Re: Yosemite--Old Age, Alas! The Cavalry to the Rescue!

[Chris Paus <paus@micoks.net>]

This battle is interesting to me in Kansas. On a smaller scale, we are
trying to get a state park near our homes to reopen a horse trail. The
trail was originally cut by horse people (with permission). Then a new
range came ont he scene and decided she wanted that trail just for hikers
and mountain bikes.

My training buddy and I rode that trail dozens of times this summer and
NEVER saw a mountain bike, and saw walkers only once. And they were
thrilled to see and pet our horses. It's the pits.

chris paus & star

At 11:34 PM 1/7/98 -0800, Myron & Sue Flagg wrote:
>I'm forwarding this because it may give some of you ideas for your ongoing
>battles for trails.  I will be at the meeting Friday, Jan. 9, at Concord-Mt.
>Diablo Trail Ride Assn. to listen and hope to speak on the issue of
>handicapped access via horseback.
>
>Anyone who might be interested in attending the Yosemite meeting Friday,
>please contact Nancy Dupont at:  htrails@earthlink.net
>
>                        Sue in California
>
>>>From: "Quinn, Adda" <AQUINN@epri.com>
>>>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:34:25 -0800
>>>
>>>Gentlemen,
>>>As an ex-wilderness backpacker, now long in the tooth, pained in the
>>>back, and generally too infirm to haul my personal tonnage about for
>>>very long distances, it was with great concern that I learned of the
>>>potential to eliminate horses and horse facilities in Yosemite.  These
>>>days, I can only hike 5-7 miles, without bodily complaint and failure.
>>>I have discovered horses in the past 5 years to be the perfect solution
>>>to getting back to where I want to be.
>>>
>>>You are proposing to eliminate horses and horse access just at the very
>>>time when other jurisdictions have discovered how much revenue
>>>equestrian pursuits can generate.  In fact the East Bay Water District
>>>has recently embarked on a program establishing horse camps at about 25
>>>mile increments throughout their holdings to capitalize on this revenue.
>>> In San Mateo County, reservations must be made ONE YEAR in advance to
>>>book at the Jack Brook Horse Camp.  In most cases, the equestrian
>>>community has built these facilities, and helps maintain them with
>>>volunteer contributions and efforts.  Rather than cutting back on horse
>>>activities, you might find it productive to create a master plan which
>>>expands them and incorporates volunteers in trail building, horse
>>>camping, volunteer patroling, and search and rescue.  Failure to include
>>>horses, and equestrians trails and facilities is denying the public of
>>>an incredibly valuable resource--especially us old foggies who will be
>>>becoming the demographic drivers of the next 30 years!
>>>
>>>In many counties in California, the Volunteer Horse Patrols provide a
>>>wonderful cost-effective extension for local jurisdication dealing with
>>>parks and recreation.  Below follows a copy of a proposal which we
>>>recently submitted to the SF Water Dept for use of a volunteer patrol in
>>>their urban watershed property.  The PUC is considering this proposal
>>>now.
>>>
>>>I would appreciate consideration of this viewpoint in your future
>>>decisions about our beloved Park.  Parks are for people, people need
>>>recreational pursuits...including horses.  Thanks so much !!!  Regards
>>>from
>>>
>>>Adda Quinn
>>>800-255-3774-2478
>>>
>>>PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO INCLUDE
>>>VOLUNTEER TRAIL PATROL SERVICES
>>>FOR THE Peninsula WATERSHED
>>>
>>>November 1997
>>>
>>>THE PROBLEM
>>>
>>>In a meeting between Cheryl Davis and Joe Naras of the San Francisco
>>>Water Department (SFWD) and members of the San Mateo County Voluntary
>>>Trail Patrol on October 30, 1997, the following issues were identified:
>>>
>>>*	The Preferred Alternative selected by the Public Utilities Commission
>>>(PUC) for the Master Plan for San Francisco Peninsula Watershed
>>>(Watershed) did not contain a recreational element sufficient to the
>>>needs of citizens in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties, the Bay Area
>>>at large, nor to the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco
>>>(SFBoS).  Specifically of interest are planning elements which include
>>>the potential for a golf course and more access to public lands through
>>>the property, similar to trail systems available in Santa Clara and
>>>Marin Counties, and the East Bay water districts.  
>>>*	The San Francisco PUC has been asked to build expanded recreational
>>>elements into the Comprehensive Management Plan which is under
>>>development.
>>>*	While a number of publicly accessed trails are proposed, including the
>>>Fifield, Cahill and Skyline Ridges, there is potential for unauthorized
>>>users to encroach on internal trails as well (see SFWD maps of potential
>>>recreational impacts available in Millbrae) in the 23,000 acres
>>>comprising the Watershed.  Equestrians are currently involved in
>>>informal patrol of this area and would like to continue this service
>>>until such time as it can be considered and formalized into the
>>>Comprehensive Management Plan.
>>>*	Lacking staff, expertise in recreation management, and budget to run a
>>>recreational component and control unauthorized use, the SFWD will
>>>likely look toward existing public agencies such as the County of San
>>>Mateo Park and Recreation Department (SMCP&R), the Mid-Peninsula
>>>Regional Open Space District (MROSD), or the Golden Gate National
>>>Recreational Area (GGNRA) to administer mixed use recreational programs.
>>> These agencies, in turn, rely on uniformed volunteer trail patrols to
>>>assist their management.
>>>*	While there may be challenges in balancing objectives between
>>>maintaining pristine water resources and making Watershed lands
>>>available to public access, there are also resources available to assist
>>>the SFWD in making this transition, and eventually in actual
>>>recreational management.  With the opening of parts of the 23,000 acres
>>>of land around Crystal Springs, the SFWD will significantly enlarge,
