Because people are lazy, American Idol-watching couch potatoes, or because the trails in our parks are too steep, and littered with cow poop?
A guy named, appropriately enough, Ted Stroll, brought this up in a commentary in the Chronicle last week.
As an East Bay Regional Park District trail safety patrol volunteer, I monitor Mission Peak Regional Preserve in Fremont on my mountain bike. I start my patrols at a trailhead above Ohlone College. After passing a stagnant watering hole, I labor up a steep service road, passing a cattle feedlot. A short stretch of pleasant trail soon yields to another steep dirt road. For more than 2 miles, the grade averages 11.5 percent. Only near the summit, among barren expanses of stubby brown grass, does the grade ease. At times, cattle will have torn up the route or littered it with dung, material that spatters on my face and legs often enough.
The arduous travel routes, barren terrain and intrusive cattle combine for a discouraging visitor experience – which may explain why I can count on one hand the visitors I see on average during my 10-mile patrol. As on many square miles of Bay Area public land, human-powered recreation bears the earmarks of an afterthought at Mission Peak.
Hmm, the grade eases near the summit? Which Mission Peak is he talking about? (See, this is why more copy editors need to be hikers — I could’ve asked him to clarify — “you mean that flat area a quarter-mile from the summit?” — one of the perks of the job is intimidating writers with our vast storehouse of obscure facts.)
But anyway. His point is that better trails might encourage more return visits. This may be true to a point, but here’s the thing: almost all of our open space is in mountainous areas that weren’t much use for anything but ranching, logging and mining (until later generations with 40-hour work weeks discovered something called “recreation”). It’s difficult to carve new trails in mountainous terrain; it’s easy to use existing roads. Which is better for the environment, building new single-track trails, or not building new single-track trails?
Mission Peak is an odd example to cite for under-use, considering the hundreds who march up to its summit every Saturday and Sunday. Yeah, it’s a tough slog. But people do it all the time. Would you really want to spend three hours zigzagging to the top of Mission Peak when you could just take the road and get there in 90 minutes? Heck, if anything, all the shortcutting at Mission Peak tells us a significant number of people think the roads aren’t steep enough.
I tend to file this along with the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that outdoorspeople are so predominantly pale-skinned. You can line the parks with perfectly maintained, gently graded paths through ancient redwood forests that pass thousand-foot waterfalls and people will still not come if they’d rather be someplace else.
Maybe it’s my experience as an ex-smoker: you hear a thousand lectures, you endure a million coughing fits, you pony up for skyrocketing prices, but until your mind’s made up to quit, you keep on smoking. Better trails might win more repeat business, but the real challenge is turning around the massive majority who will never go even once. Good luck with that.
Anyway, read the guy’s commentary and report back with your thoughts. Click on the comments for some choice tit-for-tat between hikers and bikers.
Really? This guy is wild – he complains that hills are too steep (a MOUNTAIN biker no less!), the terrain is ugly (why is this person a volunteer?) and there is – Egad! – cow dung on the trail (nature got me dirty).
His implied alternative is what? To gouge out the mountain (and lower the elevation?), install sprinklers to green up the terrain and tell the cows to use outhouses?
I am a mountain biker and a hiker. I think we are lucky to have miles and miles of trails for both activities. How about we enjoy the land as it is. My suggestion for Mr. Stroll: if none of your 27 gears can get you up the trail, maybe it’s time you switched to a road bike.
It is more efficient to zig zag up a hill than to go strait up it.
http://cheflovesbeer.blogspot.com/2008/02/snaky-switchbacks.html
What do we mean by “better trails”? As far as I’m concerned there are only 2 reasons for having trails at all, (a) preserving and protecting the habitat/environment, and (b) so users don’t get lost. In my opinion, too much grooming can ruin the character of a trail. Also many folks such as myself actually enjoy having a mix of terrain including some steep trails or sections.
I can agree that over-grazing is destructive, but that is an old issue.
To an avid hiker like me the issue of park usage is a bit of a “Catch-22”. You need to have a lot of public interest in order to garner broad support, but on the other hand, do you really want our best preserved lands trampled over by a mass of humanity? There are urban parks which have paved paths, benches, picnic tables, manicured grass, dog parks, paved bike paths along creeks and such. Open space and wildland preserves are a different experience. One that requires a higher level of stewardship than what is normal to expect from the general public. These lands aren’t so much underused as underappreciated.
When towards the start of his comments when he spoke of getting splattered with cow dung, I though “What? This guy is just looking for something to complain about.”
I grew up in cattle country, I’ve been around them my entire life, and I often hike beside or through herds of cattle. and stepping in a wet cow patty is an exception rather than a rule.
Cow patties dry fairly quickly to the consistency of cardboard.
They used to be used for feeding campfires, and I and my brother used to throw them like frisbees at each other when we were younger.
I’m not saying that you couldn’t run into wet patties, but I’m saying unless the cows have intestinal problems or are crowded in a corral your not likely to run into many.
If the numbers Stroll cites at the end of the article are true, getting defensive isn’t going to help. Actually listening to those who don’t do outdoor recreation is part of the answer, so is looking at other countries for what may work. In the UK, for instance, the explosion in outdoor recreation, partly fueled by the explosion in digital landscape photography, is creating the opposite problem.
