Tim Ford wrote:Hahhah, yep, I can see where that would be a nuisance.
There's a trail up near the Pennsylvania border that we hike 4-5 times a year. It's also a bridal path. But I don't think we've ever been inconvenienced by a steaming pile!
A friend of mine moved to Portland Maine about a year ago and bought a new bike (not easy during the pandemic). I stopped at his home on the way home from Brooklin, ME after the Eggemoggin Reach (good seeing you there, Keith!) He explained to me how well organized the bicycling folks are in Maine. And how they have dedicated trails all around the state. Meanwhile, back home, the folks with houses just off the trail near my house are incensed about the erosion the bikers have created.
Can't please everyone, I guess...
Tim -- I get it that we can't please everyone, but the horse folks are now showing up to sink mountain biker's proposals to build dedicated bike trails. In the State Parks, the last three Governors have over-ruled the St. Park Service and just told them to build trails based on the number of customers, not based on "tradition" (like horses). The Horse folks are pissed off, but there are so few of them it doesn't matter.
I went to one of these planning meetings. Our local branch of the
IMBA showed up 150 strong. There were 4 "equestrians". The St. Park Planners were more than a little intimidated. The Local IMBA President was quite polite. He had survey data on trail usage. Guys and girls with clipboards were hired to log the kine of users. Done by an independent survey firm that didn't know that the money was coming from an IMBA member. The data was wild. At Henry Cowell State Park, 62% of the trail users were hikers, 32% of the trail users were mountain bikers, 2% were horseback riders. The remaining 4% were "Declined to Answer". I've no idea how you can "decline", but I guess some folks were suspicious of high school kids with clipboards and told them not to write anything about them. (We have our paranoid prepper group around here.)
Needless to say, the mountain bike proposal was approved as it conformed to all the environmental stuff.
To twist the knife once it was in, the survey had also asked how far people had traveled and how they had traveled to get to the Park to do whatever it was they were doing. Obviously, this was stacking the deck against the horseback ridders. The folks on foot had driven their car an average of 8 miles to get to the park, lots of local use. The Mountain Bikers had 60% who had driven in a pickup or car with bike rack, their average distance was 12 miles; the other 40% had ridden their bikes to the park. The horseback riders had driven in something able to two a 2 horse trailer and had an average distance of 53 miles. (This is sort of a destination ride for horseback folks.) The IMBA representative presented the carbon footprint of the hikers, mountain bikers, and horseback riders. Needless to say, the absolute lowest carbon per day of use was the mountain biking group. Next were the hikers. The 2% of the people who were riding horses contributed about 64% of all the carbon from all users to the park. This survey has its "issues", and the use of carbon footprint against folks who trailer their horses around made me squirm as that guy who trailers his Moore-24 up and down the west coast to races, but it did result in the State Parks rep from Sacramento wondering aloud why the State allows any equestrian trails.