>>>complement, and connect to an existing 55,000 acres of parks and open
>>>spaces in San Mateo County.  The SFWD will find a uniformed volunteer
>>>trail patrol service to be an invaluable asset once recreational
>>>components are added to the Comprehensive Management Plan.
>>>	
>>>TRAINED RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE
>>>
>>>Equestrians were specifically invited into the Crystal Springs Water
>>>Shed in 1943 to perform patrol functions, and have had security access
>>>to interior trails in the Crystal Springs Watershed for the past six
>>>decades, with no adverse impacts recorded.  More recently, both foot and
>>>mountain bike patrol members have been trained by both SMCP&R and the
>>>MROSD in recognition of the value of mixed user patrols on trails.
>>>These volunteer patrol efforts are currently assisting limited staff on
>>>declining budgets in over 55,000 publicly held acres in San Mateo County
>>>alone.
>>>
>>>Both SMCP&R and MROSD offer formal training programs to instruct and
>>>certify trail patrol volunteers.  The volunteers provide their own
>>>uniforms and equipment, log patrol hours and locations, and operate
>>>under the rules and auspices imposed by the property-owing agency.  Both
>>>SMCP&R and MROSD actively recruit volunteers as staff extensions in
>>>order to defray costs and provide better public service.  There are
>>>never enough volunteers to patrol, build and maintain trails.  If even
>>>only some of the 23,000 acres of Crystal Springs Watershed is opened to
>>>the public, pre-trained volunteers currently exist and will be a
>>>valuable asset to the SFWD.  The only thing lacking is a formal method
>>>to connect this existing asset to potential SFWD recreational management
>>>needs.
>>>
>>>PROPOSAL to INCLUDE VOLUNTEER TRAIL PATROL IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AS
>>>RECREATIONAL LANDS OPEN
>>>
>>>The Volunteer Trail Patrol seeks consideration in the final
>>>Comprehensive Management Plan for provision of uniformed volunteer mixed
>>>user trail patrol services, not only on peripheral public access roads,
>>>but on internal roads to which we have had traditional access, as well
>>>as others deemed important by the SFWD to prevent unauthorized use. 
>>>
>>> Two options have potential:
>>>1.   Develop a formalized Volunteer Trail Patrol program with the SFWD
>>>staff along lines that will meet the needs of the Department as it
>>>expands recreational access to the Watershed, or
>>>2.   Use existing templates and agency resources such as from SMCP&R
>>>and/or MROSD
>>>
>>>This volunteer service is essentially AT NO COST to the SFWD.  The
>>>SMCP&R and MROSD provide badges and radios.  These are de minimus costs
>>>willingly incurred by the volunteers, if need be.  Communication
>>>mechanisms with field staff and formal incident report filing are the
>>>primary issues which need to be discussed.  A number of factors need to
>>>be taken into consideration:
>>>1.  Volunteers do not confront...they suggest, advise and report.
>>>2.  Communication will be the key issue for which standards will need to
>>>be developed.  Will the SFWD provide radios?  Will volunteers use cell
>>>phones?  Will written reports be submitted?  When?  
>>>3.  Volunteers will wear uniforms purchased at their own expense.  They
>>>will purchase chevrons or patches required to identify them with the
>>>property being patrolled, or these may be provided by the Department.
>>>Standard attire for MROSD and SMCP&R is khaki shirts and green
>>>hats/helmets;  the County provides a green windbreaker in addition while
>>>the MROSD provides a vest.  
>>>4.  For safety reasons, two people on patrol should be encouraged.  At
>>>least one of them would be required to be in full uniform.
>>>
>>>Since Volunteer Trail Patrol already has a presence and knowledge of the
>>>Watershed, and since we already have existing formal relationships with
>>>SMCP&R and MROSD agencies to provide volunteer trail patrol services, if
>>>the City of San Francisco chooses either of these agencies to assist in
>>>running its recreational component, mechanisms are currently in place to
>>>proceed rapidly to formalize patrol services according to Department
>>>specifications.  Should another agency be selected to manage
>>>recreational issues, the existing templates that we have in place with
>>>these two agencies, and are in presently in negotiation on at the GGNRA,
>>>could rapidly be adapted.  In the interim, we request permission to
>>>continue our current informal patrol activities.
>>>
>>>Please find enclosed information detailing requirements and orientation
>>>for San Mateo County.  While this attachment (not included for Yosemite)
>>>is specific to equestrian patrol (94 active members), the County
>>>currently provides training to volunteer foot patrol (12) and is
>>>prepared to extend training to bike patrols, according to Volunteer
>>>Coordinator, Ranger Lynne Fritz.  Please call her at 650-599-1306 for
>>>further information.  .  Similarly  detail requirements for the
>>>Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District  have equestrian patrol (12),
>>>foot patrol (31), dog accompanied foot patrol (7), bike patrols (14),
>>>according to Volunteer Coordinator, Paul McKowan.  Please call him at
>>>650-691-1200 for further information.  In both cases greater numbers are
>>>trained, but may be currently inactive and could be enticed to recertify
>>>if needed.
>>>
>>>While we will, of course, continue to make our services available to any
>>>of the peripheral public roads that may be opened as trails, the
>>>Volunteer Trail Patrol seeks to recognize current patrol functions on
>>>the existing internal trails to which we have had historic access, as
>>>well as to any others trails identified either now or later, as critical
>>>to assuring that unauthorized trail use does not occur outside of the
>>>publicly available routes.   We look forward to working with the SFWD to
>>>define a formal patrol service relationship.
>>>
>>>Adda Quinn
>>>
>>>EPRI
>>>aquinn@epri.com
>>>(800) 255-3774 x2478
>>
>
>
>