Results 1 to 43 of 43
  1. #1
    650b me
    Reputation: golden boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,347

    North Table Mountain Park Trailhead

    Direct from JCOS:

    Jefferson County Open Space will open the parking area to public use at North Table Mountain Park from Highway 93 north of Golden on Monday, June 21. Visitors will encounter areas of construction for the permanent restroom, kiosk and screening berm on the south end of the parking area and a trail bypass will connect the parking area to the formal, designated trails. The temporary kiosk will provide information about North Table Mountain Park and park brochures will also be available. Open Space encourages visitors to use and replace the brochures at the end of their visit. A park dedication event has not been scheduled at this time.

    Staff has placed signs within the park that identify designated trails, sensitive areas, seasonal closure areas and areas closed for restoration. Visitors are reminded to stay on designated trails to protect habitat, minimize resource damage, allow for restoration, and reduce the opportunity for weeds to take hold in disturbed areas. Trails crews will continue to improve treads, realign segments of old roads and construct new trails as part of the designated trail system over the next few years.

    For information on the Park Management Plan for North Table Mountain Park or other Open Space properties see the Web site, or call the Open Space office at 303-271-5925.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,943
    I remember riding up that service road (up from 93) before it was even re-worked, years ago. Now that was a sketchy grind. I had driven past it wondering "is that a road, where's it go". The next year they threw down a ton of road base to make it a nice smooth gut buster.

    Now permanent bathrooms.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  3. #3
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    I remember riding up that service road (up from 93) before it was even re-worked, years ago. Now that was a sketchy grind. I had driven past it wondering "is that a road, where's it go". The next year they threw down a ton of road base to make it a nice smooth gut buster.

    Now permanent bathrooms.

    *sigh*

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    I remember riding up that service road (up from 93) before it was even re-worked, years ago. Now that was a sketchy grind. I had driven past it wondering "is that a road, where's it go". The next year they threw down a ton of road base to make it a nice smooth gut buster.

    Now permanent bathrooms.

    I had the exact thought. The bathrooms are the kiss of death for a trail. White Ranch, Walker Ranch, Marshall Mesa....

    I remember the east parking for White Ranch when there was a gun club there and no houses at the bottom whatsoever. Walker before there was even a parking area on the Flagstaff side and the Crescent Meadows side had a cool old homestead with an abandoned Chevy and a totally different trail alignment. Marshall Mesa when it was just a sketch trail coming down from the ditch road, and you could ride it and not see anyone. Where the Marshall Mesa parking area is now was a liquor store and a restaurant.

    I also used to ride the Coalton "Trail" by Rock Creek when it was still Coalton Road and there was no Rock Creek. Of all the changes in the Boulder area in the 22 years since I moved here, the whole Rock Creek/Flatirons/Interlocken expansion thing still blows my mind. It was wide open except for a few houses and a gun club from McCaslin almost to Wadsworth. Of course, to the south you had at one point 8000 people working at Rocky Flats. It is still a little disconcerting to look across there and not see any buildings. Same goes for where StorageTek used to be along 36. There were 10,000 people working there at the peak.

    Of course, I've only been here 22 years. I know a lot of people who have lived here 40-50 years, and they, of course, have better stories like Boulder being a dry town(!!!) full of rednecks, and paying tolls on the Turnpike. One guy I know grew up on the south end of Boulder and he said they used to ride their Honda Mini-Trail dirt bikes from Boulder to Louisville on trails through what is now open space.

    Of course, things are better now. We have suspension and bathrooms.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    I remember the days when the stretch between Broomfield and Boulder was beautiful rolling hills. Now we have malls, office buildings and gridlock traffic. Oh well, at least they haven't developed the top of NTM, yet!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by brokefork
    I remember the days when the stretch between Broomfield and Boulder was beautiful rolling hills. Now we have malls, office buildings and gridlock traffic. Oh well, at least they haven't developed the top of NTM, yet!


