Vivian Creek Gate Issues

[Screerider]

Thanks to Ellen for her constructive efforts.

Be civil about it, understand their concerns as well as your problem.

I agree that the NFS, the SGWA, and Forest Falls residents have legitimate interests. But I also think most posts about this have been civil. For example, when someone on the board has an interaction with someone from the above who shows strong signs of not respecting or taking seriously our legitimate interests as hikers, it is not being uncivil to report that in a straightforward manner.

Sorry you're ideas were disrespected. You are special.

Jim,

I believe in people being courteous and respectful on this and other discussion boards. But twisting, distorting and exaggerating what other people say to make cheap, self-satisfying debating points is neither. Many of us occasionally transgress, and this is somewhat normal given our competitive and combative verbal culture. But Ken is in a class by himself. I have no apologies to make for calling him out.

[Ed]

Sorry you're ideas were disrespected. You are special.

Ouch!

No, I don't think I'm special. I do occasionally stand up for people on the board who I think are being criticized unfairly, when I think they are addressing important issues in a natural and constructive way.

[hvydrt]

A solution that balances the needs of all is the one most likely to be accepted....
HJ

I somewhat disagree with this. I think people against the gate need to voice their exact opinion and explain the reasons its wrong. The idea of meeting somewhere in the middle is great, but if you start off being OK with a comprise, the middle will end up being closer to the opposition. You know the people that want the gate aren't going to get up there and ask for a compromise, they are going to fight to keep it the way it is. So those in opposition should fight to have it open 24-7. Then maybe, a resolution can me made somewhere in the middle.

[Screerider]

Sorry Ed. Now I was being uncivil. It really doesn't add anything constructive to the topic.
Compromise always consists of two losers, but to go in with both guns blazing only drowns out the message. Simple solutions like access codes don't really amount to a compromise. Presenting such ideas without the character assassinations, deserved or not, will go much further in keeping your audience's attention.
Chastising your audience is another mistake. Conservation and preservation is their main goal. We go there because it remains in somewhat pristine condition then we fight them tooth and nail for their attempts to keep it that way. We may as stay home and hike in the city.
It's not about compromise at all, it's about prioritization in which we are not at the top of the list. You're not being denied access. You're really asking for a favor in the use of a parking lot. Demands will only get you ignored.

[zippetydude]

Hey Scree, it takes a big person to offer an honest apology. I respect that.

Regarding the parking, I'm a little confused about your use of "regulation". When we speak of regulation as in keeping too many people from going into the wilderness at one time, I think it's necessary. While that may at times mean we're the ones being asked to stay home, I still feel it's a good idea overall because it makes it possible to keep the wilderness wild. So far, so good.

With regulation regarding the parking and the times people are allowed to come and go, no other trail head in the SGW has any regulation at all (with respect to time) and I have started many runs between 3:00 and 6:00 in the morning. That sort of regulation isn't based upon protecting the wilderness, it's origin can be found in trying to protect the picnic area that vandals have been ruining. By the same token, the residents of Forest Falls also deserve protection, but they need no protection from you, or me, or Ellen, or any of the responsible people who get permits and go out into the wilderness for purely wholesome reasons.

So, I'm seeing the gate being locked as a reasonable attempt to protect the picnic area, and we as hikers are merely "collateral damage" as it were. If we can find another way to protect the area without the gate, I would hope that all parties would be satisfied. Am I wrong here?

z

[Screerider]

Z,
I think you have it exactly right.
It could be as simple as access codes or finding a host that gets up earlier and stays up late for that matter. (That could be a problem in itself.) Alternate parking perhaps outside the gate.
I really do understand your concerns. Understandably though while they may try to accommodate, it really isn't their problem. It's our problem. If we try to make it theirs, it will just be pointless and self defeating.

[Ed]

No offense, Screerider. Hope to meet you on the trail someday.

I see some merit to all the approaches advocated here. Even though they conflict! Hard to tell how a meeting will progress, particularly when you are meeting with strangers over a thorny and multi-sided issue.

[Hikin_Jim]

I've said that I didn't think opening the gate a little earlier (say 4:00 AM) wouldn't hurt anything (in terms of trailhead area vandalism), but that was of course an educated guess. Interestingly, NPR featured a story recently about the effect of going off daylight saving time and its impact on crime rates.

One interesting quote:
"Criminals just don't commit crime in the morning."

I think the study that NPR cites lends credence to my assertion that opening the gate earlier would not lead to an increase in crime.

While it would be perhaps be even better to have key cards that would allow legitimate users to come and go as they please, replacing the gate isn't going to happen quickly (we might be talking years here; this is a government agency we're talking about), and how do you determine who is a legitimate user? Not all hikes out of Falls Rec Area require a permit (Mill Creek Jump Off, Yucaipa Ridge). I continue to think that opening the gate is a practical solution to the issue that a) minimizes vandalism while b) preserving reasonable access.

HJ

[Hikin_Jim]

Also of note is the policy of a "wilderness" (city designated, not federal) area near me:


Seems like it might be a fairly common practice or at least one with precedent.

HJ

[Ellen]

Howdy All

Since the encouraging e-mail from Deputy Forest Supervisor Exline on October 25, I've heard nothing from District Ranger Gabe Garcia. Time to follow up -- stay tuned.

Miles of smiles,
Ellen