home

In light of run-ins with angry couple, BLM will increase patrols, presence at Sandy Ridge

Posted by on March 17th, 2014 at 10:06 am

Sandy Ridge loop-6
Riders at the Sandy Ridge parking lot.
(Photo by J. Maus/BikePortland)

The Bureau of Land Management says they will step up patrols of the Sandy Ridge Trail System after reports of confrontations gained traction among local riding groups and in the media last week.

Last Tuesday, we reported that several users of the trails at Sandy Ridge claimed they were confronted by an “older couple.” The allegations described a man and a woman who had used mace on dogs owned by people riding mountain bikes. In one case, shared by a man named Chris Hess via a comment on BikePortland, the woman approached a family and pulled a stun gun on Mr. Hess’s wife “with her finger on the trigger sparkling it and taking steps towards her.”

We’ve been in contact with the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office about the case and they’ve confirmed receipt of several complaints. On Friday, CCSO Lt. Robert Wurpes confirmed they have forwarded the case above to the Disrict Attorney for consideration of criminal charges.

Also on Friday, BLM Salem District Manager Kim Titus published a statement about the incidents:

The Sandy Ridge Trail System is growing in popularity, serving 60,000 visitors in 2013. The BLM Salem District strives to make it a family-friendly biking destination where riders of all ability levels can improve their skills and enjoy a day in the woods. As use increases, so too does the potential for conflicts between users.

The BLM has been made aware of reports of conflict between visitors. BLM law enforcement and recreation staff will be working with Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office to find a resolution. The BLM urges visitors with dogs to keep control of their animals at all times. We also ask that all visitors are polite and respectful of others and obey the posted rules and regulations. In the meantime, we’ll be increasing our law enforcement presence and promoting visitor education.

It’s no surprise the BLM is taking this matter seriously. Sandy Ridge and the greater Mt. Hood area is in the midst of a bicycling boom and the tourism dollars generated by trial users is an important part of the region’s economy.

Stay tuned for further developments.

— Watch video coverage of this story via KATU and KOIN.

CORRECTION: The initial version of this story described the incidents as “assaults.” That was a mistake. We are not aware of any physical harm to anyone as a result of these confrontations. At this point, if the allegations are true, the couple would be guilty of “Menacing,” a misdemeanor according to Oregon law.

Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • Ethan March 17, 2014 at 10:10 am

    My read: They will be ticketing users with off-leash dogs.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Chris I March 17, 2014 at 10:29 am

      And hopefully arresting individuals that choose to assault other humans for silly things like having dogs off leash.

      Someone is going to get hurt out there if they don’t stop these people.

      Recommended Thumb up 22

      • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 11:17 am

        Anyone having to worry about dogs jumping, harrassing them, is not silly.

        Dog owners using the park, long ago could have avoided this situation, if they had taken their responsibility to leash and otherwise control their animals.

        Recommended Thumb up 13

        • Chris I March 17, 2014 at 12:18 pm

          How do you know that the dogs were jumping on them? You have no evidence that dogs ever harassed this couple.

          Recommended Thumb up 16

          • rainbike March 17, 2014 at 12:32 pm

            Lack of evidence (or lack of formal training in the law, or even common sense) rarely stops some bikeportland commenters.

            Recommended Thumb up 18

        • fivefrud March 17, 2014 at 1:56 pm

          At least one report was from a dog owner whose dog was leashed.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Elliot March 17, 2014 at 2:17 pm

          Two wrongs don’t make a right. Dog owners need to be responsible, sure, but the actions of this couple are entirely their own responsibility.

          Having an unleashed dog is negligent, but threatening other people with weapons shows intent.

          Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Paul March 17, 2014 at 12:50 pm

        Some might consider an off-leash dog an assault weapon!

        Recommended Thumb up 5

      • 007 March 19, 2014 at 8:39 pm

        The dogs belong on lead. It’s not silly. I’m tired of people who think rules don’t apply to them.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy March 17, 2014 at 10:46 am

      Except that leashes are not required.

      BLM pet rules: “Pets are allowed on public lands must be on a leash or otherwise controlled when in developed recreation sites. Pets should not create a hazard or nuisance for other visitors or harass wildlife.”

      Recommended Thumb up 17

      • rainbike March 17, 2014 at 1:12 pm

        And “otherwise controlled” will be likely be defined by the one with the badge.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

    • spencer March 17, 2014 at 12:51 pm

      In control does not mean leashed. My two dogs ride 2nd and 3rd wheel (so to speak) and do not pass the 1st rider. My dogs are not criminals. A dog under voice commnd is safe and appropriate for trails.

      The portland parks could learn a thing or two about managing their trail systems. Riverview was great until they banished my shred dogs.

      Recommended Thumb up 13

  • Red Dawg March 17, 2014 at 10:24 am

    dogs dont have to be on a leash though right? they just have to be well behaved in close proximity to their owners?

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Ethan March 17, 2014 at 10:33 am

    It’s not Portland out there folks. They undoubtably went and talked to the couple and told them to knock it off, and promised them they would address the dog issue, which is what they are going to do. I’d bet that couple has a cell phone number for BLM and Clackamas LE and a promise they will respond.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • q`Tzal March 17, 2014 at 11:12 am

      And hopefully the CCSO told the old couple point blank “If you threaten someone’s life or property they are within their rights to defend themselves. If you are injured the ambulance won’t arrive in time; are off leash dogs worth your lives?”