    I read once that the top of NTM was an airstrip used for training pilots during WWII.....I can't find the reference now though.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    I rode NTM for the first time yesterday. Nice ride. I ran in to a biker there who told me the parking area was new (where did you park before?), and also new are all the logs and signs blocking 90% of the trails according to him.
    Well, he seemed upset about it and got me to agree that it was a shame that people couldn't use those trails any more, which would only make the remaining trails more crowded.
    Well I went to the web site today and the assessment of how much wildlife lives there, and saw a photo of how all the shortcutting on the mountain really cut up the land and it seems reasonable to me to try and restore some of that as it would effect wildlife.
    All the white lines on the photo are short cuts.
    More trails would be great, but I understand the need for managing it.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails North Table Mountain Park Trailhead-shortcutting.jpg  


  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flOw dOwn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve
    Well I went to the web site today and the assessment of how much wildlife lives there, and saw a photo of how all the shortcutting on the mountain really cut up the land and it seems reasonable to me to try and restore some of that as it would effect wildlife.
    Just playing the devil's advocate here, but don't most forms of "wildlife" create and use trails of some sort as a means of migration. How exactly does a trail harm wildlife? Heavy traffic on a trail may frighten some wildlife I suppose, but probably not a real significant impact. I imagine the wildlife in this area is relatively used to human inhabitance. Just a thought.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,943
    I never thought of any trail I rode up there as a "short cut". It went from somewhere to somewhere. If anything I had a few choice "short cuts" that were needed to finish a well rounded set of trails. Now...
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by flOw dOwn
    Just playing the devil's advocate here, but don't most forms of "wildlife" create and use trails of some sort as a means of migration. How exactly does a trail harm wildlife? Heavy traffic on a trail may frighten some wildlife I suppose, but probably not a real significant impact. I imagine the wildlife in this area is relatively used to human inhabitance. Just a thought.
    Yes, I was thinking about that too, and I'm no ecobrainiac or anything, but I think all those trails cutting through the grass might be just fine for deer, but not for bird nesting, rodents, reptiles etc.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    I never thought of any trail I rode up there as a "short cut". It went from somewhere to somewhere. If anything I had a few choice "short cuts" that were needed to finish a well rounded set of trails. Now...
    I admit some of those blocked trails I saw looked like they would be fun, and it seems that some at least could have been left open. But looking at the photo it does look a bit excessive, with some of those trails basically just paralleling others, etc.

    And I suppose that different rules apply depending on how the ecosystem is viewed in the area. Apparantly the ecosystem on NTM is kind of delicate.

    But on the web site it does say that there are plans for new trails in the future. It also says that some of the closed sensitive areas are seasonal closures I think.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    207
    Is the gravel service road still the only way to the top?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by iMMature
    Is the gravel service road still the only way to the top?
    There are 3 ways up to the top - more if you count trails that would be hiking trails.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steadyflow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,097
    Whatever jeffco blew it some of the trails left are unsustainable compared to trails that were closed that required no maintenance. I know this is a dead issue, bur jeffco f'd up on this one. They can try and justify it however they want but it will never make any sense to me. Hard to have an opinion when you never road there prior to the closures. Some of the trails were not sustainable, but at least 80 percent were.

  15. #15
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by steadyflow
    Whatever jeffco blew it some of the trails left are unsustainable compared to trails that were closed that required no maintenance. I know this is a dead issue, bur jeffco f'd up on this one. They can try and justify it however they want but it will never make any sense to me. Hard to have an opinion when you never road there prior to the closures. Some of the trails were not sustainable, but at least 80 percent were.

    I agree 100%. It's a shameful disaster. Not only did they close sustainable trails, they put signs every 10 feet on every trail, put logs everywhere, even where there were game trails (not even hike-able), and drove their trucks on every remaining piece of dirt road leaving ruts a foot deep. I'm sorry, but this is NOT a viable management plan. It looks more like the greenies wanted it shut down and this was the compromise. It's really sad and unfortunately, there are not enough people who really care about NTM to give a f*ck. I blame a certain person and his advocates of morons for this. And now he'll be wreaking havoc upon us from an even more powerful position. Watch out for Plan JeffCo folks, the wrecking ball cometh.

