Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I thought I should post this here:

Club Message from:TEAM TEQUILA SOLO

Below is a message I got regarding the Cowboy Trails. Please call Bob
Taylor and express your concerns. I know how everyone would feel if the
trails were to reopen to equestrians and the damage to the environment
they cause.

Bob Taylor
Bureau of Land Mgmt
Asst Field Mgr - Las Vegas Office
[email protected]
702.515.5051
4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89130

"Please drop him a note, or call him to express your concern about the
equestrian trail rides being opened back up at the cowboy trails.

Here are some notes about him:
Very nice guy, 62, former military, lived in Las Vegas ~30 years, mountain
biker, road biker & hiker.

I met with him for ~3 hours yesterday afternoon. A temporary license has
been issued through September 09. (That is the end of the fiscal year of
the government.) In his words, they are on a very tight leash, and if
they do not meet the requirements, the license will be pulled. However,
they will inspect the trail only 1 time per month.

It is important that we communicate in a positive manor, yet still express
the concern over the damage to the are created by the equestrian traffic.
They welcome feedback from the public, and the more we communicate, the
better chances we have to eliminating the issue."
 

·
Spoke-n-Spoon Junkie
Joined
·
380 Posts
I support IMBA's view for multi use trails. I thought otherwise until I had the opportunity to work with some IMBA folks on cleaning up some trails and they showed me the benefits of horses on the trail.

"http://www.imba.com/resources/bike_management/trailofown.html

A Trail of One's Own?

Separate Trails Divide; Shared Trails Unite

Jim Hasenauer, IMBA Past President

IMBA activists have often heard proposals for separate mountain bike trails. The idea seems to appeal to a number of people because it purports to eliminate user conflict with other trail goers. Bicyclists confronted with the choice between separate trails or total closure have sometimes accepted a separate trail solution.
I think mountain bicyclists should think carefully before endorsing this idea. It perpetuates the myth that bicycling is incompatible with other uses. It threatens access to existing multiple use trail systems. Often, it unnecessarily leads to the too many trails in an ecosystem best left wild.
Sometimes, the pressure for separate trails comes from other users who don't want bicyclists on "their trails". They may be hikers who feel their sweat equity has given them ownership, or motorcyclists whose green sticker money has actually paid for trail opportunities. Hoarding the thousands of miles of existing trails, some users have told bicyclists to go build their own. This country club mentality has no place on the public lands and while bicyclists are willing to build and maintain trails, it makes sense for us to do it with and for the benefit of all trail users.
Some land managers think separate trails will eliminate user conflict. It's commonplace in recreational land management to separate incompatible uses. This philosophy need not apply. Responsible bicycle use is compatible in most cases. When users know that a trail is multiple use, they expect to encounter others. When users follow trail protocol, they can safely negotiate their trail encounters. Besides being unnecessary, monitoring and enforcing separate trails is a management nightmare.
Even if bicyclists and other users had separate but equal mileage (something I've never seen proposed), they'd covet their neighbors' trails. Everyone would still want to see what the other users were enjoying. Trail users like to explore. Twenty miles of multiple use trail is worth more than two separate ten mile sections.
From day one, IMBA has advocated multiple-use trails. This position is based on the following beliefs:
  1. Shared use trails can best accommodate the needs of the most users. A generally open backcountry disperses users across an entire trail system. Single use or restricted use trails tend to concentrate users. This increases social impacts through crowding.
  2. Sharing trails help build a trail community by increasing the need for all users to cooperate to preserve and protect a common resource. Encountering other users on a trail offers the opportunity to meet and talk. Without that opportunity, it's difficult to establish mutual respect and courtesy. Separate trails breed ill will, territoriality and rivalries.
  3. Shared trails are most cost effective for land managers. They require fewer signs and less staff. Monitoring and enforcement is simplified.
  4. Shared trails enable responsible, experienced users to educate outlaws and novices. Because they share the same trail system, the opportunity for peer regulation is enhanced.
  5. Single-user trails increase demands for the construction of additional trails to serve other single user groups. This increases the ecosystem impacts including potential habitat fragmentation and water sedimentation.

