Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: T.K. Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    70

    Mt waterman to Chilao?

    Is riding in the Waterman area legal? Cant seem to find anything on the web, will like to ride up the Waterman trail to twin peaks to Chilao. Thanks for your help.
    If your gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    62
    The trail to twin peak is wilderness, so not legal.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: T.K. Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    70
    So the whole Waterman loop is legal?
    If your gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    103
    If the "loop" is up the dirt road and down the singletrack that drops down the north face, then yes, that part is legal.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    I belive that there is an old road bed that can be used to connect Watermen to the Camp Glenwood/6000' on hwy2 jct. The road bed is faint and follows a ridge line to the west of Mt. Watermens chair 2. It then connects with hwy 2 at a large turnout with bathrooms. From there you can connect to another old road bed on the same side(south) of the hwy to Three Points. My map is old and doesen't show the wilderness boundry but I think this is a legal ride.

  6. #6
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,694
    I tried to ride Waterman two weeks ago, still too much snow on the singletrack...I did Burkhart instead. It is too bad that we can't ride from Waterman down Twin Peaks Saddle Trail, then back to Three Points and Highway 2. It would less than 6 miles. Who makes these rules, that section of forest sees a couple of people a month.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by dstepper; 05-20-2006 at 10:21 PM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: T.K. Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    70
    I'm thinking of doing it anyway.
    If your gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: :solar:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    259
    That's great!
    Please don't post about here.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by dstepper
    Who makes these rules, that section of forest sees a couple of people a month.
    your federal congress made these rules back in 1964.

    see THE WILDERNESS ACT OF 1964 and all its glorious amendments.

  10. #10
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,694
    It was a rhetorical statement.

  11. #11
    Giant Robot
    Reputation: Dr Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    186
    Actually I'd say the problem is not the Wilderness Act itself but rather the decision in the early 1980s to group mountain bikes with motorized vehicles.

  12. #12
    kneecap
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by T.K. Castle
    I'm thinking of doing it anyway.
    Do it & let us know trail conditions. One of (many) problems with wilderness is lack of use resulting in trail & acess loss.

  13. #13
    cask conditioned
    Reputation: endo verendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    625

    Ok...let me get this straight...

    Quote Originally Posted by kneecap
    Do it & let us know trail conditions. One of (many) problems with wilderness is lack of use resulting in trail & acess loss.
    So what you're saying is that by riding trails that are closed to bikes it will somehow get them opened? Please explain.
    Buy a bell, help the trails....

    http://www.corbamtb.com/store/store.shtml

    where are we eating?

  14. #14
    kneecap
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,368
    No, they won't "ever" be available to the rock crushing tires of mountain bikes. I've been around long enough to see massive wilderness designations in calif., particullary in areas that used to be available for all user groups. Most of those trails just fade away from overgrowth & blowdown. So, no one uses them eventually.
    I don't see very much trail damage from MTB use, in fact many trail would disappear if not for some MTB use.
    I understand the desire to keep pristine lands as such, & really do respect nature, but I don't see how excluding almost all humans from natureal areas benefits them.
    Trails are just tiny threads through the land for the most part.

    Wow, I really got carried away there, just some thoughts.....

  15. #15
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,694
    Kneecap, why did you stop, it just started getting good.

  16. #16
    a.k.a. MTBMaven
    Reputation: mtnfiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by kneecap
    Most of those trails just fade away from overgrowth & blowdown. So, no one uses them eventually...in fact many trail would disappear if not for some MTB use.
    Case in point, Shortcut Canyon or Mt. Zion Trail. Both trails are very overgrown to the point that the trail almost disappears in several places. Myself, dstepper, and Pain Freak worked on the Mt. Zion Trail to help open the trail back up. The vegetation has completely grown over the original trail forcing the creation of adjunct trails, which are very weak and are causing erosion. This trail needs some love to get it back in shape and people to keep using it to keep vegetation at bay.

Posting Permissions

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