    But, I still try and see some beauty in what's left. *sigh*

    1. Reach for the sun.
    2. Are you single or just an illusion?
    3. Alas poor NTM, I knew him well.
    4. Skirts? No, one was a dude in a kilt.
    5. This sucks!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails North Table Mountain Park Trailhead-p1010131.jpg  

    North Table Mountain Park Trailhead-p1010135.jpg  

    North Table Mountain Park Trailhead-p1010140.jpg  

    North Table Mountain Park Trailhead-p1010143.jpg  

    North Table Mountain Park Trailhead-p1010144.jpg  


  16. #16
    Sanitized4YourProtection
    Reputation: David Banner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    I blame a certain person
    <----- PM(S)?


  17. #17
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by David Banner
    <----- PM(S)?


  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,943
    Well, to all of you who never rode up there till now, after this debacle, I want to gloat and say that last spring/ early summer I made a point to ride every possible track up there and to get up on top from every possible angle.

    Some tracks started out real faint but stayed rideable, others disappeared into a sea of cactus but sure looked like they could benefit from a little trailwork to continue them (and that would have been a good thing).

    Yeah, these tracks were all over but they were there for a purpose, whether it be game trails or citizen trails that were made for good reasons. I would envision a whole network up there so's we could ride loops hither and yon.

    I don't think I even want to go up there again to see what it's become. Maybe hiking it won't seem so onerous.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Nice pics!

  20. #20
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy

    I don't think I even want to go up there again to see what it's become. Maybe hiking it won't seem so onerous.
    Except that hikers are not allowed off trail either. That's why there are "trails closed" signs, everywhere! It wasn't exactly the prettiest trails before and now it's sign happy ugly. It's sensitive area now. Even with the rusty polls sticking out of the ground all over the place. I had to remind a few hikers yesterday that they shouldn't be off trail. They wanted to sit at the southeastern edge of the mesa. Nope.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steadyflow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,097
    Nice pics; I do still ride up there and enjoy it, but it is sad. I have noticed the vehicle damage as well and was thinking the same thing earlier in the week.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,943
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    Except that hikers are not allowed off trail either. That's why there are "trails closed" signs, everywhere! It wasn't exactly the prettiest trails before and now it's sign happy ugly. It's sensitive area now. Even with the rusty polls sticking out of the ground all over the place. I had to remind a few hikers yesterday that they shouldn't be off trail. They wanted to sit at the southeastern edge of the mesa. Nope.
    Someday, when I get around to it, I'll post up a retrospective of all the trails I took pics of. Walking down memory lane.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  23. #23
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    Except that hikers are not allowed off trail either. That's why there are "trails closed" signs, everywhere! It wasn't exactly the prettiest trails before and now it's sign happy ugly. It's sensitive area now. Even with the rusty polls sticking out of the ground all over the place. I had to remind a few hikers yesterday that they shouldn't be off trail. They wanted to sit at the southeastern edge of the mesa. Nope.
    I don't think it's an issue of the trails being sustainable or not as much as what trails bring, people with dogs.

    Dogs are natural predators to most animals and do not stay on the trail. So animals such as ground nesting birds and deer, who would normally not be affected by people on a trail, suddenly have something to worry about.

    BTW, It was very interesting last week at Cheyenne Mountain State Park. Dogs and horses are not allowed in the park, and during the women's Pro race there was both a black bear and mountain lion seen on the course.... even with all the noise.

    And even though this park has some of the poorest soil around for trail building, the trails remain in great condition from lack of equestrian usage. i.e soil compaction and increased erosion.

    If I didn't have to drive to get there, plus pay $6 to get in, I would ride it more often.

    IMHO if people were really serious about preserving wildlife the first thing to go would be the dogs.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,242
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail
    I don't think it's an issue of the trails being sustainable or not as much as what trails bring, people with dogs.

    Dogs are natural predators to most animals and do not stay on the trail. So animals such as ground nesting birds and deer, who would normally not be affected by people on a trail, suddenly have something to worry about.

    IMHO if people were really serious about preserving wildlife the first thing to go would be the dogs.
    This is absolutely retarded. There are so many arguments against your "point" here, that it isn't even worth listing.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Sounds like a reasonable point to me. Some sensitive areas don't allow dogs, like Roxborough, But, then a gain, they don't allow bikes either.
    I guess the thing I'm wondering about, is why NTM is so sensitive. It looks like a pretty boring run of the mill hill to me. A good candidate for some trails. Preserve the hill next to it. If a contractor wanted to build some tract homes on a similar hill, the controversy would be much less it seems.

