EISPIRATEN

http://www.modernhiker.com/2016/06/02/p ... a-borrego/

"The California Department of Parks and Recreation has proposed a rule to prohibit public access off designated trails in Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, and State Natural Reserves within the California State Park System"

Not much effect around these parts, since Santa Monica Mtns pretty much bans it already. This would newly affect Red Rocks in Mojave and San Diego County/Anza Borrego. Like 70-80 areas overall in California.

Leave the trail, go to jail. This is for your safety and that of the environment. Signed, the nanny state.

Map:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/862/files ... 20page.pdf

The whole point of designating things as "preserve" is to, well, preserve them. If we have to stay in some limited areas how will future generations actually learn about what is being preserved? I suppose this could/should be a call to action for people to build some designated trails within some of the areas.

Here is another point of view from the Mt. San Jacinto board posted by OtherHand:

While it appears a bit alarming at first glance, digging into the actual proposal makes it seem not only pretty benign, but leaves me wondering why it hasn't already been implemented.

There aren't a lot of State Natural Preserves in California, but the following appear to be those in the southern part of the state:
Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve
Indio Hills Palms
Point Dume
Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve

OK, so idiots shouldn't be wandering off-trail in these areas trampling the pretty. I'm OK with that.

In terms of Cultural Preserves, these seem to be small areas, maybe a few acres, of either historical or archaeological "stuff". Here's a list of the 20 current Cultural Preserves in California. http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23750

This also strikes me as just fine, and I've already seen it in certain areas of Anza-Borrego at the sites of old Indian villages. They are fenced and posted to keep the yahoos and relic hunters out.

I don't see anything that would prohibit off-trail usage we all know and love in San Jac State Park. I don't think it even applies to that Hidden area which shall not be named.

JeffH wrote: ↑The whole point of designating things as "preserve" is to, well, preserve them.

Exactly. How is building new trails "preserving"?

The only reason for this is to kick out the good actors who keep an eye on these places....and point out the phony environmentalism and shortcomings of the land mgmt.

AW wrote: ↑The only reason for this is to kick out the good actors who keep an eye on these places....and point out the phony environmentalism and shortcomings of the land mgmt.

If that was the case, why limit it to Preserves and not expand it to all state parks?

SGBob wrote: ↑

AW wrote: ↑The only reason for this is to kick out the good actors who keep an eye on these places....and point out the phony environmentalism and shortcomings of the land mgmt.

If that was the case, why limit it to Preserves and not expand it to all state parks?

There wont be any state parks as we know them....they are exiting the control to developers/land-grabbers. Parks Forward is likely the same lobbyists as San Gabriel Mountains Forever....at least their agenda reads to a T the same thing.

The proposal seemed heavy handed when I read it. I wrote to the DNR to express my opinion but don't expect it to be given much credence.

Is the government trying to preserve the remains of civilizations it systematically destroyed during the Manifest Destiny expansion across the continent?

Particularly in later years, conflicts were spurred by ideologies such as Manifest Destiny, which held that the United States was destined to expand from coast to coast on the North American continent. In the 1830s, the United States had a policy of Indian removal east of the Mississippi River, which was a planned, large-scale removal of indigenous peoples from the areas where Europeans were settling. Particularly in the years leading up to Congressional passage of the related act, there was armed conflict between settlers and Native Americans; some removal was achieved through sale or exchange of territory through treaties.

tekewin wrote: ↑Is the government trying to preserve the remains of civilizations it systematically destroyed during the Manifest Destiny expansion across the continent?

Well, yes. Do you remember the line from the movie Apocalypse Now? "It's a way we had over here for living with ourselves. We cut 'em in half with a machine gun and give 'em a Band-Aid."

RichardK wrote: ↑

tekewin wrote: ↑Is the government trying to preserve the remains of civilizations it systematically destroyed during the Manifest Destiny expansion across the continent?

Well, yes. Do you remember the line from the movie Apocalypse Now? "It's a way we had over here for living with ourselves. We cut 'em in half with a machine gun and give 'em a Band-Aid."

They make many phony statements for their purpose, but just follow the money. Government wants to get out of the cost of land. By offloading it to the dictatorship of the land grabbers, you get rid of that problem.

We are going to see what weve already been seeing...reduced access and increasing fees. Gradually the expectations of access reduce, and the socialist prison expectations rule the day.

In California parks, the comments are moot. The law is the Parks Forward bureaucrats are in charge....to reduce the cost of the parks(which were spared defunding). And this policy is but one part of the Parks Forward directive recently decided.

In 2011, CSPF worked with then-Assemblymember Jared Huffman to introduce legislation – Assembly Bill 1589 and Assembly Bill 1478 – that helped lay the groundwork for the Parks Forward Initiative. Both bills included a requirement that an advisory board be established to conduct an independent assessment of the California state parks system and make recommendations to both the Legislature and the governor on park management, planning and funding to ensure a sustainable future.

In February 2015, the Parks Forward Commission released final recommendations calling for a fundamental transformation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation to bring out the very best in the California State Park System and ensure its long-term viability. The Department of Parks and Recreation created a Transformation Team dedicated to making a reinvigorated California State Park System a reality.

