annadel sp illegal trails article

[bodywhomper]

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...1349?p=1&tc=pg

i'm curious about thoughts about this. specific for annadel, i think it's a fairly complicated topic, but a facet of a more common issue.

though not in a state park, i know the open space district that manages the skeggs point area has been having similar issues for many years. the issue related to skeggs point was quite different than annadel, as the skeggs area used to have a large network of very technical trails, but the results have been kinda similar, (mostly) manicured trails, lots of illegal trails, and lots of frustration from all involved, riders, managers, other trail users, etc.

cheers

[Danno]

your link leads to page 3 of the article, which is really confusing.

[krp8128]

^^^got me too

[bodywhomper]

fixed the link. sorry about that....

[Arty50]

The biggest issue is that legal freeride trails are almost non-existent, yet there's a significance amount of demand for them and that demand is only increasing.

The forest service, state rangers, park rangers, etc. are all years behind in addressing this issue; and so as a result you get illegal trails to meet that demand.

The question then becomes how do we fix this? The illegal route fixes it quickly, but hurts the mountaing bike community as a whole. Especially the mountain bike community in NorCal and the Bay Area, who is the biggest audience for this article.

The legal way takes a long time and isn't guaranteed to bear fruit. It all depends on if you get the ear of the right person who is willing to look at this issue with open eyes and ears. It seems like there are more of these people out there nowadays though. The thing is, we in the mtb community have to educate not just local officials, but we also have to educate their superiors so that the policies change from both ends of the spectrum.

[AKbruin]

^^^Agreed, although I'm not sure how much illegal trails actually hurt the mountain biking community. I just don't know that we would get more trail access if we only rode legal trails. Of course, I understand such trails are grist for the anti-mtb'ers out there.

I always stayed on the legit trails at Annadel but that article makes me kind of wish I had done some exploring. IMO, Annadel offers the best riding around the Bay Area.

[bodywhomper]

nice post, arty50.

regarding how illegal trails hurt the mtn biking community. a clear example to me: at least behind closed doors, the staff at the mid-peninsula open space district have considered closing el corte de madera open space reserve (skeggs point area) to bicycles, specifically because of the illegal trails. This was discussed as a last resort tactic, but several of the open space district staffers felt that they were running out of options. This information is several years old. I don't know the current status (my source at the district moved away).

i agree that it's a policy thing. also, as the article hints at, its a money thing, too. why aren't there more 'demonstration forests' like soquel demo forest? my thought is that $$ is partially to blame.

annadel was always my favorite area to ride in the bay area. for that area, its legal singletrack is truly a gem. it's a really great place on a singlespeed. as the article describes, it also has some pretty amazing and unique 'resources' that the state wants to, legally has to, and, IMO, should be protecting, which contribute to making that park special. the illegal trail issues there are not a new thing. the 'squirrel nut zipper' area has been around for a while. There are so many users at annadel, I don't see how freeride 'demonstration' areas could safely exist in the park. it would be awful, but the state could probably close the park to bikes and cite user conflicts as the realistic reason, which would partially eliminate the illegal trail building problem. though it was a different era, user conflicts or potential user conflicts were apparently why many of the fun trails in the east bay park district were closed to bikes.

akbruin, congrats on the move.

[MeowWoofWoof]

It's kind of naive to think that just closing an area to mountain bikes is going to solve the imaginary problem of illegal trails. All you are doing is just creating more illegal trails, if you think about. People will just keep going there, illegally, especially in a place like California where there are no alternatives.

So called 'illegal' trails don't hurt the 'mountain bike community'(whatever that is). If anything they help things by keeping people from barreling down established hiking trails and such pissing off hikers etc, and they progress the sport and attract more people to it.

The ultimate solution to this "problem" is for land managers to take a lassai faire approach. It's pretty clear that the forest service or whoever has no idea how to make these trails. The legal ones that do exist suck ass with the exception of those where the builders were given permission to do whatever they want. They either need to make the permitting of trails a very easy less time consuming task or they need to accept that people are just going to do it anyway without any oversight. That's just the way it is.

