Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 76
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    53

    Danville Georgetown Potential MTB Restrictions

    I went to a trail use meeting sponsored by King County regarding the future use of the Danville Georgetown natural area. This area has many trails maintained by the Backcountry Horseman of Washington, and is frequently used as an equestrian riding area.

    Some folks within the equestrian community (not necessarily the BCH) are proposing to close the trails to mountain bike use due to the challenges of horse / bike encounters. They didn't have a lot of specific examples of issues that have taken place at Danville Georgetown, but some had bad encounters at other horse / bike trails.

    The equestrian group's proposal is to make the Danville Georgetown area a horse training area for new riders and new horses to learn how to trail ride, and then eventually the horses can start to use mixed use trails where they will encounter bikes.

    Considerable opposition came from the folks involved with the mountain bike club at the school. While a special use permit could be issued to allow the school to continue doing events there, it'd be harder to run the program & kids wouldn't be able to practice during non-sauctioned times.

    I'm not sure what they are going to do. The horseman made a strong showing and convincing arguments, and the bike community (who have voluntarily refrained from using the trails) was smaller in numbers. I'm not opposed to voluntarily refraining from trail use but don't like rules against mountain bikes becoming part of King County Code.

    They're taking public comment through early May, and it might be extended if they don't think they've gathered enough comments. Please send me a note if you want the information on how to comment on this proposal.
    Last edited by cycling_engineer; 04-25-2013 at 09:13 PM.

  2. #2
    That Waters Guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    596
    The King County Executive Horse Council (who?!) web site lists this as open to bikes:

    KCEHC Trail Guide

    But yes, I would like a chance to comment.
    Rolland

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    53
    The link to the trail meeting is below:

    April 18: Public comment sought on Danville-Georgetown, Henry?s Ridge open space trail plans

    David Kimmett is the person who is taking comments. You can e-mail him at the address on the website shown.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    349
    Let me provide a bit of clarity on the topic since I was at the meeting also and I have been in the middle of this. I met with the current president of the BCH and two members at my house along with the Director of Evergreen 6 weeks ago. We collectively agreed to continue with the "informal" agreement that "mountain bikers ride at Henry's Ridge" and "equestrians ride at DG". This agreement has been in place for a number of years. The enhancement that we included in the letter to the county was to post some signage at each site noting who built and maintains the trails and note which user group predominantly uses the trails.

    The signed proposal was with the Tahoma branch of the BCH that built and maintains the trails at DG. The opposing equestrian opinions were predominantly from a group out of Enumclaw. The Enumclaw group is the one pushing to keep the bikes out. Not sure about you but I would prefer to ride trails built by mountain bikers for mountain bikers and that I what Henry's Ridge provides. I think the only real exception to this agreement is there is a mountain bike club at the junior high that uses the trails at DG once a week for about an hour. Then there are a handful of neighbors to DG that occasionally ride at DG. Other than that I am not really sure who rides bikes there or really would want to.

    Evergreen should be pushing out a news blurb with info on how to provide public comment.

  5. #5
    That Waters Guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit Ridge Guy View Post
    Not sure about you but I would prefer to ride trails built by mountain bikers for mountain bikers and that I what Henry's Ridge provides.
    Yes, totally. I didn't mean to indicate that I was not supportive of previous agreements, high school kids, or heck, even horse people.

    Frankly the horse folks have largely been mostly reasonable of late. I look forward to the day when we can say the same about the (pr)Issy Alps people!


    Rolland
    Rolland

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    53
    If I mixed up the horseman's group, that's my bad and I apologize to the BCH folks that may see this. There were many groups - several which represented horse users - and I may have gotten them mixed up. I did hear the president of BCH stand up and say that he did not favor restricting public access from public lands. (i.e., he thought mountain bikers had the same rights to using land as equestrian.)