      Until the public has some assurances that this couple of rabid humans are defanged other public park users are well advised to arrive armed to defend themselves.
      Yes off leash dogs are a problem.
      Yes I’ve been attacked by large dogs in my childhood.
      Yes I’d carry bear spray to stop an aggressive dog.
      NO! You DO NOT use it preemptively to threaten or attack people.
      If you’ve allowed an aggressive dog to get close enough to require a stun gun your tactical judgment is sorely lacking.

      Maybe this couple have a story of extreme trauma up in these woods. Robbery, violent assault of some sort or they saw a large predatory mammal. Unfortunately, if true, they’ve allowed this trauma to turn them in to the same monster they wish to avoid.

      Recommended Thumb up 18

      • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 11:27 am

        “…NO! You DO NOT use it preemptively to threaten or attack people. …” q`Tzal

        You, nor anyone other than the police and officials that have actually bothered to listen to the couple’s story, knows that this is something they’ve done.

        If they’ve acted self defensively, which, despite the largely one sided story posted here on bikeportland, they may very well have done, then they were certainly within their rights to have taken the measures they did.

        Maybe it’s time to “…defang…”, you. You’re certainly going overboard with assumptions about this couple being less than compassionate human beings.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • q`Tzal March 17, 2014 at 11:46 am

          Why is your first reply to every topic to attack the person not the topic?
          I know some people enjoy debating but you just seem to thrive on verbal assault.
          Why?

          Recommended Thumb up 24

          • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm

            “…Why is your first reply to every topic to attack the person not the topic?…” q`Tzal

            Somebody should be confronting you and others that say the type of thing you did in your remarks about these people. Those kinds of remarks about these people are out of line and irresponsible. They serve only to worsen a bad situation, and slow down resolution of it.

            The same goes for comments some people write in response to other issues and incidents covered in stories by bikeportland. Instead of well reasoned observations and suggestions offered to try understand situations reported, certain people instead take this weblog as an opportunity to unleash a fusillade of malicious, antagonistic, inflammatory garbage. Its important that efforts to counter the counterproductive be made. I’m willing to do that.

            Recommended Thumb up 7

            • fivefrud March 17, 2014 at 2:00 pm

              Thanks for stating your clear and intended bias.

              Recommended Thumb up 11

            • Nathan March 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm

              There is a difference between confronting ones ideas and verbally attacking their person. Comments by “wsbob” are many times well thought-out, but the defanging one above is simply an outright attack.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

              • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 9:32 pm

                “…but the defanging one above is simply an outright attack.” Nathan

                Nathan, re-read q`Tzal’s original comment, first sentence, second paragraph:

                http://bikeportland.org/2014/03/17/in-light-of-assaults-blm-will-increase-patrols-presence-at-sandy-ridge-103054#comment-4596082

                If there’s attack in my remarks, rather than upon the person having written it, it’s upon use of the kind of hysterical, presumptive terms used in the paragraph and sentence cited. Lacking a full understanding of how the incidents in Sandy Ridge came about, it’s wrong to refer to these people by those kind of terms. Just as it would be wrong to refer in the same way, to people and their dogs, or people on their bikes.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

            • mran1984 March 17, 2014 at 4:21 pm

              All you are willing to do is give the benefit of the doubt to folks who you “feel for”. I

              Recommended Thumb up 6

              • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 9:40 pm

                You’ve got to make your question clear before it can be answered clearly. Benefit of the doubt? About what? I don’t know the people in question, why the incidents occurred, or how the parties involved, contributed, or didn’t contribute to the incidents having occurred. At this point, I give the benefit of the doubt to all parties involved.

                As to who was guilty, or innocent of something, that remains to be determined. Hopefully with a little help, all parties will be able to resolve the situation in a more amicable way.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

        • UncleMuscles March 17, 2014 at 11:50 am

          I’m pretty sure that if Pol Pot had decided to wipe mountain bikers off the face of the earth you would have come up with some convoluted defense of him as well.

          Recommended Thumb up 14

          • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 12:34 pm

            What I’m doing, is pointing out that people having assumed the people in question are guilty, may be incorrect in their assumptions. With little understanding of why the incidents occurred, they want to have someone charged and convicted.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • UncleMuscles March 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm

              Yet you have no problem painting all mountain bikers as irresponsible thrill seekers out to destroy your trails and nature itself.

              Recommended Thumb up 13

              • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 9:56 pm

                “Yet you have no problem painting all mountain bikers as irresponsible thrill seekers out to destroy your trails and nature itself.” UncleMuscles

                I’ve never characterized all mountain bikers as irresponsible thrill seekers out to destroy everyone’s trails and nature itself, and I haven’t described Sandy Ridge mountain bikers that way either. I’ve recognized and written in past, as I do now, that there is range of different types of off-road biking, which is appropriate for some natural areas, but not others.

                My understanding for some years, has been that Sandy Ridge, unlike most other nature parks in the metro area, was specifically designated for off-road biking use. Whatever kind of riding that off-road bikers can responsibly manage, is fine there. As for the incidents in question, from reading stories and comments here at bikeportland, I can’t be absolutely certain, but they seem to have arisen from encounters with dogs and people, rather than people and bikes.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Chris I March 17, 2014 at 1:23 pm

              And you are apparently assuming that the dogs are harassing people, without any evidence of such behavior.