[sierraskier]

The biggest issue is that legal freeride trails are almost non-existent, yet there's a significance amount of demand for them and that demand is only increasing.

The forest service, state rangers, park rangers, etc. are all years behind in addressing this issue; and so as a result you get illegal trails to meet that demand.

The question then becomes how do we fix this? The illegal route fixes it quickly, but hurts the mountaing bike community as a whole. Especially the mountain bike community in NorCal and the Bay Area, who is the biggest audience for this article.

The legal way takes a long time and isn't guaranteed to bear fruit. It all depends on if you get the ear of the right person who is willing to look at this issue with open eyes and ears. It seems like there are more of these people out there nowadays though. The thing is, we in the mtb community have to educate not just local officials, but we also have to educate their superiors so that the policies change from both ends of the spectrum.

yep, same recurring issue everywhere pretty much. when I grew up riding Annadel it was mostly fire road, then they finally got creative and revamped a lot of it into singletrack, which was awesome, but of course things have now progressed and people are wanting freeride features, berms, etc... and now they (and most parks) are way behind that curve. so, rider demand outpaces supply and you have people builidng illegal shit. it's happening everywhere. Bend in my opinion is still one of the few places (that I know of) that is at least somewhat able to keep up with where things are going. Not sure exactly how they are able to make it happen, but people should at COTA and maybe try to figure it out.

I still think in this litiguous, bureaucratic, and slow-moving day and age, private land and illegal trails are going to play the lead role in good freeride trails.

[DasBlunt]

I grew up riding Annadel. We would drive there when I lived in Napa when we wanted a change of pace, and I lived in Santa Rosa for a year after high school and rode there everyday.

The marked trails are amazing. from cruisers to black diamond shit, sick climbs and bomber downhills. When I rode there in the 80s and early 90s, many singletrack trails were not multi use and we broke the law often to get the goods. Now, from the article, all the trails are multi use except one i guess.

What seems to be going from the article is a couple of things.

People are not doing enough trail maintenance. Free riders are not involved enough in planning, and so are screwing up the off trail terrain building illegal trails. Killing the oak trees and fucking up the Indian arch sites is pretty fucked.

If freeriders want new trails, get involved with rangers. Maybe there are trails already built that can be improved and turned over to "downhill traffic only"? If fact, I know trails there that make this a solution.

XC riders don't really have anything to do with what is happening for the most part and this is not a hit to the downhillers.

[Hugh Conway]

It's kind of naive to think that just closing an area to mountain bikes is going to solve the imaginary problem of illegal trails. All you are doing is just creating more illegal trails, if you think about. People will just keep going there, illegally, especially in a place like California where there are no alternatives.

The ultimate solution to this "problem" is for land managers to take a lassai faire approach. It's pretty clear that the forest service or whoever has no idea how to make these trails. The legal ones that do exist suck ass with the exception of those where the builders were given permission to do whatever they want. They either need to make the permitting of trails a very easy less time consuming task or they need to accept that people are just going to do it anyway without any oversight. That's just the way it is.

Sarcastic troll or real belief?

[MeowWoofWoof]

Sarcastic troll or real belief?

Neither a belief or sarcasm. It is the way it is. Either land managers accept reality and make it easier for people to make these trails or they are going to be built anyway. That is just the way it is.

[DasBlunt]

Neither a belief or sarcasm. It is the way it is. Either land managers accept reality and make it easier for people to make these trails or they are going to be built anyway. That is just the way it is.

Not make it easier, but help them put them in the "right" places so they don't fuck shit up.


I think they have 1 ranger there......no way to stop it.

[MeowWoofWoof]

Well that's the thing, if they make it easier for people to build trails then at least they can have some control over the process. Otherwise people will just do it anyway without oversight. But the thing is if they are too restrictive the trails will be lame and people will go on to build whatever they want illegally. That's why I support the laissez faire approach.

[Hugh Conway]

Well that's the thing, if they make it easier for people to build trails then at least they can have some control over the process. Otherwise people will just do it anyway without oversight.

the solution for the broke, stretched to the brim state park system, is to add more things for them to oversee? Genius. I'm up for expanding the state park uses to marijuana cultivation while we're at it.