Much of the transformation effort’s success to date has come thanks to the generous support of many of our state’s leading philanthropies. But broadening the effort across the department will require leadership by the administration and legislature to ensure the department has the resources it needs to see reforms through. And that will mean — at least in part — eliminating barriers to transformation and securing the stable funding that our parks system needs going forward.

For example, check their recent 'transformation' for Mount Tamalpais, which looks to be a futuristic vision of the parks'..."Radar gun-wielding rangers on Northern California’s Mount Tamalpais will soon begin enforcing a strict 15-mile-per-hour speed limit.....We don’t have good data about how often speeding is occurring on Open Space Trails and this effort will provide good data about speeding in our preserves,” Max Korten, acting assistant director of Marin County Parks, told FoxNews.com..... A citation would go on the violator’s DMV record, and fines could reach $100.... Sheriff’s deputies in the area reportedly have issued more than 60 citations and warnings. Rangers also patrol popular off-road trails in California’s East Bay and other areas in the state are known for their ranger presence...."

Why is enforcing the law considered a bad thing, especially laws directly involving safety (like speed limits)? I wish there were twenty times more cops enforcing traffic laws with fines double what they are now. The number of brainless idiots who drive like their having a bout of 'roid rage is out of control.

SGBob wrote: ↑Why is enforcing the law considered a bad thing, especially laws directly involving safety (like speed limits)? I wish there were twenty times more cops enforcing traffic laws with fines double what they are now. The number of brainless idiots who drive like their having a bout of 'roid rage is out of control.

I think you may have thought the quotation was about aggression on highways like the Palmdale commuters. Mt Tam put park money to use by hiring rangers to issue citations to mountain bikers....for the dictate of a speed limit of 15mph on any trail. This is in a place that was the home of mountain biking. This would be the same as paying to put rangers out in the brush ,like on the Ken Burton trail, with a radar gun to arbitrate a 15 mph limit. I dont know if you still think this would be a good use of money for 'safety' purposes.

Too many speeding mountain bikers? Easy solution: shut down the trail!

Then more resources could go toward cleaning pit toilets and restoring trails.

Public meeting record:
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016 ... acramento/

A whole 'nother topic has now swamped this one:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... 0160AB2444

Nov Ballot: $3+ Billion for CA parks....to be spent right away upon passage.
Passed CA house, but needs to pass CA senate by June 30th to appear on ballot.

Looks like the AB thing was reintroduced.

The earlier one moves along:
"Section 4325 Off Trail Restrictions - Preserves and Reserves

(a) No person shall leave trails or board walks in Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, or State Natural Reserves within the California State Park System, unless approved by the Department.

(b) Notwithstanding (a), the entirety or portions of Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, or State Natural Reserves may be open to off-trail access:

(1) on routes of travel that have been shown in a general plan or management plan or adopted in a similar process;

(2) in an area that has been designated open for off-trail use by the park unit’s general plan or a specific management plan;

(3) or, on a route of travel or in an area that the District Superintendent designates open for off-trail use by posted order after determining that off-trail use is important for public access and where it has been determined that impacts to the resources for which the park unit was established will not be significant.

(cb) Section (a) shall not restrict Department employees or their agents for the purpose of management, including but not limited to such as research, enforcement, rescue, or educational programs."

AW wrote: ↑Looks like the AB thing was reintroduced.

The earlier one moves along:
"Section 4325 Off Trail Restrictions"

What does this mean, specifically? The public comment period on this just ended last week. Are you saying this regulation has now passed, or the parks people forwarded it up to whoever actually votes on this? If you've got a news link, I'd like to see it.

dima wrote: ↑ What does this mean, specifically? The public comment period on this just ended last week. Are you saying this regulation has now passed, or the parks people forwarded it up to whoever actually votes on this? If you've got a news link, I'd like to see it.

No...I was just saying the first round was over and what the results of the first round were. As you pointed out, the results of the second round are not in yet.

The only new news on that front was a statement of support of the regulations from the Sierra Club et al.
http://www.safetrailscoalition.org/wp-c ... t-2016.pdf

So is there anything in the San gabes that would be effected/affected whichever word it is?

Taco wrote: ↑So is there anything in the San gabes that would be effected/affected whichever word it is?

No, but the San Gabes is being affected by the monument plan being adapted. It identifies areas to 'protect'...although it doesnt say how they would be protected yet. Its been a long time coming...."Discouraging Off-Trail Hiking to Protect Park Resources: Evaluating
Management Efficacy and Natural Recovery ", which was funded by the FS in 2010.

The Gabes is certainly going to restrict off-trail even more. For example, the East Fork will be day-use only so thats one way to clamp down on this evil behavior....and the public parking is being moved further away from Heaton. The section of Aliso-Alistare already is all no parking/no stopping if I recall, so whether they would put this into the plan for that area I dont know.

It does not appear that we will be like the Sana Monica Mountains, which bans all off-trail hiking."In permitting recreational activities, including rock climbing, the National Park Service must ensure that no damage to cultural resources occurs and that every effort is made to protect the park's natural resources and wilderness values.".."§ 3.5. Injury to property. No person not having a permit from the Executive Officer shall encroach upon, injure, deface, damage, destroy, collect, harvest, construct upon, grade, or in any way alter the existing condition of any parkland "

Thank you, AW.

...like the Sana Monica Mountains, which bans all off-trail hiking.

The Santa Monicas bans off-trail hiking?

Yeah, ok. Lol.