IMBA Trail Action Alert 3/24/14

From this post: https://www.imba.com/alert/ca-state-park-natural-resource-code

California State Parks is proposing new language for its Public Resources Code that will negatively impact trail access for mountain bikers. The proposed code change reads: "Unless designated by the Department, all trails are open to pedestrians and closed to all other uses."
TAKE ACTION!
A public comment period to address this is open until April 4, 5:00 PM PST.
More Information
Since 1988, Calif. State Parks has operated under a similar policy stating that trails are closed to bikes unless "specifically opened." Local state park units have generally failed to "specifically open" trails, and IMBA does not believe this situation will improve.
IMBA will be proposing alternative wording for the Public Resources Code that would open state park trails to non-motorized users unless specified (see below). Please join us in letting park officials know that effectively restricting trail access without review is unnecessary and unwarranted.
Here are talking points you might include in your message:

• This change sends an unwelcoming message to the public who want access to their state parks, which is contrary and inconsistent with other stated policies that stress a welcome greeting.
• It does not fit with State Parks’ mission, which is, in part, to create “opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.”
• It will limit future opportunities for thousands of mountain bikers because superintendents will not be required or compelled to open trails to bikes. Historically, superintendents have been reluctant to open trails to bikes under the existing policy.
• It will decrease outdoor opportunities for the public at a time when exercise is being encouraged as a way to deal with the epidemic of obesity.
• It will negatively impact the thousands of youths in the state who participate in school mountain bike leagues.
• It will alienate state park supporters and an entire generation of young people that want and need to access the outdoors.
• It directly contradicts efforts of the Parks Forward Committee that is studying ways to make state parks more responsive to the needs of communities.
• It ignores real-world success stories in Calif. that demonstrate how shared trails enhance quality of life for thousands of state residents.

 

Those who look the other way when they see idiots going 25 mph on their full-suspension 8" travel bikes on trails that are "multi-use".....thus for hikers and families and equine.....you helped.

As I say, the idiots create negative outcomes for the non-idiots. There are more of us than them (10:1)....yet we do nothing. You want your trails taken away? My $.02

 

Help me Obi-wan, you're my only hope: An important thread in danger of being hijacked!!!!

 

Not me, I do not ride state parks because of the limited trail access.

 

Guess more people are interested in who Lopes is riding for...

 

I sent my email to the officials named requesting that they reconsider.

 

I will email tonight. If crystal cove gets closed to bikes it would be awkward for lcwp rides. Losing bvd/rattlesnake not good for longer legal loops. And I dont ride chino hills but for many in the area thats their close to home place to ride.

 

Easier to use this. Just copy and paste. Add your 2 cents and send it to the people listed.

This change sends an unwelcoming message to the public who want access to their State parks, which is contrary and inconsistent with other stated policies that stress a welcome greeting.

It does not match with State Parks mission, which is, in part, to create "opportunites for high quality outdoor recreation.

It will limit future opportunities for thousands of mountain bikers because superintendents will not be required to compelled to open trails to bikes. Historically, superintendents have been reluctant to open trails to bikes under the existing policy.

It will decrease outdoor opportunities for the public just at a time when exercise is encouraged as a way to deal with the epidemic of obesity.

It will negatively impact the thousands of youths in the state who participate in school mountain bike leagues.

It will alienate state park supporters and an entire generation of young people that want and need to access the outdoors.

It directly contradicts efforts of the Parks Forward Committee that is studying ways to make State parks more responsive to the needs of communities.

It ignores the real-world success stories in Calif. that demonstrate how shared trails enhance quality of life for thousands of stats residents.

 

Yes, 1,000 times, yes!

And don't forget San Clemente Singletracks/San Onofre State Park... a lot more than some jumps/berms will be taken out of there!

But yeah, Lopes.

 

done

 

Done sent 5 letters...

I also think besides the point listed above providing a couple sentences about yourself and your passion adds to the effectiveness as it make you more real... you know politicians like "good stories". Mine looks like below, others may be younger and just want to say that Hey Mountain biking is great! but a little probably helps...

My name is ???? ????, I am NN years old, well educated, a considerable taxpayer, and a active mountain biker. In addition I am a volunteer for the California State Parks specifically at Crystal Cove State Park. As a Trail Assistance Volunteer I greet visitors, provided directions, patrol the back country on my Mountain Bike as "Eyes and Ears", and assist fellow outdoors people when in need by contacting the correct emergency personnel. I also volunteer with several organizations to do trail work. I am sure you already know in SoCal the vast majority of organized & coordinated volunteer trail work is performed by mountain bikers.

Mountain biking is a big part of my life as well as many of my friends and family in the form of exercise, stress relief, fun, and experiencing the outdoors.

Please reconsider the "Anti-Mountain Biking" California State Parks is proposing as new language for its Public Resources Code for the following reasons.

.....

I found that email your rep is a PITA... using their forms...

 

Sent my .02 cents.

 

emails sent

 

Here's a sample letter I put together that people can use. Like Bvader said just add a quick paragraph about yourself, what riding or volunteering you do in State Parks to give context why you're writing in.

 

Here is another letter someone posted on MTBR socal - this one sounds a lot more personal, feel free to mix n match http://forums.mtbr.com/california-s...ils-bill-imba-action-905517.html#post11091856

 

A new code provision is not needed. The burden is currently on the parks to properly mark/designate their own trails, and that is where it should remain. If the parks would simply take the responsibility to properly designate/mark trails then this new rule would be entirely irrelevant.

That is the major flaw with the proposal. By penalizing bikers for the parks' ambiguous trail designations, the code will accomplish two things: (1) discourage park personnel from properly marking/designating trails, and (2) encourage the allocation of park resources to ticketing bikers.

Another thought that hit me is that the remote trails that we ride are less likely to be designated/marked. As a mountain biker, I understand that the first 2-4 miles of a trail may have heavy hiking traffic, and these are the sections that are most likely to require the attention of park personnel. It is these sections that are most likely the impetous of this proposal. However, most of my riding is well past the hikers, in the sections of the park that go largely ignored by hikers and park personnel.

 

Emails sent. I can't stress how important it is to respond to these proposed changes.

 

emails sent.

 

I drafted a letter and e-mailed it to each person listed by IMBA. I also filled out an online form to my State Assemblyman.

 

Quick bump - just because, you know... incase anyone missed it, forgot etc

Time is a runnin' out folks