  26. #26
    650b me
    Reputation: golden boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,347
    Personally, I don't understand the trail closures. They seemed fine to me...not eroding, not "sensitive areas." I haven't had the heart to ride there since my wife told me about the trail closures.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    183
    A few thoughts:
    • UT is correct - there is a lot of science out there on the impacts of trails (not bikes, just people) on critters. In general, the more open, undistrubed blocks of habitat, the better. (I research this stuff for my job).
    • And yes, dogs compound the problem. (Except for mine, of course)
    • As far as I understand JCOS regs, anyone can go off trail anywhere unless it is specifically prohibited. By that rationale, you can walk your bike wherever you want.
    • As I pointed out on another thread, there are some sensitive plant and wildlife areas up there. It may not be important to you, but it is a management proirity for open space agencies.
    • Not to defend Plan Jeffco's anti-biking stance (if that is their stance), but without those folks there would be no open space or trails to fight over.
      I haven't been up there since the new trails/closures have been in effect, so I can't comment on those. I'm sure for the regulars, any loss of your favorite trail sucks, regardless of the reasoning.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gotdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,314
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    I don't think I even want to go up there again
    hmmm... seems i've heard that sentiment about apex these days, too.

    if one didn't know better, one might think maybe this was an ingenious plan by the powers-that-be-- "soft closures", i.e., no need to explicitly close trails to bikes and deal w/ the backlash, just manage 'em so nobody wants to ride there anymore...

    n'ah, i'm sure that can't be what's happening... just an unexpected outcome i s'pose.
    -
    .And following our will and wind . . .
    . . .We'll ride the spiral to the end
    and may just go where no one's been.

  29. #29
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by gotdirt
    just manage 'em so nobody wants to ride there anymore...
    Count me as a casualty.

  30. #30
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrambler
    A few thoughts:
    • UT is correct - there is a lot of science out there on the impacts of trails (not bikes, just people) on critters. In general, the more open, undistrubed blocks of habitat, the better. (I research this stuff for my job).
    • And yes, dogs compound the problem. (Except for mine, of course)
    • As far as I understand JCOS regs, anyone can go off trail anywhere unless it is specifically prohibited. By that rationale, you can walk your bike wherever you want.
    • As I pointed out on another thread, there are some sensitive plant and wildlife areas up there. It may not be important to you, but it is a management proirity for open space agencies.
    • Not to defend Plan Jeffco's anti-biking stance (if that is their stance), but without those folks there would be no open space or trails to fight over.
      I haven't been up there since the new trails/closures have been in effect, so I can't comment on those. I'm sure for the regulars, any loss of your favorite trail sucks, regardless of the reasoning.
    I never see that many dogs up there.

    Hiking off trail is prohibited on NTM (now - it wasn't last year). I am not kidding about the amount of sensitive area signs and we have been asked to inform people of it.

    As for wildlife and plants, I don't think there are any more than were there 30 years ago. At that time it was being used for everything under the sun. Antenna, radar, quarry, etc. Before that, I believe it was being used for farming (volcanic soil). The lichen fields are supposed to be unique. I really don't know anything about that, but what good is having a natural wonder if no one can get near it? I don't think having a trail that goes through it is all that bad (as long as people stay on the trail).

    If Plan JeffCo could have blocked all use, they would have. I'm sure it was something about taxation without representation. Guess what? Now you have representation on it, or do you (bwahahaha)?

    Anyway. When I'm volunteering, I will support the organization I do the work for and their management plan. However, I don't have to agree with it and I would certainly like to get it changed. Management plans are not permanent, but they do require people to act in order to change.

  31. #31
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan
    This is absolutely retarded. There are so many arguments against your "point" here, that it isn't even worth listing.
    Ditto.

    We eradicate all the predators so that most of these animals have nearly no natural enemies, then we say that an occasional dog passing through is a danger to the ecosystem.