              Recommended Thumb up 11

              • Middle of the Road guy March 17, 2014 at 1:56 pm

                I would say he merely offered it as an alternative, as compared to the assumption that all dogs are loving and docile.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm

                Chris I
                And you are apparently assuming that the dogs are harassing people, without any evidence of such behavior.
                Recommended 7

                I’m assuming no such thing. I am saying that I don’t know what the situation has been, and that I don’t think anyone else presently does except possibly, officials that have interviewed the people in question.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

        • RRRoubaix March 17, 2014 at 11:56 am

          “Overboard”? So reports of guns shoved into people’s faces and a lunatic threatening to stun a dog are reasonable responses?
          I understand you like to play devil’s advocate, but if the reports about these cretins have any validity *whatsoever*, then their actions are completely indefensible.

          Recommended Thumb up 17

          • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 12:28 pm

            Have you personally met these people? Have you tried to have a conversation with them? If you had, I think you would have said so. It’s most likely you don’t know these people, or why they took actions they did.

            Lacking this, it seems you’re content to follow lock step with a bunch of other people assuming someone they don’t know, are less than they are, incriminating them for something they may have been fully justified in doing.

            These people may be innocent, or they may be guilty. One thing for certain, is that the CCSO or the DA’s office hasn’t found cause to arrest them.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Spiffy March 17, 2014 at 1:21 pm

              “One thing for certain, is that the CCSO or the DA’s office hasn’t found cause to arrest them.”

              It’s not certain. Maybe they haven’t found the couple yet.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Chris I March 17, 2014 at 1:23 pm

              Nor have they ticketed anyone for not controlling their dogs.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Oliver March 17, 2014 at 1:27 pm

              When the first time you hear about problems at an area, it’s people brandishing firearms and assaulting people/animals with pepper spray. This says something about the people escalating the situation.

              When people are threatening use of deadly force. (think about that for a minute: Deadly Force) over a misdemeanor offense*, to me it’s indicative with some kind of anti-social personality disorder.

              Either that, or we’re just going to have to concede that all is lost, and that any interaction with another person in this country, an exchange of gunfire, is not only a possibility, but a likelihood.

              *UPDATE: We have heard about more incidents and it is now clear they are directing their rage at mountain bike riders in general, and not just dogs).

              I picked up my bike to use as a shield and that’s when the guy pulled the gun and stuck it in my face. I stood there yelling at my family to leave. Once they were clear I started to tell him to relax don’t shoot me.”

              Recommended Thumb up 17

              • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 9:12 pm

                “…This says something about the people escalating the situation. …” Oliver

                There had to be a situation before it could be escalated, or rather: confronted. And that situation may have been one initiated by people bringing dogs, not in control, into the park with the result of people feeling threatened and prompted to defend themselves. Last reported, whether this is true or not, is something the DA is studying.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • mran1984 March 17, 2014 at 5:08 pm

              wsbob March 17, 2014 at 12:28 pm
              Have you personally met these people? Have you tried to have a conversation with them? If you had, I think you would have said so. It’s most likely you don’t know these people, or why they took actions they did.

              Lacking this, it seems you’re content to follow lock step with a bunch of other people assuming someone they don’t know, are less than they are, incriminating them for something they may have been fully justified in doing.

              These people may be innocent, or they may be guilty. One thing for certain, is that the CCSO or the DA’s office hasn’t found cause to arrest them.

              I have and you have not. If the issue was in reverse you would not be defending anyone. Your predisposition in regards to ANYTHING involving mountain biking is obvious and pathetic. If crazy mountain bikers were accused of these actions YOU would see it as nothing more than what has been reported. FYI, I was actually at Sandy today. Too snowy for those who are so weak that they must arm themselves. Funny that you mention the terror involved with a dog jumping on someone… no reports of that. There are no reports of mountain bikers harrassing anyone either. If the fear of dogs is so strong how can this couple cope with the more wild animals in the area? Get yourself out to Sandy Ridge, ride a real bike and conduct your own research on an area that has been more of a blessing to the metro area than any bike lane. Too bad the couple does not live next to Forest Park… In regards to any action by CCSO or the Clackamas DA the need for a victim to press charges may be a strong factor in the course of action so far. There is no justification for what these two have been doing. One thing for certain, they are not interested in a conversation.

              Recommended Thumb up 13

              • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 11:06 pm

                “…I have…” mran1984

                If you’ve met them and had a conversation with them, what’s your story?

                Recommended Thumb up 1

                • mran1984 March 18, 2014 at 12:17 pm

                  Two encounters on the road riding up. Nothing confrontational between the three of us. Friendly greeting on my end and their response was nothing but a glare of complete disdain. Similar scenario on both “meetings”. My experience in this area has been all positive except for coming across these two. The first time was two years ago. The last was in October of 2013. I will agree that the three of us have not had a heart to heart conversation. It was not a possibility. I do not ride with a dog, so maybe my “not going to bully me face” kept them at bay. I may never know for sure. I will reiterate what I made perfectly clear before about your target here. Reverse the scenario and think. I

                  Recommended Thumb up 6

                • wsbob March 18, 2014 at 7:54 pm

                  mran…thanks for the reply and additional info.

                  mran1984

                  http://bikeportland.org/2014/03/17/in-light-of-assaults-blm-will-increase-patrols-presence-at-sandy-ridge-103054#comment-4603486

                  “…Two encounters on the road riding up. Nothing confrontational between the three of us. Friendly greeting on my end and their response was nothing but a glare of complete disdain. Similar scenario on both “meetings”. …” mran1984

                  No confrontation between the three of you. I think you’re saying, yourself and the two people. You were friendly. That’s good. They weren’t: why? Lots of possible reasons, some possibly legit, possibly not. With the other reported incidents having occurred, rather than just assuming why these people have done what they did, someone should have long ago, sat down with them and found out why.