[MeowWoofWoof]

What do you propose Smart Guy?

[DasBlunt]

the solution for the broke, stretched to the brim state park system, is to add more things for them to oversee? Genius. I'm up for expanding the state park uses to marijuana cultivation while we're at it.

that happens already in many other places

[bodywhomper]

closing a park to a user group makes management much more straight forward for land managers because it becomes a trespass-type thing to enforce.

where i now live, laissez-faire management generally works well. of course, there are more trees than people. and many of the big bikes that i see on cars just past through the area heading to other regions. there has been organized public outcry when park managers start to 'design' a park (and its trail system) like it's an 'urban open space'. noticeable illegal features on high use trails in national forest tend to stick around. the USFS seems willing to listen to ideas about freeride areas (on the same trail system/area). if i want to ride on some small dirt jumps (i'm a wuss), i just ride down to the junior high school.

many individuals in different user groups apparently are sniffing the same glue cuz they often work together building new (approved) trails, even if they will be specifically excluded from use. lots of developed trail systems on private property, too. this sort of cooperation seems to have gone a long way so far.

[AKbruin]

regarding how illegal trails hurt the mtn biking community. a clear example to me: at least behind closed doors, the staff at the mid-peninsula open space district have considered closing el corte de madera open space reserve (skeggs point area) to bicycles, specifically because of the illegal trails. This was discussed as a last resort tactic, but several of the open space district staffers felt that they were running out of options. This information is several years old. I don't know the current status (my source at the district moved away).

I definitely see your and Arty's point.

But I can't help but wonder if there would currently be as many cool public skate parks if skaters in the 80's and 90's only skated where they were supposed to. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the rise of public skate parks is/was in part a response to kids skating where they weren't supposed to. Authorities recognized the demand (and perhaps the futility of prevention) and eventually conceded public skate parks. Granted, there are major differences regarding mountain bikes trails. Still, I just don't know that politely asking cities, counties, parks, etc. nicely for mtb and freeride trails will ever succeed. I think I'm echoing Arty in this regard.

I also think that there are a number of trails that are technically illegal but in practice tolerated by authorities. In other words, whoever owns the land may not want to formally authorize the maintenance of such trails (and thus accrue potential liability) but they may not otherwise mind their existence. For example, such trails seem to exist in some parts of Marin, Pacifica, and Carlmont. It's an imperfect solution, as the landowners may enforce their right to exclude bikes/trespassers at any point, but I don't think riders should necessarily abstain from such trails.

Anyhow, my opinion on this matter is far from settled. I'm open to whatever works in the long run. If the choice actually is binary--legal trails at Annadel or no trails at all--then I'll stick to the legal trails (which, conveniently, is what I've always done at Annadel).

Also, Skeggs is still open to mountain bikers, but they often have rangers issuing speeding tickets to bikers. I can't say I like Skeggs that much though.

[bodywhomper]

as w/ lots of things, direct action (building and riding illegal trails) has its place. it sure is lots more fun, too.

especially in high population areas, mountain bike-specific trails, where their use by other user groups is discouraged, seems like it'd be an answer to this general problem, but it feels like a pipe dream.

wasn't braille trail in soquel originally an illegal trail that was 'legalized' by the state? i've heard this touted as a good example of adaptive land/trail management. it sounds like an exception to the rule, though.

i was always baffled (and happy) by the existence of such easy to find trails like mailboxes, the UCB trails, backside of china camp trails, etc. as these trails are SO noticeable, have been there for years, are not marked as "closed" (at least when I rode them), are not really supposed to be there, and yet i rarely would encounter riders on them, even on peak-type days. for the bay area, are these trails examples of laissez-faire management?

i'd be interesting to know how much traffic the illegal trails in annadel are getting and what the environmental effects have been from the construction and use of the trails. it could be reasonable to leave some around, but might be bad policy and precedence to actually do so. i would think that most people would agree that it would suck to unknowingly develop an illegal trail through a known archeo site. information about most of those sites is confidential and not available to most people. it'd also suck to develop a trail that would harm some of the long-term scientific study sites near that marsh.

regarding skate parks, what was touted in the media as the best skate park in oakland was demolished several years back because caltrans wanted their maintenance yard back. it sounded like a lot of sweat equity (and materials) went that park.

