by mrtoadsc http://www.saccourt.com/criminal/bai...il/careg14.asp CCR 4306: Collecting/destroying trees or plants:$270
CCR 4360: Regulations for operation of bicycles $135 Full monty:$405

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV...
bundle of wood $8 bike camping$3
legit

62. ## Shut down HenryCowel (Good thing)

Over the last few years there has been a TOTAL lack of respect for the area

Who do I blame:
• Shuttle services have increase
down hill riders who like to drop straight down

There have been more illegal trails carved out that cater to downhillers.

I'm in agreement of shutting down the place for awhile to keep the out of town downhillers out.

63. Shutting down the thread isn't going to stop this from happening if it's come to the point of them handing out flyers. And I don't see why downhillers are the problem. Once you're off the road, you're off the road. Unless you have evidence saying 'it's this group of bikers that ruined it for everyone'...or do you know that complainer X said they fine with 14 trails, but now there are 20 and I'm not happy? Quit the dh/xc hate. It's the whole system that's under attack, everything except the fireroads.

Is there a record of public complaints, or some record of retired whiners in some board room where this comes up, or is UCSC bringing it up?

If litigation/riding on state parks is the issue, is there a way to have a waiver type policy? Tamaracho has this $5 fee to ride, so could UCSC do something similar where the state or campus has everyone buy a pass which also serves as a waiver (kind of like a ski resort). If you get caught without the waiver you can get fined for riding illegally, but if you bought the waiver you're acknowledging that you're riding at your own risk. Have the trails somewhat labeled and maintained like they are now to take out the ambiguity and illegal-ness of it. Am I too naive??? 64. ## Shut the place down (Good thing) Over the last few years there has been a TOTAL lack of respect for the area Who do I blame: Shuttle services have increase down hill riders who like to drop straight down The cool factor -skid down hill. There have been more illegal trails carved out that cater to downhillers. I'm in agreement of shutting down the place for awhile to keep the out of town downhillers out. 65. Originally Posted by jakub.sjsu ... has anyone done any real research on these codes? What their actual implications are if one is to be ticketed? 1. Got a ticket before but it never got filed. 2. be cognizant of your location state rangers only have jurisdiction on state land 3. speaking of codes...the distribution of the flyers is against County Code. 66. Originally Posted by gobike "I told you so" Just reading and grinning Who could have possibly imagined that this could happen? 67. Originally Posted by monkies Is there a record of public complaints, or some record of retired whiners in some board room where this comes up, or is UCSC bringing it up? If litigation/riding on state parks is the issue, is there a way to have a waiver type policy? Tamaracho has this$5 fee to ride, so could UCSC do something similar where the state or campus has everyone buy a pass which also serves as a waiver (kind of like a ski resort). If you get caught without the waiver you can get fined for riding illegally, but if you bought the waiver you're acknowledging that you're riding at your own risk. Have the trails somewhat labeled and maintained like they are now to take out the ambiguity and illegal-ness of it.

Am I too naive???
The trails in question are on Henry Cowell State Park land, not UCSC.
I like your idea and would gladly agree to something like that. I think a waiver is necessary. Parents suing the university or the state when their kids fall and get hurt on illegal trails drives me crazy. People who are that irresponsible need to stay home.

68. PHP Code:
 I'm in agreement of shutting down the place for awhile to keep the out of town downhillers out.  

Yeah, I totally agree...I think that arguing about what kind of bike you ride really is the best way to solve this problem.

Hooray for segregation by leisure activity.

Or as I suggested to the rangers I was having a conversation with in the parking lot as they passed out the warnings, "maybe we can find a solution that will accommodate all the trail users".

69. I guess what I'm saying is that to make something 'illegal' where the legality is at someone's discretion (i.e. a state determination with biased input?) creates an atmosphere of more 'illegal' behavior. Fact is that people want aggressive trail riding in their back yard, it's not harming anyone, and they are going to do it. If the state has issues, why no shut down every bike shop in the area selling a full suspension bike?!

The stance taken now is to take a police state view, rather than work with people to mitigate the concerns. Really what's worse, saying it's illegal and having people do more illegal stuff elsewhere which would still result in lawsuits and not being able to get medical personnel there, OR just make it legal, have riders pay a fee (money goes toward ranger's salary, and funds emergencies, trail work, etc) and sign a waiver, and have the state work with the community to keep it under control and out in the open.

Is there a biker law student willing to work with us and the state???

70. What is the best tire combo for shuttling at UCSC when sporting camel toe lycra?

71. Originally Posted by snowjnky
3. speaking of codes...the distribution of the flyers is against County Code.
Even if its on their park property? (i.e. their lot)

(it could be.. just want to be annoying)

72. Originally Posted by baycat
What is the best tire combo for shuttling at UCSC when sporting camel toe lycra?
white ones, with the double knobs.