    Who are the Fu**ing morons that you people vote into office or whatever position they're in that are allowed to make these kinds of decisions?? How do people that are this stupid survive in this world? We need more natural predators to take care of the stupid people.

    Every time I read about the bullSh** that people down there do in regards to trails it makes me want to puke. How do these people keep making the same decisions without anyone doing anything?

    Oh yeah, you guys have comba building 4 miles of trail in 4 years to make up for it right??? WTF???

    Sorry for the rant, this kind of thing makes me SOOOOOOO happy I live up here. Comba & Jcos are made for each other & belong down at the bottom of the hill.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    I never see that many dogs up there.

    Hiking off trail is prohibited on NTM (now - it wasn't last year). I am not kidding about the amount of sensitive area signs and we have been asked to inform people of it.

    As for wildlife and plants, I don't think there are any more than were there 30 years ago. At that time it was being used for everything under the sun. Antenna, radar, quarry, etc. Before that, I believe it was being used for farming (volcanic soil). The lichen fields are supposed to be unique. I really don't know anything about that, but what good is having a natural wonder if no one can get near it? I don't think having a trail that goes through it is all that bad (as long as people stay on the trail).

    If Plan JeffCo could have blocked all use, they would have. I'm sure it was something about taxation without representation. Guess what? Now you have representation on it, or do you (bwahahaha)?

    Anyway. When I'm volunteering, I will support the organization I do the work for and their management plan. However, I don't have to agree with it and I would certainly like to get it changed. Management plans are not permanent, but they do require people to act in order to change.
    I kind of agree with you on all of the above points, but here's the devil's advocate response, just for fun

    1. My experiance has been not too many dogs 'cause there's lots of snakes. Of course, that is the only place my dog has chased wildlife. (we are all part of the problem).

    2. Impacts of a generation ago don't excuse impacts now. Back then, the whole Front Range was open country with plenty of room for wildlife, homes, antennae, strip mines, etc. Now, open space is becoming the last remaining reservoirs of natural area on the FR. It's a matter of personal values whether habitat conservation matters to you, but it is the driving force between OS conservation (and taxes to pay for it) and the trails we enjoy. There is nothing wrong with people out there on trails, IMO, regardless of their motivation.

    3. Its no secret that recreation and trails is a selling point for OS taxes. The amount of trails and types of recreation that are appropriate will be a lively debate forever.

    4. Kudos to you for volunteering, and your philosophical approach makes sense. I wasn't paying very close attention during the MP process, but it sounds like it was a bit of a CF and has certainly has its shortcomings.

    Once I get up there (probably not 'til fall) I'll get make my own opinions on what they're doing. Maybe I'll start my own rant then!

  33. #33
    skillz to pay billz
    Reputation: nOOby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,554
    parking lots, not trails.

  34. #34
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by nOOby
    parking lots, not trails.
    Very true. With the money they spent on the NTM parking lot (at a park hat will still not be heavily visited), they could have bought a nice piece of land for bike specific trails.

  35. #35
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    Ditto.
    We eradicate all the predators so that most of these animals have nearly no natural enemies, then we say that an occasional dog passing through is a danger to the ecosystem.
    Huh?
    Just what exactly do you think a dog/cat is to a deer? or quail? or pheasants? All of which are on top of NTM, and take refuge there in the winter. Do you even know what dogs were bred for? Clue, it wasn't to be your best friend.