One thing that I find really surprising here is how poorly designed the park brochures are. It’s a well-known fact that your average American can’t read maps. So then why is the information about how to get around provided in a map? And one that’s hard to read even for skilled map readers?
The other side of the brochure is typically dense text. Surely anybody who works with information knows that people don’t read long, dense text, particularly not on the hoof. So why is it still designed that way?
My guess is that the brochures are designed for people who are already converted, not the casual strollers who may be interested if they can start out slowly and learn as they go along.
A fascinating, extremely myopic viewpoint from a whiner, I’m afraid. It’s tough to imagine one with an extreme choice of gearing options bitching about the hills being too steep! That’s incredible. I’ll have to give him a call…
I look forward to those hills, and the steeper the better. Better “sight lines”? Is he a racer, and validating much of the hiking public’s disdain for mtn bikers, or…? I’ve had run ins with yahoos flying down Mission Peak, but they don’t last long. In 99% of encounters with bikers, I can say they’ve been friendly and positive.
More frightening are the comments from people who say they won’t vote for the Measure A extension this fall because of “discrimination.” Wow…to invoke an overused buzzword like that because they aren’t allowed to compete with hikers on single track trails! Few of them, I’ll wager my paycheck, have a clue what real discrimination is about. Save the hyperbole for real battels, eh?
But if the Measure AA extension ISN’T passed this fall everyone will lose. There will be insufficient funding not only to procure and preserve open space, but to operate all District facilities in the manner to which the user communities wish them to be operated. And that short sighted lack of vision will hurt all user groups.
I rarely rant, but the mtn biker’s comments are silly (how’s THAT for being dismissive!). I wonder what the “these hills are too steep” bikers would do if they ran across me on Mission Peak? I hope they’d feel a little embarassed and ashamed of their whines. The trails are for all. Without voter support this fall, several trails will be off limits for all.
I was disappointed in the rather harsh responses to Stroll’s observations about the trails on Mission Peak. I’m an SCC Parks trail watch and adopt-a-trail volunteer, along with a trail worker and leader for much of the past 40 years in CA and AK state parks and the USFS. I validate his position. I mountain bike the trails I patrol but I’m also a hiker and backpacker. I’ve made a few observations of my own.
Trail use by humans and most animals follows Ohm’s Law as does traffic, electric current, water, and just about everything else that moves or requires energy. Increase the resistance and decrease the flow. Our Bay Area trails are mostly roads that were designed for other uses. They limit use for two reasons. One is the grades and the other is aesthetics.
Steep grades make it hard for beginners and some intermediates to get acclimated, especially at the beginning of a hike or bike ride. Humans are stopped cold at only a little resistance. See what it takes to get them to read a book on a topic useful for their jobs, or even raising teenagers (cognitive energy). Compare the traffic on the Yosemite Falls Trail vs. Happy Isles (physical energy). What would hiking in the Alps be like without those trams? Real quiet up there for sure.
Trail aesthetics is critical to humans and other animals but is little discussed and lightly researched. There is research that seems to support a physiological reaction to aesthetics. Well designed trails, not necessarily well-groomed or paved, seem to affect us in healthy ways. Not solid science yet, but getting there.
We need real trails in the mountains surrounding Santa Clara Valley. Trails designed to shed water and be low maintenance along with highly aesthetic. Steep trails can not be easily maintained if they get much use. They become ugly ruts.
If you would like to learn something about trail work and design then join my VWA / Forest Service trail crew in May on the Little Sur River. westtrails.net/Ventana.html Once you understand trails then you may look at trail use a bit differently. And hopefully less harsh on those with valid observations.
Feces on the trails is a pain for mountain bikers to avoid. Horse feces is illegal to leave on trails in Santa Clara County but it is not enforced. I don’t see a solution to his frustration with cow paddies but that doesn’t mean that commenters shouldn’t be more understanding.
Mountain biking requires a lot more energy than hiking or backpacking, sometimes over 1,000 calories per hour compared to 350 or so for hiking. In most respects it is a healthier activity than hiking. Give the cyclists a break. They are pushing the limits of Ohm’s Law and we all benefit with a healthier society.
– Jim
Jim, your points are well taken, though as one commenter brought up you still have that “be careful what you wish for” dilemma. If throngs of people suddenly start hiking all these aesthetically wonderful trails, suddenly the aesthetics of the mountains take it in the chops.
I will concede that trails designed for hikers are far more pleasant to hike upon than all those fire roads built for horses, tractors and bulldozers.
In reality what has happened is this: the descendants of rich land barons have donated all this open space to local governments, which lack the time, money and workforce to properly maintain all these lands.
But it’s not like they’re going to look such a gift horse in the mouth.
I’ve ridden with Ted Stroll, and he can probably outclimb most of the people dismissing him on this blog. How ironic!! 🙂
His points are valid. Why should we put up with crappy fall line fireroads when enjoyable single track with mellower grade (say 4-6%) could be use instead?
At the end of the day, I expect the EBRPD to dismiss all the mountain bikers complaints as mere nuisance that can be ignored as the district has done for 20 years. Unfortunately, the only way the district will listen is for MTBers to band together and vote down the $500m bond extension. It’s sad but that’s what it’ll take.