    The part that concerned me at hte meeting was the vast majority of those speaking were in favor of closing Danville Georgetown to mountain bikes. Those who wanted it left open to mountain bikes were in the minority. Even among the non-speakers, several people from the horse community talked to me and wondered why bikers needed to bike "everywhere" and how it was a "safety issue" to have bikes and horses on the same trail. I pointed out that horses can ride wilderness trails, and they said, "well, those are a bit of a drive to get to."

    Not sure about you but I would prefer to ride trails built by mountain bikers for mountain bikers and that I what Henry's Ridge provides.
    Yes, I agree. I have no need to ride Danville Georgetown and don't plan to in the future. And I think the voluntary agreement is perfect.

    However, I don't think this voluntary agreement should become law.
    Last edited by cycling_engineer; 04-25-2013 at 03:55 PM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tarekith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    What about an every other day thing like Middlefork?
    Tarekith.com

    '12 RM Slayer70, i9 Torch, Flow EX, XT Brakes, 5050 s3.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    53
    (I wrote a post and then decided I'd hold off, so it's gone now.)

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tarekith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    In all honesty, I completely agree with you. I think if more user groups started to have their own trails, especially if they are the ones maintaining them, that we'd all be better off. There's more than enough opportunity to share trails, having some place you can go and not have to worry everything that goes along with that just calms people nerves.

    I think that's one big reason Duthie is so popular. It's not just the incredible trails, but that we can ride them however we want without having to worry about spooking hroses, or running over hikers.
    Tarekith.com

    '12 RM Slayer70, i9 Torch, Flow EX, XT Brakes, 5050 s3.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    457
    Just to add a bit more perspective. I too agree the trails should not be multi use especially between horses and bikes. I don't recall wether Tiger is still open to horses but I believe it is. How many of you want to see horses out there? I have in the past but I think for the most part they avoid it. But if you go to the Taylor Mt. (Hobart) area you will see plenty and if you pay attention to the residences of the area you will understand why. I say let them have the George Town area. I think as Mt. Bikers we are getting a lot of positive support from the powers to be. A lot of the areas that we all like were established by hikers and equestrions long before Mt. Bikes.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    318
    Anything we can ride, horses can go except Duthie. My family have worked with locals at Danville and I know some of the BCH people. Only people who dislike bikes are outsiders to the area.

  12. #12
    Justin Vander Pol
    Reputation: juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,595
    I am going to present the argument for opposing the policy of defined areas that are single-use. I've been hearing this more and more, and there's some real downsides to this policy for us as bikers.

    This is a very dangerous path to go down if it becomes land owner policy, and will result in reduced trail mileage for mountain bikers. It's the reason we can't ride much of Tiger - this culture of separated uses is nothing but bad for us.

    Yes, there needs to be exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Certain trails should be hiker only, biker only, or horse only. Bridle Trails should be horse only and Duthie bike only. But if we start going down a path of separated uses in defined areas, we lose trails.

    The trail planning for Reiter Forest is a great case study for this. They drew shapes on a maps defining certain areas for certain uses. There is a nice perimeter trail that could be multi-use that would be an amazing and long ride, with views, good terrain, etc. But because of the horse only blurb it would need to go through (on the perimeter), it's a total non starter. The separated uses killed this possibility.

    Also think about Tiger. There are hiker-only trails that are infrequently used by hikers. I think they would be much better as multi-user trails that we could ride.

    This is why supporting a policy of separated use will mean we lose a lot of future trail mileage. Shared use with sensible single-use trails where appropriate is a much better design.

    Keep in mind that governments are inherently bound to rules and lack flexibility. Policies can have unintended consequences, and the potential for negative consequences are high with a policy of separated uses.

  13. #13
    That Waters Guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by juice View Post
    Keep in mind that governments are inherently bound to rules and lack flexibility. Policies can have unintended consequences, and the potential for negative consequences are high with a policy of separated uses.
    What Justin said!
    Rolland

  14. #14
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,497
    Spot on. The default should be every trail open to every user, with restrictions applied on a case by case basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by juice View Post
    I am going to present the argument for opposing the policy of defined areas that are single-use. I've been hearing this more and more, and there's some real downsides to this policy for us as bikers.