73. Originally Posted by baycat
What is the best tire combo for shuttling at UCSC when sporting camel toe lycra?
F - Fritos special "scoops" tire
R - Redbull caffeine "knob" tire. It has one large knob and the rest is semi-slick.

74. Originally Posted by baycat
What is the best tire combo for shuttling at UCSC when sporting camel toe lycra?
you sport camel toe?!.....

75. Here is the ranger, along with his phone number, in charge of this "crackdown":

Ranger G. Brennan
831-335-2974

MTB'ers will find a way legally...or illegally. If not here, somewhere else in Santa Cruz. New 'illegal' trails will pop up and grow in popularity until we start this whole thing over again. Its cyclical.

77. Originally Posted by grrrah
Even if its on their park property? (i.e. their lot)

(it could be.. just want to be annoying)
to any unwilling acceptor...

78. the rangers got what they wanted ...every body to get their panties in a wad and talk about the "soon" to come enforcement. Low cost enforcement=fear.
As of 4:38 on monday the have reached at least 71 UCSC riders
 Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 71 (45 members and 26 guests) snowjnky, dlazz, Spokeman, hardboiled, rockymtnrider, shanedawg, bongsta329, O1byo1, cfranck, Carl Hungus, icantdrive65, Giant26er, motormonkeyr6, sirkrameroy, Cycledelic, SpecRider96, 8Trak, horse of iron, rwdbkr, dan51, se47, Felton_Flyer, Ride&Surf, scfreak, mtnryder56, ricebowls, rseiter, monkies, dhbike8, bairdo, arkarkark, ladodgers, Triumphman, bstyle74, SCTreeHugger, Dreamerof1, coiler871, ///M3N, Khemical, fasttroll, squashyo

79. I was thinking about this situation the other day as I sat at the bottom of a trail right by 9 and watched cars go by, and trucks waiting at the bottom for the shuttlers. I realized if I lived in the area and had to deal with this every weekend I would be pretty pissed after a while.
-roadies like to ride and impede traffic
-crotch rockets are always flying up and down the road
-sports cars do the same
-mtbikers coming down a hill quickly, sometimes all the way into the road. I saw this as I sat there. Rider didn't even seem to care that he could have been hit, as long as he hit the last jump. Drivers have no sense how well we can stop, or if we're gonna stop, so it's got to be stressful.
-constant cars pulling in and out of the road from all the random turnouts
-excessive traffic on the road in the form of slow bikes, and the cars used to get us there.

The previous set of road users are there legally, though they may be breaking the law by speeding. But we have cops to handle that. However mtbikers are there because of doing something illegally. Once someone catches onto that, they inform other pissed off residents, they gather and complain about it, and then crackdown begins. I'd bet almost all complaints from locals are traffic related, something happened while they were driving.
The only good thing we are doing is providing income and tax dollars to the city and local burrito place.