                  Increased CCSO patrols may help, but a park like this should probably have a park ranger. Part of what they can do, is mediate situations like this one, before they get out of control, or to bring them back under control.

                  All these people reportedly using the park, and apparently none of them know, or have really talked with the two people that are using weapons and firearms for whatever reason. Until the reason is known for why they’re doing what they’re doing, they can’t be convicted of anything, if in fact they should be convicted of something.

                  I’m sure it was upsetting for the people and their dogs that were hit with spay and had firearms pointed at them. I’d be upset if it happened to me, but if I, or pet friends I had with me weren’t that I was aware of, doing anything to provoke the actions, rather than presume, I’d want to know why. Either direct answers from the people, or from officials having interviewed them. So far, that continues to be what’s missing from this story.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Linda April 7, 2014 at 9:41 pm

              These people are crazy! My dog was limbing so I took him to the edge of the road so he could drink some water. She was a ways away from me and purposely came up to me. I thought she was coming to say “Hi” or complement my beautiful yellow lab so I was smiling and getting ready to be friendly as well. Instead she yelled @ said get your dog away or I will spray you & your dog! I was shocked. My brain went into just get away from this lady. I never went back since I see them almost every day heading towards Sandy Ridge.This happened 6 or 7 years ago. My dog was far away from her and never even looked @ her. If I was so afraid of dogs I wouldn’t go up to them like that. I carry spray too but I don’t go around threatening people with it. Yes, I agree dog owners need to respect other’s and I was! She was the aggressive one. They are the “Mad Dogs and should be ban from all trails and yet there they were today April 7. This time on their bikes. She looks like the Wicked Witch form the West with her monkey partner.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Bjorn March 17, 2014 at 6:03 pm

          well their are a number of people who had similar experiences so it isn’t one sided it is 2 or 3 or more sided and the cops have forwarded the case to the DA and they are likely going to be charged so it doesn’t seem like it is just a one sided bike portland commentary.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

          • wsbob March 17, 2014 at 9:15 pm

            “well their are a number of people who had similar experiences so it isn’t one sided it is 2 or 3 or more sided…” Bjorn

            It’s one sided: their story opposing the couple in question. We’ve not heard from the couple in question, and until we do, it’s a one sided story.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • mran1984 March 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm

              You should contact them. They might like you? I bet they are a great time if you don’t ride a mountain bike in “their” backyard.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

        • nh4cl March 18, 2014 at 8:37 am

          **portion of comment deleted by moderator ***

          I have been accosted by this couple myself. Neither my dog nor I were threatening to either, and my dog was under control and with me. But that didn’t stop the woman from saying she was going to mace my dog. Not hello, how are you this beautiful afternoon, just right out with I’m going to mace your dog. The fact that they continue to go up there and continue to threaten harm to humans and animals should tell you that, yes, they are not right in the head and a risk to safety.

          Recommended Thumb up 11

          • q`Tzal March 19, 2014 at 10:13 pm

            I’m curious: was the portion of your comment deleted by the moderator just profanity or was it an ad hominem attack towards the comment you replied to?

            Recommended Thumb up 1

  • jonno March 17, 2014 at 11:28 am

    What would it take to make this an official off-leash area? It’s a huge place with plenty of room to roam. I love taking my dog up there, she trots along next to or behind me, loves bombing the hills and generally gets her best exercise of the week. Riding with dogs is part of the off-road experience, IMO, because you sure as hell can’t do it on the road.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • GlowBoy March 17, 2014 at 11:42 am

      Hi Jonno – not going to happen. I think it should be OK to let your dog roam off-leash most places in the woods (and I used to ride with my dog when he was younger), but I think it’s out of place on busy, fast, flow-oriented trails like Sandy Ridge. Although bikes are banned from most trails, there are plenty of less-crowded places to ride with your off-leash dog.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

      • davemess March 17, 2014 at 11:47 am

        with a crazy amount of blind corners!

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • jonno March 17, 2014 at 12:48 pm

        Such as where? I’ve yet to find a mtb trail center going underused (at least in PDX metro and Bend, the extent of my experience).

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Rita March 17, 2014 at 2:26 pm

          That’s the issue: you’re looking in a metro area for it, and that’s where there will be enough congestion to make it unsafe for your four-footed-friend (or, sometimes, your 4foot making it unsafe for other riders – it happens). Take the pup out to Hood River or down to Oakridge, where there are plenty of trails and the people spread out a bit.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Todd Hudson March 17, 2014 at 11:47 am

      I want to know what it would take to make Portland dog owners actually respect leash laws when they are at parks.

      Recommended Thumb up 25

      • Alan 1.0 March 17, 2014 at 4:57 pm

        s/dogs,leashes/bikes,stopsigns

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • mran1984 March 18, 2014 at 12:02 pm

          Way more folks driving on the phone than runnin’ stops on bikes! Far more harmful as well. Can anyone stay on topic?

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • 007 March 19, 2014 at 8:48 pm

            in close-in NE Portland, automobilists don’t even stop at stop signs anymore. It’s getting to be dangerous going to work and going home in Irvington and Alameda, especially on the bikeway of Klickitat/Siskiyou.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

      • mran1984 March 17, 2014 at 5:19 pm

        What does this have to do with Sandy Ridge? BTW, when will drivers drive 25mph in a 25mph zone… it’s not a dog issue!

        Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Spiffy March 17, 2014 at 1:23 pm

      Leashes are already optional according to the BLM web site.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • esther c March 19, 2014 at 8:48 am

      It is an off leash area. You dogs just need to be in control.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Aaron March 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    I’m not a huge fan of dogs, but I haven’t had a problem with dogs at Sandy Ridge.

    And everybody I see on the trails, on the road climb or in the parking lot are always very friendly.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • spencer March 17, 2014 at 12:54 pm

      my dogs always ride the established trail direction at SRT, and yield to faster riders, unlike the hiking crowd.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • rainbike March 17, 2014 at 1:17 pm

        Is there signage at the trailheads instructing who should yield to whom? Without clearly posted expectations, I can see how each group might assume that they have the right-of-way.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • fivefrud March 17, 2014 at 2:04 pm

          Sandy Ridge is a purpose-built mountain biking trail network, some trails are one-way (down hill) only and are all clearly marked. These people have been harassing folks/dogs in the trailhead parking lot according to most accounts.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • rainbike March 17, 2014 at 2:09 pm

            You didn’t answer my question. The map includes a hiker symbol as well as the bike symbol. Seems neither are specifically excluded. Map also indicates directional markers are suggestions, not rules. If I were hiking uphill and a bike was bombing down, who has the right of way and how is that made clear to both parties?

            Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Rita March 17, 2014 at 2:40 pm

              IMBA did the trailwork there, and they post derivations of this sign everywhere, I can’t imagine it’s not on the lower kiosk: http://corbamtb.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/IMG_20110803_180609.jpg. “Yield” does not mean “stop”, btw, and “right of way” does not mean “license to be an ass”. If a biker approaches a hiker, they should slow/not startle. If a hiker sees a biker, they should have enough time to clear trail for the faster trailuser.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

          • rainbike March 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm

            Correction to my post: It’s the BLM site that includes icons for hikers and mtnbikers, suggesting both are welcome to use the trails.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

      • dan March 17, 2014 at 2:03 pm

        Kind of doesn’t matter, no MTB rider is going to assume that every dog will yield when passed, because many will not. So your dogs, even if they’re perfectly behaved, will disrupt other trail users.

        I speak as a dog owner who would love to bring my dog to Sandy Ridge, but will reluctantly refrain.

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • spencer March 17, 2014 at 3:22 pm

          personally, i dont bring my dogs to SRT anymore, but its because they cant keep up and tend to hurt themselves by running beyond their capacity. If I rode slower, then I’d bring them with me every ride. When I lead beginners the dogs tag along also.

          Dogs learn trail ettiquite also, but they must be trained just as in being trained to leash walk

          Recommended Thumb up 3

  • CaptainKarma March 17, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    Police are shooting dogs almost preemptively nowadays. I’m not a fan of cop violence, but if *cops* feel threatened by loose dogs, I can understand civilians feeling threatened as well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • was carless March 17, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    These people sound like they are crazy. I mean, who does this? Threatening people in a recreation area with a weapon? Ridiculous.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • dwainedibbly March 17, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Reminds me of The Walking Dead, where the greatest danger comes from the Humans, not from the Walkers.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Joe March 17, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    walkers that are dead to everything but their own steps.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Granpa March 17, 2014 at 2:56 pm

      The nut case mace sprayers are guilty of gross generalizations and they resort to insane behavior in their confidence of their positions. the “dead to everything” comment is not true, & not funny It is a gross generalization. We were all pedestrians before we became cyclists

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • q`Tzal March 17, 2014 at 4:02 pm

        I suspect that Joe just watched an entire season of The Walking Dead off Netflix.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Granpa March 17, 2014 at 4:31 pm

          AH! Not being a walking dead watcher I missed the connection.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • PNP March 17, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    How did this go from a story about a crazy couple threatening bike riders with weapons to complaints about dogs?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • GlowBoy March 17, 2014 at 9:07 pm

      “How did this go from a story about a crazy couple threatening bike riders with weapons to complaints about dogs?” Because off-leash dogs were ostensibly one of the common provocations for this crazy couple.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • q`Tzal March 17, 2014 at 4:40 pm

    I feel bad for the dogs.

    We breed the natural smarts and aggression out of wolves over millenia to make the domesticated dog.
    Then when their owners fail to keep them on a leash Canis lupus familiaris defaults to its trained and socialized behavior of being friendly. Most dogs are not smart enough not to chase a car or bike so when “man’s best friend” trots up to a bike in motion almost anything it does has the potential of being dangerous. This is all because of what we train them to be and our lack of attention: dogs will be dogs.

    The problem with strays and abandoned dogs is that they have retained enough of a hunter’s instinct in combination with millenia of human habituation that they actually can consistently sense fear. Canis as a genus are opportunistic omnivores and if prey is weak they’ll attack.
    If we are to believe anything about the miasma of factually unverified stories a person carrying pepper spray, a stun gun and a firearm is afraid of something so much the air reeks of fear. A hungry stray or even a disoriented licensed and owned dog will sometimes react to a feaful human as if it is a threat and attack without warning. City dogs brought to wander aimlessly in unfamiliar territory, tired, hungry and dehydrated are severely stressed out and may attack like a human in similar circumstances.