    This is a very dangerous path to go down if it becomes land owner policy, and will result in reduced trail mileage for mountain bikers. It's the reason we can't ride much of Tiger - this culture of separated uses is nothing but bad for us.

    Yes, there needs to be exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Certain trails should be hiker only, biker only, or horse only. Bridle Trails should be horse only and Duthie bike only. But if we start going down a path of separated uses in defined areas, we lose trails.

    The trail planning for Reiter Forest is a great case study for this. They drew shapes on a maps defining certain areas for certain uses. There is a nice perimeter trail that could be multi-use that would be an amazing and long ride, with views, good terrain, etc. But because of the horse only blurb it would need to go through (on the perimeter), it's a total non starter. The separated uses killed this possibility.

    Also think about Tiger. There are hiker-only trails that are infrequently used by hikers. I think they would be much better as multi-user trails that we could ride.

    This is why supporting a policy of separated use will mean we lose a lot of future trail mileage. Shared use with sensible single-use trails where appropriate is a much better design.

    Keep in mind that governments are inherently bound to rules and lack flexibility. Policies can have unintended consequences, and the potential for negative consequences are high with a policy of separated uses.

  15. #15
    That Waters Guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    596
    I haven't seen anybody post the official comment process. It's kind of cumbersome but I sent mine any anyway:

    1. Submit your comments at the end of the meeting
    2. Mail to: King County Parks, Attn: David Kimmett, 201 S. Jackson St. # 700, Seattle, WA 98104-3855
    3. Email to david.kimmett@kingcounty.gov
    a. Scan and send email
    b. Download comment form and send email
    4. Comment forms available at: http://edit.kingcounty.gov/recreatio...ewardship.aspx

    PLEASE SUBMIT BY NO LATER THAN MAY 7, 2013. THANK YOU.
    Rolland

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    53
    If the forms seem a bit too tedious, you can just e-mail your comments to David Kimmett. He takes those as well, and it's a lot easier!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    365

    Comment by May 7th on Possible King County Trails Bicycle Closure near Black Diamond

    Hey Folks,
    Here's more background on this issue and how best to respond, courtesy of Glenn Glover, Executive Director at Evergreen. Please do take action!

    Thanks for supporting the cause!!

    Stacy
    ---

    Comment by May 7th on Possible King County Trails
    Bicycle Closure in Black Diamond Area


    King County is considering amending the management plans for two properties in the Black Diamond area: Henry's Ridge used mainly by mountain bikers, and Danville Georgetown, used primarily by horse riders.

    The county has received strong pressure from a small group of equestrians that want Parks to officially close Danville Georgetown to bicycles, arguing that there aren't enough areas for them to ride their horses without having to deal with bikes. We believe the current voluntary separation effort is working well, and that creating a formal closure is not a wise choice.

    Please take a minute to let King County know your thoughts...

    Specifically, mention that carving up our parks between users is a poor use of resources which in the long run could result in reduced access for our fast growing sport. Let them also know that you support multi-use trails and that you want the county to encourage the many positive benefits of having communities sharing, and caring for, their great trail resource together.

    Click here to download the comment form: http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/libr...3_pub_mtg.docx
    then fill it out and submit it right away. The public comment period ends this Tuesday, May 7th!

    More background on this issue...

    For years there has been a voluntary effort by both user groups asking our respective users to avoid the other area as much as possible. Evergreen has supported this but has drawn the line at asking the local middle school riding club to keep out of Danville Georgetown, or expecting local residents not to ride trails through the area to get to Henry's Ridge.

    This is NOT a battle with the equestrian community in general. We have a very good working relationship with horse riders around the state. In fact there is significant support within the equestrian community, including the Backcountry Horsemen of Washington - Tahoma Chapter, for continuing the system that has worked very well for years: voluntary separation

    So if a voluntary separation is working well, why oppose a Parks regulation that would mandate closures for each group? Because this is setting a very bad precedent - managing for a non-existent conflict and closing another area to bicycles.