    IMBA is aware that local conditions vary and that sometimes separate trails are a legitimate compromise solution to a management problem. There are a couple of cases where separate trails make good sense. Large trail systems with very crowded trailheads could have separate feeders. A designated mountain bike area could allow experts to race train without the inconvenience of other users. Some very technical, trials type sections might be set aside for mountain bikers to hone their skills. Similarly, trails designated for mountain bike beginners might allow for individuals to develop their trail riding abilities before joining other users on the multiple use trail systems. It's hard to think of many other situations where separate trails offer any advantages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
the horse guys have a key to the gate also (besides the park rangers); we saw one last night bringing water in. they are "permitted" to use land to corral their horses and operate a for profit business utilizing public trail systems and land. this is not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a clear difference between running a horsey ride business using public land at no cost, and having recreational horse guys come out and use the trails.

what the horsey guys have done is create "new" paths in some sections, bypassing the rocky areas, then connecting back up when it smooths out. it is understandable why the horsey guys would encourage that practice; less injuries to hoofs, joints, and shoes= less overhead expenses, and, they have more horse options for their tours because not all horses will track over rocky terrain.

i personally do not care if horses use the trails as long as the "pack leaders" are not jack offs and the horses stay on the trail. i dont even mind riding through the crap. i dont like to see the damage made by poor judgement, for the sake of personal profit or just plain disregard. i also do not believe that a mountain bike and rider totaling 200 or so pounds has any where near the impact as a 1500# four legged beast with steel (or aluminum) shoes, especially during wet conditions.

why, exactly, is there an issue, any way? i was not aware that the bike guys had a problem.
 

·
Young, Shawn Young
Joined
·
3,165 Posts
Hmm, I thought we were using "their" trail system. I always figured, cool they have these cool trails and they are sharing them with us. The only reason I could see bikers getting upset is from what I hear they have been grooming the trails and now the horses are coming back.
 

·
V-Shaped Rut
Joined
·
3,178 Posts
And lets also not forget that there really isn't much horse traffic to speak of after the first few miles. I've never seen droppings or horseprints above fossil canyon or on the way up to the overlook. Its just too rocky and dangerous in spots. I doubt this is going to change with recreational horse riders and as mentioned they will likely create some alternate paths for folks who don't want to ride the rough stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Redmon said:
Hmm, I thought we were using "their" trail system. I always figured, cool they have these cool trails and they are sharing them with us. The only reason I could see bikers getting upset is from what I hear they have been grooming the trails and now the horses are coming back.
You've got it backwards, those trails were built by Jared for mountain bikes, the horses came later.
 

·
Young, Shawn Young
Joined
·
3,165 Posts
guyintense said:
You've got it backwards, those trails were built by Jared for mountain bikes, the horses came later.
I did not know that. Thanks for clearing that up:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
First of all, I like horses...they're kind of like big dogs...only dumber.

Those commercial horse rides may represent some people's first glimpse of the beauty of the southern Nevada desert.

The present "recession" represents a bit of a respite but I'm sure we'll see developers (can your say "Jim Rhodes") greasing various state and local officials (when does Erin Kenney get out of the big house) in attempts to develop (and ruin) the area near Red Rock. Those horse people interfering with our trail rides (and even the "car people" interfering with the loop rides) may be our future allies.

We are all in this together. We have something very special down here and will need all the support we can gather to keep it.

Got to love those horsies.
 

·
V-Shaped Rut
Joined
·
3,178 Posts
wingforward said:
(and even the "car people" interfering with the loop rides) may be our future allies..
I'm one of those 'sportbike people' who interferes with the scenic loop rides. Believe me, the local sportbike scene does not want developers turning red rock into another suburb. And most serious riders are very careful of bikes and other non-motorized traffic. Even though some roadies are downright dicks. :madmax:

There are few enough places to get out and play as it is. Horses I can handle, its the HOA loving soccer moms I'm worried about. :D
 

·
Prone To Internet Drama
Joined
·
238 Posts
wingforward said:
First of all, I like horses...they're kind of like big dogs...only dumber.

Those commercial horse rides may represent some people's first glimpse of the beauty of the southern Nevada desert.

The present "recession" represents a bit of a respite but I'm sure we'll see developers (can your say "Jim Rhodes") greasing various state and local officials (when does Erin Kenney get out of the big house) in attempts to develop (and ruin) the area near Red Rock. Those horse people interfering with our trail rides (and even the "car people" interfering with the loop rides) may be our future allies.

We are all in this together. We have something very special down here and will need all the support we can gather to keep it.

Got to love those horsies.
I agree, the easiest way to defeat a large group is to break it down into sub-groups... divide and conquer. It's best to accept and tolerate all trail users than alienate any portion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
guyintense said:
You've got it backwards, those trails were built by Jared for mountain bikes, the horses came later.
jared discovered and started riding the trails. he has participated is some grooming, but he didnt build or create. the horsey rides have been out there long before any knobby tracks showed up. the animal responsible for most of the trails are the wild ass, AKA burros.....

anyone using the trails should stay on the trail and not contribute to any terrain disturbance, including off trail. if the horses can do that and not cause any concerning changes, as determined by the feds, and they (like anyone else) are respectful, then what can you do? it is public land.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top