Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
More Torque
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
Saw a blurb about that in the Merc this morning. I'm curious to know where they had this operation set up, as the SFWD has a ton of land back there, but much of it is not easily accessed.

-D
 

·
Like a boss.
Joined
·
662 Posts
boo

highdelll said:
Wouldn't be a problem/danger if the damn stuff was legal :madman:
Not to mention, if it was legal, you wouldn't have to f*ck up public watershed lands to grow it. It costs an incredible amount of money to clean up and restore these sites after they're discovered. I'd wager that the final price tag for restoring the huge pot farming operation discovered along Bolinas Ridge in Point Reyes a few years back approached $250K. It costs a lot of money to get equipment up there and fix what's been f*cked up. That's taxpayer money that doesn't get spent on new trails, educational programs, etc. The people that do this suck goat balls, IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
A secondary moral to the story is San Francisco owns a lot of Open Space land throughout Northern California - and crazy incidents like these could play well in the long run to getting some user trails in them to keep them safe from 'rogue activities' like poaching and dope growing!

SF Urban Riders are making an impact, and soon we will have our Gavinator in the State Capital.... stranger things have happened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,126 Posts
But we can't hike or ride there because it might be environmentally damaging. :rolleyes:

I can't help but notice these big commercial grow operations keep showing up on "public" lands that are closed to the public. Maybe in these tough economic times, the various agencies impacted by this should re-evaluate the costs and benefits of public access.
 

·
~Disc~Golf~
Joined
·
16,496 Posts
Piranha426 said:
Not to mention, if it was legal, you wouldn't have to f*ck up public watershed lands to grow it. It costs an incredible amount of money to clean up and restore these sites after they're discovered. I'd wager that the final price tag for restoring the huge pot farming operation discovered along Bolinas Ridge in Point Reyes a few years back approached $250K. It costs a lot of money to get equipment up there and fix what's been f*cked up. That's taxpayer money that doesn't get spent on new trails, educational programs, etc. The people that do this suck goat balls, IMHO.
YUP - It's definitely more costly having marijuana illegal - everything from clean-up/ restoration to eradication costs to enforcement to housing 'criminals' - all for something that's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco - and also is beneficial in some cases.

OK
/soapbox :p
 

·
Like a boss.
Joined
·
662 Posts
it's all about the drinking water

HarryCallahan said:
But we can't hike or ride there because it might be environmentally damaging. :rolleyes:

I can't help but notice these big commercial grow operations keep showing up on "public" lands that are closed to the public. Maybe in these tough economic times, the various agencies impacted by this should re-evaluate the costs and benefits of public access.
Well, Point Reyes certainly isn't closed to the public, but the watershed lands are a whole different story. I've spent some time on EBMUD lands that are closed to the general public, and wow, there are some gorgeous properties back there. It's weird, some agencies (like SFPUC and EBMUD) are hyper-protective of their water quality/watershed access, and then there are some like MMWD that allow access but little water-based recreation, and then there's drinking water reservoirs like San Luis Reservoir that are full of sh*t (literally) that gets dumped off boats from recreational users.

It's worth noting that if the state made it easier to recycle your own drinking water, then the water resources in the reservoirs would become less of a critical need, thereby maybe facilitating access? Hmm...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,126 Posts
Piranha426 said:
Well, Point Reyes certainly isn't closed to the public, but the watershed lands are a whole different story. I've spent some time on EBMUD lands that are closed to the general public, and wow, there are some gorgeous properties back there. It's weird, some agencies (like SFPUC and EBMUD) are hyper-protective of their water quality/watershed access, and then there are some like MMWD that allow access but little water-based recreation, and then there's drinking water reservoirs like San Luis Reservoir that are full of sh*t (literally) that gets dumped off boats from recreational users.
...
Well, that's pretty much my point. Keeping folks out of the water shed makes sense if it really protects water quality, but I think that's increasingly questionable.
 

·
Like a boss.
Joined
·
662 Posts
indeed

HarryCallahan said:
Well, that's pretty much my point. Keeping folks out of the water shed makes sense if it really protects water quality, but I think that's increasingly questionable.
Agreed. From a water quality management perspective, blocking bikes while allowing dogs and/or horses and/or and drunken bass fisherman doesn't make a whole lot sense. In most cases, it's pretty much an all-or-nothing gig. That being said, there are certainly some areas that from a resource management perspective should stay off-limits to everyone - I'm thinking specifically of certain SFPUC lands on the peninsula and some other lands in the East Bay that support a lot of wildlife species that have been wiped out everywhere else around the Bay. I have no problem with keeping everyone off these properties; but it obviously creates a management challenge re: security.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top