    At a recent public meeting on this issue only two incidents of conflict were raised by the many equestrians in attendance and none of them had occurred at Danville Georgetown. Remember that there are other areas and other groups that may be standing next in line to close public lands to us.

    You can learn more about the proposals being considered here: http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/libr...y-mar30-11.pdf
    Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance
    sustainable trails. rider powered.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    There is some truth to the above and some clarity needed. Equestrians being kicked off the trails has become a way of life for the equestrians. This is in sharp contrast to the success of mountain bike access. There are some shocking statistics. Why Duthie Hill used to belong to an equestrian and equestrians built the trails! Many equestrians are okay with shared-use, but many others have special needs and are afraid that the bikes will take over Danville, just like they have populated many trail systems. Case in point, Taylor is multi-use and historically the bikes stayed on Tiger and the horses stayed on Taylor. Now there is a bike race planned for Taylor and the flood gates will open, making many equestrians scared for their lives. Another case in point is Tiger Mountain where the horse people built the trails and now have been pushed to a small loop. As far as the school use goes, no one is trying to stop the bike club from using the trails for their meets. The horse people have also proposed a trail from the school to the rest of the bike trails slightly north. Plus the school has 30 acres that they could build an awesome park they could use 24/7 but have chosen not to do so. It is the horse people who keep losing and are trying to hang on to what little they have left. I am glad folks are getting out there. I think multi-use usually works. But this racing business is going to start a problem. The bikes have become dirt bikes without motors and we all know what happened to the dirt bike access.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    318
    Don't forget that horses can use any trail that we have use of, except Duthie, we lost all of Cougar mountain, which have many horse trails. We have lost all of Squak mountain which is open to horses. We have lost most of Tiger mountain and now just regaining some trails back. I do not buy that horses are losing trails. Please tell me if I'm wrong and which trails they are losing.

    As a former horseman (first 21 yrs of my life), I understand how to be around horses. Talk to the horse and riders and if you are scared and unsure on what to do, ask the rider. Most I come across want and need your help to acclimate their animal. The horse I rode 35 yrs ago was used to dirt bike and shotguns. Training is the key.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    King County property: 96 miles of bike/no horses. 12 miles of horse/no bike. This does not include Danville-Georgetown and Henry's Ridge, which are being discussed at this time. Henry's Ridge already has a memorandum of understanding from the county that it will be developed as a mountain bike park using mountain bike trail building standards (IBMA Guide to Sweet Single Track Trails), which are not suitable or safe for horses. I have another statistic, but I don't yet have the details, which is that horses lost access to 10 area (county?) parks in the last decade.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    318
    Where do horses have no access in King County and we do??

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    53
    I think Sven's question is valid and should be answered. I think the 96 miles that allows bikes but does not allow horses while only 12 miles that allow horses and do not allow bikes is hogwash.

    The only place that King County policy prohibits horses, to my knowledge, is Duthie Hill.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Duthie Hill, Tolt McDonald, Pinnacle Peak, Cavanaugh Pond, Burke-Gilman, Lake Sammamish Trail (all but a couple miles), Cedar River (most), Green River (most), Interurban, Marymoore, and informally at Henry's Ridge. No trailer parking at Grand Ridge, limited trailer parking at Soaring Eagle, Maury Island, Black Diamond Natural Area. The 12 miles is on Cougar Mountain. The State has been more generous, I believe to us both (?). The important thing here than I am trying to be sure you all are getting both sides of the story regarding Danville and Henry's Ridge. Most horse people have no problem with shared-use. But there are those who have kids or have physical challenges where a run-in with a racer could prove disasterous. It would be nice to have a choice.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Bingaman Pond, Soos Creek (has been paved with a little bit of soft surface)

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    318
    Thanks for the clarification No Wheel, but I would not consider the rail trails mountain bike trails. Also any paved trail is not a mountain bike trail.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kliemann53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    245
    The rim trail at mud mtn. is open to bikes and not horses(4 miles).