    http://www.friendsofboulderopenspace...ommunities.pdf

    Abstract
    Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are frequent visitors to open space areas, but
    little is known about their ecological impacts. We studied the effects of dogs on wildlife
    by comparing the activity levels of wildlife in areas that prohibit dogs, with areas that
    allow dogs off-leash under “voice and sight” control. To measure wildlife activity both on
    trail and up to 200 m off-trail, we used four methods: pellet surveys, scented tracking
    plates, remote triggered cameras, and on-trail scat surveys. Additionally, in prairie dog
    (Cyonomys ludocivianus) colonies we measured the distances of prairie dog burrows to the
    nearest trail, and compared the density of prairie dog burrows between areas with and
    without dogs. The presence of dogs along recreational trails correlated with altered
    patterns of habitat utilization by several wildlife species. Mule deer (Odocoileus
    hemionus) activity was significantly lower in proximity to trails in areas that allow dogs,
    and this effect extended at least 100 m off-trail. Small mammals, including squirrels
    (Sciurus spp.), rabbits (Sylviagus spp.), chipmunks (Eutamias spp.), and mice (Peromyscus
    spp., Reithrodontomys spp., Onychomys spp., Zapus spp.), also exhibited reduced levels of
    activity in proximity to trails in areas with dogs, and this effect extended at least 50 m offtrail.
    Furthermore, the density of prairie dog burrows was lower within 25 m of trails in
    areas that allow dogs. The presence of dogs also affected carnivore activity, although in
    varying ways. Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) detections were higher in areas that allowed dogs,
    and bobcat (Felis rufus) detections were lower. These findings have implications for the
    management of natural areas regarding dog policies, particularly those that allow dogs offleash."

  36. #36
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    Yes, dogs are predators, my point was there ARE NO natural predators around there anymore, we killed all the wolves & mtn lions (ok, not all, but they're not common down there), so the animals are in an unnatural state anyhow. Then you whine about a dog who is domesticated, trained, and is generally going to stay relatively close to the trail (if your dog doesn't, you shouldn't have it off leash). Isn't there a leash law down in the shity anyhow?


    Sorry, but closing down trails because people might bring their dogs along is a moron move, just like 90% of what happens down at the bottom of the hill when it comes to "open space" & trails.

    Btw, wildlife has to modify it's behavior for many reasons all the time. You want to make a difference... Leave the trails open & stop the next subdivision. Do you live somewhere where wildlife is unable to move in it's natural state? You're part of the problem too.

    I love when people in the shity talk about wildlife patterns in the 25 acres of "open space" surrounded by shity... yeah, that's all sorts of natural.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  37. #37
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    Yes, dogs are predators, my point was there ARE NO natural predators around there anymore, we killed all the wolves & mtn lions (ok, not all, but they're not common down there), so the animals are in an unnatural state anyhow. Then you whine about a dog who is domesticated, trained, and is generally going to stay relatively close to the trail (if your dog doesn't, you shouldn't have it off leash). Isn't there a leash law down in the shity anyhow?


    Sorry, but closing down trails because people might bring their dogs along is a moron move, just like 90% of what happens down at the bottom of the hill when it comes to "open space" & trails.

    Btw, wildlife has to modify it's behavior for many reasons all the time. You want to make a difference... Leave the trails open & stop the next subdivision. Do you live somewhere where wildlife is unable to move in it's natural state? You're part of the problem too.

    I love when people in the shity talk about wildlife patterns in the 25 acres of "open space" surrounded by shity... yeah, that's all sorts of natural.
    This whole point is moot. Dogs are not allowed of leash on NTM.

  38. #38
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    This whole point is moot. Dogs are not allowed of leash on NTM.

    That's what I thought (I used to climb there a lot). I'm sure there are plenty of people not following that law, but honestly you can't tell me that this is a significant enough issue to close down a bunch of trails. Thx for the clarification.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  39. #39
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    That's what I thought (I used to climb there a lot). I'm sure there are plenty of people not following that law, but honestly you can't tell me that this is a significant enough issue to close down a bunch of trails. Thx for the clarification.
    No, not the reason. Apparently it is a plan that was negotiated five years ago. TUTF was involved. Our interests represented once again.

  40. #40
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    No, not the reason. Apparently it is a plan that was negotiated five years ago. TUTF was involved. Our interests represented once again.
    Ok, as much fun as it is talking smack about you flatlanders... I'm curious what you guys can do to actually have SOME kind of say in how things are done? It seems to me, from the outside looking in, that there is almost zero accountability when it comes to how decisions are made. Every time I look at a trail situation down there the decisions are about 100% against the interests of the mtb community. Are we really that small a % of the user group that we deserve to be on the losing end of nearly everything that happens?