    Obviously there is some demand for a large rural forested off leash doggie area. What are the barriers (other than the costs fencing) for designating a few acers as an off leash dog hiking area? Much like the argument for official single track in Portland if none is provided it’ll all be illegal. Assign an area, police it and seem if the problem goes away.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Alan 1.0 March 17, 2014 at 4:56 pm

      We breed the natural smarts and aggression out of wolves over millenia to make the domesticated dog.

      Not exactly; see Dogs by Coppinger. They descended from a common ancestor but not lineally.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • q`Tzal March 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm

        But close enough for this conversation. Experience has taught me that when asked the time most people don’t want accuracy to the nanosecond.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alan 1.0 March 17, 2014 at 9:52 pm

          It’s a really good read, that’s all. The rest of the comments about dogs…meh, no offense to anyone but I wouldn’t read the comments on a dog blog for expert opinions about bikes.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

    • GlowBoy March 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      “Obviously there is some demand for a large rural forested off leash doggie area.”

      Actually, we have one: At Exit 18 on I-84, Sandy River Delta comprises hundreds of acres of Forest Service bottomland, mostly open to dogs AND bikes. I’ve taken my dog biking there many times.

      And BTW Alan 1.0 is correct: the new consensus, addressed by several popular current books, is that dogs and wolves evolved from a common canid ancestor, neither as wary as the wolf nor as friendly as the domestic dog.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • q`Tzal March 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm

        According to Nature Magazine The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet DNA analysis and in particular digestive enzymatic compatibility of canid progenitors shows increased fitness in any canid that could eat human food waste.
        The Russian silver fox domestication experiment showed that just selection for behavioral traits gets quick results.
        Between the two of these studies it is easy to see that there is no solid conclusion when, where or from what exactly modern domesticated dogs evolved from but whatever it was was mostly carnivorous and would likely resemble a wolf to the layman.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Ethan March 18, 2014 at 9:43 am

        Whatever land or park sections are set aside, it’s never enough . . . I only have to walk a couple of blocks at any hour of the day to find a pile of dog crap in our park AND not far away (though not necessarily related), a dog owner who makes his/her own rules and has elaborate justifications, usually based on the needs or great qualities of their own dog. Dog owners also don’t police their own to any meaningful degree.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • Alan 1.0 March 18, 2014 at 10:48 am

          Dog owners also don’t police their own to any meaningful degree.

          “The cycling community seems to be doing little or nothing to educate riders or reduce these dangerous behaviors.” — Amanda Fritz

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Ethan March 18, 2014 at 12:14 pm

            I was responding to GlowBoy’s observation. Clearly the couple involved in this episode should be prosecuted. I can see a frightened person using mace once, but pulling guns, and the repeated nature of the incidents clearly points to these people basically looking for trouble. Guns and looking for trouble do not mix.

            My original comment was merely an observation that they have apparently not been charged with anything, so one can assume that law enforcement either did not feel they had enough evidence or did not really think it rose to that level. In that case, increased patrols would protect riders to some degree from these individuals, but it might well open the possibility that dogs who are not well trained or who are dangerous on the trails will earn their owners a citation.

            Would a CCSO deputy be more likely to say:
            “You need to knock off going up there and scaring people, we’ll take over and get things under control”

            or

            “If we catch you up there threatening assault again we’ll arrest you both, and we will be up there keeping an eye on things”

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Alan 1.0 March 18, 2014 at 2:25 pm

              I don’t particularly disagree with most of your post but I do find considerable irony and perhaps just a touch of hipocrisy from the line I quoted, as well as in some other posts here which seem to lump all dog owners into a hive-like class, just like some critics (e.g. Amanda Fritz) lump all “cyclists” into a group. It looks to me like a pot/kettle/black or sauce/goose/gander situation. Lots of people who ride bikes object to that kind of stereotyping (I do), so I find it curious when the shoe goes on the other foot.

              (mm! tasty mixed metaphors :)

              As to what a CCSO deputy would say, I really don’t know, I’m sure it would be situational but I doubt they would use threats and I expect they’d focus on explaining the law in light of particular allegations against the party they’re talking to.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

              • Ethan March 18, 2014 at 2:52 pm

                Point taken. It is technically unfair to say that dog owners who are compliant with the law are in any way responsible for the actions of others, but the analogy with cyclists falls apart for me.

                I suppose a distinction I draw between the two is that our roads treat cyclists as second-class citizens. Without going into the history of how it got that way, there is an aspect to cyclists running a stop sign or a supposedly “smart” stoplight that constitutes disobedience to a system that does not accommodate the physics realities of human powered transportation. The real percentage of asshole “scofflaw cyclists” is by my measure pretty darn small.

                Dogs on the other hand; my firsthand experience in my park (with no off-leash area at all) at peak hours is that the majority of owners do not follow the leash laws. Not a few .. . over half. This has created substantial issues in our neighborhood and recently boiled over at neighborhood association meetings. A huge citywide process of meetings took place around a decade ago to establish the off-leash areas we have throughout the City, but even at those parks, one often can all too easily find an owner with their dog off-leash elsewhere, with a typical story about how their dog really doesn’t play well with the other dogs, and thus they play catch off-leash over here .. . on the grassy area meant for people to do other activities on.

                The mental gymnastics I have heard from dog owners to justify doing whatever they want are the clincher. A dog running up to a toddler at full speed, which terrifies a mom watching it unfold, is looked at as harmless fun by the owner who maintains breathlessly that their dog just loves little kids . . . that is the kind of justification that is all too common. If I run a stop sign on my bike when nobody is around the intersection, it’s not quite the same as scaring the crap out of someone, or leaving a pile of actual crap for someone to step in. We have one local resident who taught his pug to use all the playground equipment . . . parents love having a dog’s ass on the toddler swing (that is one of his cute tricks). I digress.