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    These are places that equestrians have been restricted by King County policy. Isn't restriction the issue you are discussing? This thread is about Danville-Georgetown; however, the hole story is also about Henry's Ridge. Equestrians will be losing Henry's Ridge. Maybe there won't be a restriction; but IMBA Standards, rather than multi-use standards, restricts equines. Mountain bikers want Danville-Georgetown, too. Seems greedy to me and not shared. Shared means either you share the same thing, or you split stuff. (1) These two lands used to be the same parcel until King County split them in two (Maple Ridge Highlands, June 2012 Ord. 17346), (2) King County Parks signed an MOU with EMBA agreeing to a mountain bike park, (3) public comment about Danville-Georgetown without bothering to mention the MOU, (4) make equestrians the bad guys for trying to get this information out.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    whole, not hole. duh

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    53
    Mountain bikers want Danville-Georgetown, too. Seems greedy to me and not shared.
    No, that is not what I want, nor what most other folks want. We would rather bike at Henry's Ridge where the trails were built by mountain bikers rather than ride on trails built by equestrians.

    What I believe is the best option to segregate the users is through voluntary efforts by both the equestrian and mountain bike communities. If those efforts are not working, it'd be great if someone would say something and the user groups work with each other to improve signage, communciation, or education to improve the experience that both user groups have.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Then why is there a mountain bike race at Taylor Mountain?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    318
    I do not think it would be a good idea to race on Taylor. BCH has put a ton of work into the trails and it would be annoying to the trail builders.

  32. #32
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,497

    Danville Georgetown Potential MTB Restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by no wheel View Post
    Then why is there a mountain bike race at Taylor Mountain?
    Are you confusing running races put on by evergreen trail runs with mountain bike races put on by evergreen mountain bike alliance? A mountain bike race at Taylor is news to me.

    Trails on public land should be open to everyone IMO.
    If it's not powered solely by you, it's a motorcycle.

    Worshiping at the Church of Singletrack since 1993.

  33. #33
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,110
    No Wheel, in the spirit of full disclosure are you a mountain biker or an equestrian?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kliemann53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    245
    Found it at halfmarathons.net its a running race June 29th.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kliemann53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    245
    Now that I think about it, if it was a bike race why would that be wrong?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    I have both a bike and a horse. A spaz on both ... Duane Evans, King County Parks, notified equestrians of a mountain bike race at Taylor Mountain on May 26 and the notice was in a newsletter that I get. I have sent an email to him to find out more. The trails at Taylor Mountain are shared-use trails. Historically, mountain bikers went to Tiger and equestrians went to Taylor (they are next door to each other). An announcement of a race at Taylor has caused a bit of shock and awe. Equestrians are stewards of the land. I was responding to the previous post about working together without regulation, communication and the like. Please read previous posts.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    509
    The May 26 race has been cancelled. However, it is a legal and viable venue for Mtn bike racing. If a race is staged there in 2014, I will make an effort to engage the horse riding community to make this an opportunity to cooperate.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Thank you. They are shared-use trails even though the horse folks are the trail builders and land stewards. Groups you might notify are BCH Tahoma Chapter, EFFRA, and King County Executive Horse Council. Pre-event signage is always good. Play safe!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kliemann53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    245
    Why wouldn't the Tiger/Taylor scenario work at Henry's/Danville? Build the trails at Henrys for bikes but open to horses The trails at Danville for horses but open to bikes.Everyone has the right to cross over if they want but they wont because of the charactor of the trails. The ones that do will be so few and far between that they wont cause a conflict. Everybody wins.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    I like that but there is are problems to address and solve. First, the mountain bike trail building standards are great for bikes but unsafe/unpassable for equestrians. For instance, the narrow bridges, banked turns, and height of tree branch overhang. Of course, a bike can go both places as long as equestrians don't put a bunch of logs over the trails. Second, there are special-use needs that equestrians are trying to meet at Danville-Georgetown (200 acres). Those special-use needs are folks wanting to bring the grand kids or less experienced for a pony ride on moderate terrain and reasonably safe trails. The other special-use are folks who are more fragile than they used to be and need to stack the deck in their favor a little more. The casual bicyclist rarely poses a problem, it is the ones who ride at speed, often around a corner, who are looking at the tire track and not 50 feet ahead. Love the cooperative and respectful spirit by the mountain bikers, by the way.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    69
    Unfortunately No Wheels is missing some of the story so I'll give some background and hopefully fill in some holes.

