Paul Wellman (file)

Hikers versus bikers.

The trip to Utah was perfect: five days of canyon colors and dazzling trails to test my stamina and get me back on track. That isn’t always an easy task in Santa Barbara with all the bickering over who gets to use the front country trails. For a few days at least, my task was a simple one — get up early, head to the mountains, and get in a ride or two on my seriously old but dependable Santa Cruz mountain bike. Old of course, is relative; it’s only five, but in bike terms, that’s ancient.

The riding is fantastic: one day on the JEM and Hurricane Rim trails near Zion National Park — all single track and spectacular — if you don’t count the 95-plus degree temps. The high country trails were even better near Brianhead, where cool weather complemented 9,000-foot-high views over the Virgin River Rim Trail.

Fantastic and best of all: no email, no news, no headaches, just sore muscles and lots of smiles.

Back in Santa Barbara I was stoked, at least until the computer went back on. Then the email came up and reality’s ugly head bit me once again. I’m not on their email list apparently, since I didn’t get this tidbit from the Multi-Use Trails Coalition (MUC) — a loosely organized group of mountain bikers opposed to closing any trails to bikers — but a friend knew I’d be interested. Damn! I thought. “I haven’t even been out of the car for 15 minutes and I’m right back in the middle of this crazy mess."

Sent out as a response to the previous night’s meeting of the Front County Trails Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force, the MUC email detailed what they called the “good, bad, and ugly” — the good was apparently that 15 of their two-wheel compadres agreed with them that there were obviously no problems on any of the trails because, as trail users, they’d never had any bad encounters themselves.

Then there was the “bad” — which turned out to be a presentation by Kalon Kelley on behalf of the County Riding and Hiking Trails Advisory Group (CRAHTAC), composed of 15 community members appointed by the county supervisors. Using a number of examples (trail width, line of sight, cross slope steepness, geologic factors, trail grade), Kelley suggested that while the old Romero Road (now mostly single-track trail) was an ideal candidate for multiple use, the Cold Springs canyon trail was not. Apparently the fact that Mr. Kelley called for the committee to develop objective standards for measuring the suitability of our front country trails for multiple use was too much to digest.

Finally there was what MUC called the “ugly” — a PowerPoint presentation made by Jim Childress on behalf of the Sierra Club. Of his 20-minute talk, which included a YouTube video of mountain bikers on Tunnel Trail, a helmet-mounted cam view from a hiker’s perspective, as well as numerous examples of what he considered to be unsafe and/or environmentally destructive use of the trails by mountain bikes.

Of his presentation, the MUC email stated:

“If hate had a name it would be called Jim Childress. Don't know who this is? He is a UCSB professor and on the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club, SB Group. People who have been in the cycling community for some know him as the most outspoken opponent of cycling. It is Jim's life mission to end all cycling on the trails here- why? We would like to know also so if you ever see him, ask him. He claims it is for safety and environmental issues but this is not truly the case.”

I emailed Mr. Childress a copy of the email to see if he’d read it yet. He hadn’t, but as you can guess he wasn’t too pleased with it either. Knowing Jim from earlier trail discussions, I could understand why MUC might not be happy with any Sierra Club presentation. I think it is pretty clear from comments made by Sierra Club members during the comment period of the various Task Force meetings they would be delighted if there were no mountain bikes on the trails. However Jim's presentation was done with a different twist — he's actually done his homework, researched the issues, and used these to buttress the points he made.

This over-emotional rhetoric is an unfortunate byproduct of the Task Force process, the politics of personal attack we see far too often in politics at all levels. Dialogue among the trail user groups has disappeared as the various user groups attempt to influence the Task Force commissioners with little thought to the bitterness or personal enmity left in the wake.

A day after the MUC email went public, it had been posted on various mountain bike forums catering to the more extreme of the downhill riders. One of the posts came from specializedride, the handle for a 31-year-old Goleta mountain biker, who asked for Mr. Childress home address and suggested a Molotov cocktail might be “in order.”

Within hours Jim's home address was on the web and available for all to see (The threads relating to this topic have subsequently been pulled). I’m sure the words weren’t meant to incite real harm, but who knows who saw the email and got the address?

Apparently the politics of mountain biking can be harmful to one’s health, or one’s psyche at the very least. By their words, the MUC has unleashed a powerful and negative campaign to silence those who would think otherwise. It needs to stop now.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

Local Weather

Currently:
Scattered Clouds
Temperature:
66.0°
Wind:
6 SSW

Surf Report