                You can bike through a stop sign in Idaho, but I bet you still have to leash and pick up after your dog in many places.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

                • Alan 1.0 March 18, 2014 at 6:52 pm

                  Idaho stop law … +1
                  Lucky Lab brewery patio … +1
                  dog collar embroidered with AYHSMB … priceless!

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

      • davemess March 18, 2014 at 12:41 pm

        Perhaps there are one thousand acres there……..

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Gaelle Logeay March 18, 2014 at 9:21 am

      q`Tzal
      Most dogs are not smart enough not to chase a car or bike

      Which is why you never see dogs walking on sidewalks, napping in front yards, or really anywhere near car or bike traffic that they are not chasing.

      q`Tzal
      Canis as a genus are opportunistic omnivores and if prey is weak they’ll attack.

      Which is why families with children under age 15 (patrum in filiis in aerate XV) rarely own dogs.

      q`Tzal
      when “man’s best friend” trots up to a bike in motion almost anything it does has the potential of being dangerous.

      Fact. In 100% of all bike-dog accidents the dog was either moving or not moving.

      q`Tzal
      This is all because of what we train them to be and our lack of attention: dogs will be dogs.

      Right. If people would only just stop absentmindedly training their untrainable dogs to be dogs…

      q`Tzal
      A hungry stray or even a disoriented licensed and owned dog…

      I say good sir, I assure you my papers are in order and no properly licensed dog is capable of such brutish behavior!

      q`Tzal
      when their owners fail to keep them on a leash Canis lupus familiaris defaults to its trained and socialized behavior of being friendly.

      EXCEPT WHEN IT’S A

      q`Tzal
      City dog brought to wander aimlessly in unfamiliar territory, tired, hungry and dehydrated are severely stressed out

      AND THEN

      q`Tzal
      it will react to a feaful human as if it is a threat and attack without warning.

      FIND OUT HOW YOU CAN BE SAFE, TONIGHT AT 11!

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • q`Tzal March 18, 2014 at 10:03 am

        I’m not 100% sure how I am supposed to react to that but I choose to be amused.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Gaelle Logeay March 19, 2014 at 8:32 am

          Oh good. I hope it was amusing and made you think at least a little bit. I found so many statements patently absurd, like “most dogs are not smart enough not to chase a car or bike,” and the fear mongering, that I was compelled to provide some counterarguments.

          I do understand your point–that this issue isn’t the dogs’ fault and that the right thing to do is to provide space for them to do what they like to do safely. Completely agree.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • q`Tzal March 19, 2014 at 7:37 pm

            Language is a messy thing; English doubly so.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Suburban March 17, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    The head line says “Assult”- and links to a previous posting mentioning the word. Has anyone claimed to have been assulted at the Sandy Ridge developed recreation area?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • FetaD March 17, 2014 at 10:28 pm

      I’m going to assume by your question that you think “assault” requires physical contact. I don’t know why this is a common misconception so you’re definitely not alone in that regard.

      If you do know it means to intentionally cause fear in others, then you may have missed the accounts of a gun and stun gun being used in a threatening manner.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Alan 1.0 March 18, 2014 at 11:08 am

        Could you cite the source of your meaning of “assault,” because in the ORS all four degrees of assault require “physical injury.”

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • FetaD March 18, 2014 at 1:59 pm

          Oh nothing fancy, just the common law definition. I’m a recent Florida transplant where assault is not harm, but threat/intimidation of harm and can be lumped in with battery when physical contact is made. And Florida is not actually weird in this regard :P Their statutes are just an extension of the common law definition of assault. Battery is actual contact.

          I suppose that explains why so many people use “assault” as a synonym for “physical harm”. Some states transformed assault into physical harm. I guess “battery” got kicked to the curb and “menacing” was brought in to replace “assault”. I’m really glad I didn’t pursue law any further than that one class in college. Maybe etymology was my calling because I find this very interesting.

          http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.190

          So, yea Jonathan, why ARE you calling these assaults? They’re clearly menacing!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) March 18, 2014 at 2:07 pm

            FetaD and others,

            Thanks for bringing the use of the word “assault” to my attention. I edited that term out of the story and issued a correction at the end. I regret any confusion my mistake might have caused.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Alex March 18, 2014 at 7:06 pm

              It could also be considered reckless endangerment. Pointing a gun at someone is often considered just that.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

  • ExclamationQuestion March 18, 2014 at 7:39 am

    Coming from California, with no prior knowledge of the park or it’s layout or facilities or of the general layout of the greater Portland area, regardless as to who shot first, Han or Greedo, when you get down to brass tacks, it seems this older couple felt, for whatever reason, be it self defense or psychosis, that they had to brandish weapons more than once. Judging by the fact that there’s been a growing number of reports, it almost seems like every time they visit this park, or trail, that a weapon is produced. Whether or not they’re doing it aggressively or defensively, it almost seems to me like they either enjoy the confrontation, or just want to hurt someone. I only say that, because, if they really were feeling threatened, and that it’s habitual, why continue to visit the same park? Why not find another? Common sense would tell you that if one place isn’t safe, you stop going there and either find a new place, or wait until the original place is made safe. (At this point, I’m sure someone is going to ask why should they have to leave, and everyone else gets to stay, and I’m not saying they have to leave, I’m simply saying that if they are indeed getting attacked by dogs, or people, why put yourself in harms way unnecessarily? It’s one thing to try and prove a point, it’s another thing to get shot with your own gun for something that could easily be avoided.)