    1) The original agreement between equestrians and mountain bikers was to support voluntary separation of our groups and Evergreen even invested effort into getting the county to help with this through signage. Unfortunately that good faith effort with the county was used against us by someone who twisted it to work behind the scenes pushing an official bike closure.

    2) The group of equestrians vocally pushing to force the county to put in place restrictions were NOT originally willing to allow the middle school or anyone else to use the property on bicycles. I heard it said that there was to be "zero tolerance" for bikes in Danville Georgetown. The new position of a "special use permit" was after seeing how it looks when you try to force children out of our county parks.

    3) The proposal to close trails isnít because of real conflict happening on these trails now and by my estimate most of the equestrians that attended the public meeting supported continuing the shared-use, voluntary separation.

    4) The 2 year old MOU for Henry's Ridge uses the words "shared-use" five times and never talks about a "bike park". It does talk about a mountain bike trail system but nowhere does it imply that it would be single use and anyone that has read IMBA's "Trail Solutions" knows that multi-user trail planning is an important component of the book. I believe that No Wheels has already seen this public MOU so I'm not sure why it would be used to scare the equestrian community. There isnít a conspiracy occurring.

    5) None of the trails that we ride at Duthie and Tiger were built by equestrians and they receive, respectively, over 75,000 and 60,000 visits annually from mountain bikers according to King County and DNR. This extremely high usage is a reflection of the low trail mileage open to us, something that we are only now having an opportunity to correct.

    6) This has nothing to do with races and the effort to close the area to bikes started long before any race was considered at Taylor Mtn. Yes, I know there was a MTB race recently considered for Taylor - it supports many horse events during the year and certainly can handle a single bike race? Also, WTA has done significant work on improving trails here.

    7) In trying to show how imbalanced our access is to trails they count Burke Gilman, Cedar River, Interurban Trails, and other paved trails but they ignore State Parks, DNR and USFS (and 4 million acres of Wilderness) lands. The most recent state SCORP study shows that, taken broadly, 3.9% of the state rides a horse on trails, 24.4% ride bikes on trails. Very importantly this doesnít imply that we canít share the trails. Yes, our sport is growing fast but our focus is on shared use areas with single use trails only where there is a compelling reason.

    Again, this is NOT a battle with the larger equestrian community. I have and will continue to work hard for recreation and access with the vast majority of equestrians, hikers, climbers, skiers, and others that use our public lands. We face enough problems of access and funding without fighting each other.

    To the MTBers, you may personally like the idea of not having to ride your bike without sharing with horses and think that carving up the landscape between users is a good idea. Maybe in a world of unlimited land and endless resources it might be (although I still don't believe that is the case). Remember though that we arenít the largest user group in the forest and you may not like what we are left with after the dust settles from a process like that!

    Finally, read between the lines and if people like No Wheels win this battle expect to see the next battle over closing Taylor. Language like "scared for their lives" just sets up the next battle. If you want to maintain our momentum when it comes to avoiding trail closures then please COMMENT TO KING COUNTY by May 7th (see earlier post for how to do that). They need to hear that you do NOT support restricting access in situations like this. If mountain bikers like you donít comment then donít be surprised when anti-biker rules start popping up again!

    Regardless, out of courtesy to the equestrian community please do continue to support the voluntary separation by riding your bikes at Henry's Ridge and staying out of Danville Georgetown.