Originally Posted by monkies
If litigation/riding on state parks is the issue, is there a way to have a waiver type policy? Tamaracho has this $5 fee to ride, so could UCSC do something similar where the state or campus has everyone buy a pass which also serves as a waiver (kind of like a ski resort). If you get caught without the waiver you can get fined for riding illegally, but if you bought the waiver you're acknowledging that you're riding at your own risk. Have the trails somewhat labeled and maintained like they are now to take out the ambiguity and illegal-ness of it. Am I too naive??? While the fee based thing would be nice, it just means one more thing the state/parks have to manage. If money is tight it's easier to shut down the entire thing than it is to build a program, website to buy your day pass, legal mumbo jumbo.. Plus they will probably make way more money giving tickets than by charging a$50 season pass or $5 day pass. Plus all the money that will go into building/marking official trails. Sure they might be paying a few extra rangers now, but that's probably much less than the cost of legalizing the place. Besides, even if it's legal, some kid will still crash and get hurt, and the parents will still find a lawyer and sue. So all the jumps would probably be leveled, and the fun trails rerouted. 80. I know this isnt right but I don't feel as jealous of SC folks as I used to. Thanks. 81. Originally Posted by snowjnky to any unwilling acceptor... I'm glad we actually have someone on the board who is an actual code enforcement officer. good work chris! 82. Originally Posted by SJensen I'm glad we actually have someone on the board who is an actual code enforcement officer. good work chris! 83. Originally Posted by rwdbkr Scare tactics?? Gotta wonder too if the sheer # of trucks w/ trailers full of bikes shuttling these hills had anything to do w/ it (2 of them passed as we talked to the rangers). Could be a gold mine for the state if they do follow thru. Any thoughts??? Actually, they are doing you a favor by warning you in advance. 84. If just half of that 71 showed up on a 'Trail Work Day" on what ever the State Park Service required it would turn some heads! 85. I was discussing the situation with one of the local trannys yesterday The real problem are the unicyclist, go back to the circus - doot-doot-doodle-oodle oot doot do do.. 86. Originally Posted by dan51 The only good thing we are doing is providing income and tax dollars to the city and local burrito place. I disagree. I know for a fact that many local bike companies use these trails for photo shoots(just saw one today), R&D and showing Pros/VIPs around the area. Hell, the freakin DH World champion has been here in SC with his brother and sister riding these trails for the past couple of months(rumor has it). Santa Cruz is bending over for the TOC but I can almost guarantee that these trails provide more stimulus than the Tour of California ever will to the local economy. The question is, will these local companies ever step up to the plate and work with the state and county to broker some kind of deal and get these trails decriminalized? I know many of them already do a lot of work for access so I'm not saying it's their responsibilty, but I fear that using their financial power and clout is the only way to achieve a long term solution on these trails. Just my 2cents. 87. Classic! 88. Originally Posted by wbmtb If just half of that 71 showed up on a 'Trail Work Day" on what ever the State Park Service required it would turn some heads! I think there are a lot of riders who would support a work day on our local trails. 89. I ride in santa cruz. I have a downhill bike. I also have a trail bike. I ride both in santa cruz. Sometimes I even wear *gasp* a full face helmet and goggles! If we're talking about erosion, I'll bet I skid less than most XC riders down trails. If we're talking about angering locals, I'll bet you'll never catch me freaking out traffic on highway 9 or pissing off the locals. If we're talking about rangers, I'll bet they never find me riding somewhere I'm not supposed to be. If we all do this, XC , DH, unicyclists and dog walkers (don't forget, they're illegal in many of the places bikes are illegal) and we all quit complaining about each other on the forums then someday maybe we could all ride where we want to ride. 90. True dat about the XC peeps ridin and slidin! 91. I've seen this coming for years. I come down a couple of times a year and ride those trails starting from Felton, so I've really noticed the changes from year to year. Yes, I have noticed the increase in shuttlers, but I don't know if that's the problem. I DO see disrespect for other users and local traffic, but I also have met some really cool folks. SO many trails have been built, some with absolutely no thought toward erosion. It was only a matter of time. Stunts, complicated, unorganized systems of trails, high repercussion stunts and big jumps (which oftentimes lead to helicopter rides), don't belong on Pirate trails. They are the kind of things that make pirate trails high profile and eventually get them closed. And it's too bad. When you have something good and it gets totally out of control, this is what happens. If it were me I'd be putting some of this energy toward legitimizing a few of those trails. Pick a couple, say those are the ones we need to keep and can maintain, and make your case. It won't work the first time, but stay after them. 92. Originally Posted by TahoeBC Maybe the actual cost of allowing bikers in there has reached the tipping point, wonder how much the helicopter rides and lawsuits have to do with this. We have a Winner! True, the crashes have brought the wrong type of attention to this area. Everyone should remember that some Rangers drive their personal vehicles on 9 before or after their shift(s) and see the shuttling when the shuttlers don't see them in officially-marked vehicles. 93. Originally Posted by snowjnky the rangers got what they wanted ...every body to get their panties in a wad and talk about the "soon" to come enforcement. Low cost enforcement=fear. As of 4:38 on monday the have reached at least 71 UCSC riders  Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 71 (45 members and 26 guests) snowjnky, dlazz, Spokeman, hardboiled, rockymtnrider, shanedawg, bongsta329, O1byo1, cfranck, Carl Hungus, icantdrive65, Giant26er, motormonkeyr6, sirkrameroy, Cycledelic, SpecRider96, 8Trak, horse of iron, rwdbkr, dan51, se47, Felton_Flyer, Ride&Surf, scfreak, mtnryder56, ricebowls, rseiter, monkies, dhbike8, bairdo, arkarkark, ladodgers, Triumphman, bstyle74, SCTreeHugger, Dreamerof1, coiler871, ///M3N, Khemical, fasttroll, squashyo This isn't a fear technique...handing out$300 tickets and warnings already happens on other trails.

Like I said before, it would be great if there was a way to legitimize the process with waivers/fees. Dan51 mentioned this won't work, and too much money. Fine. So the other option is the current one: say f u to the mtn bike community, and let us create yet another illegal trail network and rinse and repeat.

Out of curiosity, there's this huge fear that legalization would still lead to litigation, or if the man knows about the trails they'll eventually tear them down anyway...anyone have a list of lawsuits due to illegal mtn bike trail injuries?