[Hugh Conway]

i was always baffled (and happy) by the existence of such easy to find trails like mailboxes, the UCB trails, backside of china camp trails, etc. as these trails are SO noticeable, have been there for years, are not marked as "closed" (at least when I rode them), are not really supposed to be there, and yet i rarely would encounter riders on them, even on peak-type days. for the bay area, are these trails examples of laissez-faire management?

Speaks to an absence of demand, no?

[bodywhomper]

Speaks to an absence of demand, no?

That was one of my thoughts, which is why i stated, "i'd be interesting to know how much traffic the illegal trails in annadel are getting and what the environmental effects have been from the construction and use of the trails. it could be reasonable to leave some around".

not sure if it's really an absence of demand, though. on these trails, people aren't going to dilly-dally around at the trailheads or midtrail. people are going to ride them, enjoy them, and move on. the bowls, backslapping, and beers typically happen somewhere else. i could think of several reasons why there would be a large number of illegal freeride trails in a place like annadel or skeggs ranging from boredom to variations in aesthetics to an addiction to building trails to stupidity....

[Arty50]

You have to factor traffic into the equation too. This is the Bay Area we're talking about. Mailboxes is a couple hours away sans traffic for someone living in Santa Rosa. The others are varying degrees away also. So if you want a quick lap in after work, it's not so simple.

That said, there are definitely other reasons why illegal trails sometimes get built; but I'd argue simple excess demand is the main culprit.

[DasBlunt]

Annadel is really big, like double most parks like this so near to a city as big as Santa Rosa. There were not that many trails, compared to the size. Granted, it is NOT a mountain bike only park.

My local ride spot in Napa, skyline park, for comparison held a UCI mountain bike race back in the day. TONS, like double/triple annadel trails. granted, skyline is a semi private, pay to play park, i guess, ( in high school in the 80s we had to sneak in through the state hospital, jump a fence, get chased by state hospital loony guards).

So i assume the number of trails is evolving. there is some nasty terrain at Annadel with tons of different conditions. Redwood rainforest steeps, scrub Manzanita and Oak areas, wide open haul ass meadows, knarly rocky steeps. The trails that are there legally do not explore the whole area and all the conditions I imagine.

[Spats]

As far as Annadel, I've never ridden an illegal trail, so having not seen these trails at Annadel, I'm not qualified to comment on their impact. In fact, I've only ridden (to my knowledge) three illegal trails in my life, all on group rides where I wasn't leading.


The problem with saying "don't ever ride illegal trails" is that the only new trails that got built in the Bay Area for twenty-plus years were "illegal" trails, which later became legitimized (e.g. Braille at Demo). And anything new that gets built is so wide and sanitized that you can push a shopping cart up it.

The open space districts move so slowly that we will all literally be dead before they manage to build anything significant. MROSD is working on a ten-year plan to open existing fire roads to hikers in La Honda. I wish I were joking, but I'm not.

Also, "open space districts" are entirely run by old people who ride horses and hate mountain bikers with a passion. They invent non-existent trail damage and conflicts to keep bicyclists out of parks. Skeggs was a friggin' DIRT BIKE PARK for decades, and once Mid-Pen got hold of it they started shutting down all the trails and then squawking about those HORRIBLE BIKERS making ILLEGAL TRAILS -- which just means they were riding on trails that existed for decades before, except on bicycles instead of dirt bikes.

Meanwhile, Mid-Pen's own analysis (done at the behest of an anti-bike freak who accused bikers of destroying the watershed) has showed that -- guess what -- big, wide fire roads on crappy, erosive alignments, like Lawrence Creek, are what is causing all the erosion and siltation. But do they shut those down? No, because then they can't sit on their butts and drive their fucking trucks and ranger ATVs everywhere. Instead they run speed traps and continue to blame a non-problem on the bicyclists who aren't causing it.

The best thing the Bay Area could do for its park system is immediately abolish every single "Open Space District" and return its parkland (and the tax money) to the local communities that it belongs to.