    Glenn Glover - Executive Director
    Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    As popular as is Duthie Hill, I would think that mountain bikers would like to have one similar (and bigger) in south King County. Wouldn't most of your group be willing to trade land-uses where horses have their Duthie Hill (Bridle Trails) in the southend? Sharing means two things: either you share exactly, or you split somehow. Either way is sharing. Seems a new Duthie Hill would be a service to your membership. The MOU refers to a mountain bike trail system, which is in a park. How is that different than a mountain bike park? I would think you are missing a great opportunity here.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    53
    Out of curiosity, are the Rock Creek Natural Area, Big Bend Natural Area, and Landsburg Reach Natural area open or closed (per the voluntary agreement) to mountain biking? I see there are trails running through these parcels, and wondering if it is acceptable to go mountain biking in these places. (For those who are unfamiliar with the area, these three areas all border Danville Georgetown.)

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Definately. Some fun stuff in there too. HUGE potential as well. Just really low on the radar for some reason I've never figured out....

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: snwwlkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    224
    The people down at Black Diamond with Evergreen have worked hard and long with the County to get to where we're at now. Meeting in good faith was assumed and I think most equestrians are on board. No Wheel(Joan) would like nothing better than to derail this project in the Black Diamond area. I apologize for the inflammatory post but I want to call it what it is. Joan, have you ever thought about leading the charge and working with the county to establish trails in other areas instead of piggy backing on the mtn bikers? Just a thought.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    Up for discussion at this time is Henry's Ridge and Danville-Georgetown Land-Use Management Plans. The D-G area in consideration is the land south of the pipeline road. Both Big Bend and Ravensdale Reach are north of the pipeline. The Rock Creek area is the most restrictive and is not up for discussion at this time either. (snwwlkr: I am not Joan and am dismissing your comment as uneducated and rude.) So far, this discussion on this forum has been diplomatic, hasn't been discussed, and needs to be discussed. Here is King County's website for Big Bend and Landsburg Reach for your enjoyment. Says mountain bikes are an acceptable user.
    Big Bend

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: snwwlkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    224
    No Wheel, you might not be Joan but you are one of her friends. And I guess I like to get straight to the point. As uneducated as I am, I have read the MOU. You posted in a mtn bike forum to gain support by stating misinformation. You also stated that IMBA standards won't allow horses on these trails. I think we all know that if you wanted to contribute to make it safer for equestrians on these trails, Rick and crew would be more than willing to accommodate if you're willing to lend a hand.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    20
    snwwlkr: Sorry, I am not jumping at the bait.

    I am not spreading misinformation. On the contrary, I am providing another viewpoint and some other facts. We all know the saying that there are two sides of a story plus the right one. Before one can get to the right one, folks need to hear each other out while behaving as diplomatically as possible. There is information to be clarified with all the possible scenarios.

    I am logging out now. I have said what I needed to say. Play safe! God speed, but not around the blind corners!

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    318
    Calling anyone Joan would be rude... Hahaha!!! Joan has "left" BCH Tahoma and hope she is miserable some where else.. I hate to bring this up, but.... What is your opinion, to the intelligent open minded people, How is the way Capital Forest set up working? My horsey club MRC, spent a lot of effort in the '70s to provide seperate trails for the dirt bike and ponies. I would think if there were trails of separation within same areas may be viable. My mototrials club keeps loosing areas to ride and is resorting to private land. As a mountain biker we have lost everything but a few trails that are left. (reduced GR, minimal trails on Tiger, all of Cougar, Squak and others)

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    224
    I'm thankful that we have such a competent person, and group representing us as mountain bikers these days.
    Sent in my comment form, and encouraged a few others to do the same. Hoping for good things since it's now in King County's hands (well, tomorrow it will be, SEND MORE COMMENTS!).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Georgetown, MA?
    By Zach75 in forum Massachusetts
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-19-2012, 02:29 PM
  2. Georgetown: Riding to above treeline
    By mountaingoatepics in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-06-2012, 07:19 PM
  3. Visiting Georgetown
    By jnroyal in forum Texas
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 03:04 PM
  4. XC Trails Near Georgetown
    By mtbmeister in forum Eastern Canada
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-08-2011, 07:58 AM
  5. Danville
    By dietz31684 in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-25-2011, 10:54 AM

Posting Permissions

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