94. http://www.straight.com/article-7392...itical-muscles

interesting article on the north shore and what they are/have dealt with...

95. ## Agreed

Originally Posted by stripes
+1. Both groups are at fault. I'm getting sick of hearing how the shuttlers are the only problem at those trails, where in fact, most folks I know who ride their ride XC or AM bikes.

On any given Sat/Sun, there may be a handful of downhillers, but the majority are XC/AM rigs. Anyone that has ever ridden these trails and talked about it on the internet or other media outlet is to blame. Far too long the state has ignored this area, but these days, it's impossible. Overflow parking, renegade trails popping up, stunts being built weekly and advertised freely on youtube, etc all has lead up to this.

96. Originally Posted by monkies
This isn't a fear technique...handing out \$300 tickets and warnings already happens on other trails.

Like I said before, it would be great if there was a way to legitimize the process with waivers/fees. Dan51 mentioned this won't work, and too much money. Fine. So the other option is the current one: say f u to the mtn bike community, and let us create yet another illegal trail network and rinse and repeat.

Out of curiosity, there's this huge fear that legalization would still lead to litigation, or if the man knows about the trails they'll eventually tear them down anyway...anyone have a list of lawsuits due to illegal mtn bike trail injuries?
Funny when I got my ticket the rangers main point was " tell all your friends about me" he even suggested that I posted it on MTBR!

97. As I sit here reading, I must admit I'm a little upset and a little hurt. Here you have a huge community of people who obviously love this network of trails. You can tell the people that love it the most, because they're the ones who are so pissed off, they're trying to place blame on people. "It's the Downhillers and their shuttling!", or, "It's the freeriders and their stunts", or "It's the spandex wearing gheeeeeeeys and their hardtail 29er bikes."

Come on folks. Seriously... This is ridiculous. Call blame all you want. I see as many DHers dragging brake and dropping down onto Highway 9 as I do guys on XC bikes. I see as many kids on dirt jumpers crashing as I do old men wrecking on their over-built, over-priced Nomads. Get over yourselves. All of you! We are ALL to blame. But we can ALL be part of the solution!

NOW... the point is. WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

Can someone find information on how we can work around this? ie. Working with Rangers? Working with the County? Working with the State? Donating money? Donating time to clean up the trails, re-plant trees, and relocate plants, trees, etc.?

So many of you seem to have basically given up and thrown in the towel already. Why such pansy attitudes? Come on people! Oregon seems to be able to provide places that are legal ONLY TO MOUNTAIN BIKERS. Why not California? I mean, we in California are supposed to be on the forefront of thought, innovation, and policy. I, for one, think we can do it. Sure, they may not open again come Feburary 19th, but holy crap guys (and gals!), if we're persistent enough, they simply have to listen!

Is anyone else interested in actually helping me try to get these trails open? Or is everyone more concerned with pissing and moaning to each other like toddlers and giving up so easy?

98. Originally Posted by snowjnky
No Marriage

Huh? I know lots of people that have married in California. Sure, it ain't as easy as it is in Reno or Las Vegas, but it ain't that hard.

99. ## Prettym1K3!?

1) Do you know ANYTHING about the politics in this area?
2) Do you do any trail advocacy work? If so, where?
3) Have you lived in Oregon and understand why they can do what they do?

100. Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike
1) Do you know ANYTHING about the politics in this area?
I've worked in the legal field for 8 years. By no means do I claim to understand nor know the laws with regard to this situation. I'm not a ranger, law enforcement officer, nor do I have the suffix ".Esq" after my name. But I do know that after 8 years, Santa Cruz (county) has a deeply rooted history in supporting the "little guy", and from my experience, they don't like large entities in their county... be it business, or government. Obviously, the matter we're discussing here could be both a county and/or a state matter, but if we make enough noise in Santa Cruz, there's a good possibility it will get back to the powers that be in Sacramento. Change can happen.

2) Do you do any trail advocacy work? If so, where?
I have done plenty of trail work, but no advocacy work ie. meetings, etc.). Flakey as it sounds, I've intended to show up to multiple meetings, but have only been interested in trail advocacy work for a little under a year, and had some personal issues come up during the meetings I planned on attending.

3) Have you lived in Oregon and understand why they can do what they do?
I have not lived in Oregon, nor understand why they can do what they do. Have you lived in Oregon? And do you understand why they can do what the do?

The point was that if other places can do this, so can we. There are ways to try. I do not believe that we've exhausted all of our resources here. In fact, have we truly exhausted any resources on trying to get this stuff legalized? I think we've all been riding illegally for so long, we just assumed that one day it would end and we'd all give up. Why that mentality?

Page 1 of 4 1234 Last