    Or is it people like uncle trail that help explain to the rest of the folks why we should close trails??? UT, if I'm just reading you wrong, sorry about that, but it sure seems like you're stoked that trails are being closed & you feel that it's a good idea. I just plain can't agree with you if that's your standpoint.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  41. #41
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by backcountryislife
    I love when people in the shity talk about wildlife patterns in the 25 acres of "open space" surrounded by shity... yeah, that's all sorts of natural.
    You're completely right, NTM is not natural. That's the point. It's a refuge for "a resident population of about 80-100 mule deer, golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and prairie falcons as well as a small population of prairie dogs. Shore birds and ducks can be found around the three ponds that dot the top of the mountain."
    http://www.co.jefferson.co.us/opensp...ce_T56_R28.htm

    And I guess the 1200 acre ranch I grew up on was all in my imagination.... silly me.

    And the unwanted pets that were dropped off on our doorstep were too... ? and watching our wildlife disappear due to those unwanted pets? Feral pets kill for fun you know. There's no dogs catcher out in BFE. It's up to the private property owner to take care of problems.

    Nope, it's not pleasant shooting a dog or cat trying to kill wild animals, and then finding a flea collar on it. I know what it feels like. It makes you mad at irresponsible people because well, the pet can't. Someone has to speak up. I'm not afraid to.

    And, off-leash rules? Who follows the rules? You know better than that... all it takes is for one rabbit or mule deer chase, and fido is gone forever... and a herd of deer could be too. It's a fact that Fido will become feral within 2 weeks in the wild, and that herd of deer could be wiped out within a few months, for Fido's fun.(another fact and witnessed first hand by me.)

    Take a trip to the Pikes Peak animal shelter. 90% of the unwanted pets are pit bull mixes.
    http://www.hsppr.org/Page.aspx?pid=241
    Imagine those roaming around the countryside. Hell, they just killed 58,000 dogs in Iraq. Why do you think they did that? Why would man kill 58,000 of "man's best friends"?

    You see, my position has nothing to do with riding a bike.
    I like dogs too. Probably more than the average pet owner, that's why I'm so passionate about this topic. But that's also why IMHO house pets don't belong in OS. Well trained working dogs, yes. House pets, no. What's going on today with yuppie pets, pet overpopulation and puppy mills is sickening. Please leave your pets at home or take them to an urban park. That's all I'm saying.

    You don't have to like it. I've posted factual evidence to support my position. You've only replied with insults because you don't like the message. If you choose to ignore it well then that's your own business. Just don't expect me to shut-up until the issue is acknowledged and addressed by those who make decisions.

    One last thing and I'll leave you alone... if you leave fido at home, one day you just might discover that wildlife aren't as afraid of humans as some people might have you believe. Even less so of people on bikes, or in cars, that's why road hunting is illegal... think about it. What you've been taught to believe by Hollywood and advertisers, might not be true. Imagine that...

  42. #42
    killin clear creek
    Reputation: backcountryislife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    759
    I think you & I agree about 99% of what we're talking about here, most of what you say I agree with completely. My dog goes with my wife whenever she hikes, living in one of the most heavily populated mtn lion habitats in the country, she doesn't go out for a hike around here without the dog & a stun gun!! (neighbor dogs have been killed & neighbors have been stalked a number of times) Dogs don't have to be working dogs to be trained though, they just need to be trained. A dog that is not trained is a nuisance. Btw, my dog came from the local shelter... not gonna be assisting the puppy mills here.

    I can't speak for all, but since my dog sees deer & other animals on a daily basis he has learned that he isn't allowed to chase after them (aside from the chipmunk that lives in the woodpile..., he's gotta have a LITTLE fun right?? )

    That said, I'm still going to have to disagree with you about trail closures. The comments you make about feral/loose animals seem to me to show that it wouldn't matter where the trails are then. If a dog runs off, it'll go wherever it wants, trails or not. I agree with the general issue, I just don't feel that trail closure has anything at all to do with a solution.
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    How about we take the "let it burn approach" with the rotting cesspool of the Denver metro?

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    On an almost related topic (related to dogs and rules, anyway), the coolest dog park I have seen is at Chatfield, and I heard they are going to ruin it by fencing it in. I've been there a few times and it is a blast to see the dogs running around in semi-anarchy. I never saw a problem there. It just seems like when government has control of something, then the desire for more and more control never ends. I don't know why they can't just leave it the eff alone.

Posting Permissions

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