    Just saying… If I had to carry a gun to feel safe in a particular park here, I think I’d just find my way to another park. It’s easier than potentially having to shoot someone, or getting shot myself…

    The only saving grace, so far, is that so far noone has been hurt.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • GlowBoy March 18, 2014 at 12:33 pm

      Hey ExclamationQuestion, wow did you ever prove yourself right that you don’t have any specific knowledge of the park or what else there is around the Portland metro.

      Sandy Ridge is unique in that it is a purpose built mountain bike park with flow trails. There is no remotely similar facility within hundreds of miles, and in general there are very few mountain bike facilities of ANY kind within a similar driving distance from Portland. So your “find another place” advice is ridiculous. Sandy Ridge is a perfectly safe place, except for these two miscreants. The proper response is to put pressure on law enforcement to do something about it.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • ExclamationQuestion March 18, 2014 at 12:41 pm

        I was referring to the couple finding somewhere else to take a stroll, not the mountain bikers. Might want to reread it. If it’s not clear, then I apologize, but I thought it was.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • davemess March 19, 2014 at 9:29 am

          That’s exactly how I read it, and as a mountain biker too no offense at all.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • ExclamationQuestion March 18, 2014 at 1:04 pm

        Also, don’t take this the wrong way, but snark and sarcasm never really enhances your position, especially when it’s incorrect and unwarranted. I already said I wasn’t familiar with the general area, so simply educating me on the general lay of the land would’ve been more helpful.

        You catch more flies with honey, sir.

        I understand that this is an issue to be passionate about. I don’t even live there, and just hearing the issue resonates with me. I’ve taken some somewhat unsavory routes on my bike (never been threatened by elders with mace, but still…) so, at least to a small degree, I feel as if I can at least somewhat identify with this ordeal. Point is, it would be nice if everyone could play nice together, but sometimes you either have people that just don’t want to play by the rules, for whatever reason, or have that crazy person that just wants to get a rise, or any other host of things that throw a monkey wrench into things and ruin it for all.

        On that note, I don’t think I would like to see these old people go to jail, but they definitely need education, or some hard social reprogramming, and probably need to be relocated for the good of all.

        Good luck with this, Portland, stay safe.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • rainbike March 18, 2014 at 2:11 pm

      I stopped reading after, “Coming from California…”

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Joe March 18, 2014 at 9:32 am

    Gramps hmm nah its really walking dead man, if you ride Ore parks anywhere and leash law along with ppl that limit bike traffic on a trail is a method of harassment out in the parks these days. won’t go into all the places/details I ride and what comes up every time a walker or dog charges at me, but running the bike thru dog poop is just crazy.. lol

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Suburban March 18, 2014 at 12:59 pm

      It’s OK…….He doesn’t bite…..they just want to sniff you…..

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • fivefrud March 18, 2014 at 8:25 pm

    WSBOB: The lengths that you’ll go to in order to play devil’s-advocate and give ANYONE at odds with anything related to a mountain bike the benefit of the doubt are simply mind-boggling. This is why J-Maus has called your bias out on this blog before.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Alex March 18, 2014 at 8:40 pm

      It makes you wonder if he is getting paid or has gotten paid to have that point of view…he certainly spends a lot of time spreading FUD.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • wsbob March 18, 2014 at 10:58 pm

        Alex: FUD? Cute.

        A recent correction to this bikeportland story that should not be overlooked:

        “…CORRECTION: The initial version of this story described the incidents as “assaults.” That was a mistake. We are not aware of any physical harm to anyone as a result of these confrontations. At this point, if the allegations are true, the couple would be guilty of “Menacing,” a misdemeanor according to Oregon law.” maus/bikeportland

        So “…if the allegations are true…”. Jonathan, thanks for that correction. In the interest of truth, justice and a better, fair society for all, it pays to be careful to understand difficult situations before sending someone up the river for something they may not have done.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alex March 19, 2014 at 6:25 am

          I am not just speaking of this specific instance, it is our interactions of the past. I know how you like to purposefully forget things, perhaps you should visit the archives to see what you have said in the past.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

        • Alex March 19, 2014 at 6:33 am

          Since I can’t edit comments – you completely dodged a big question. Are you getting paid to hold these positions you stand so firmly behind? It doesn’t seem like just a personal thing, is it? I spend a lot of time at Sandy Ridge, I have worked in the bike industry (no longer), I am involved in the cycling community in many disciplines – I have a stake in this issue; it directly affects me. How does it directly affect you? Why are you in the middle of this when it seems you really don’t have much of a stake in what is going on? It just doesn’t really add up. I am just going to assume you are getting paid by some organization to spread hate against mountain biking by some organization.

          Recommended Thumb up 10

          • wsbob March 19, 2014 at 8:53 am

            “…Are you getting paid to hold these positions you stand so firmly behind? …” Alex

            Hey, if you want to open your wallet and give me some money, I may consider accepting it (I’m joking, of course!). No. I’m not getting paid. And your smarmy tone is uncalled for. These incidents in SR park, a park specifically designated for off-road bike use, apparently have little to do with use of such bikes in this park.

            You’re worrying way too much about the bearing of my comments on off road biking, posted to this weblog, or anywhere. You can continue to throw your energy that direction if you want to, but it’s probably wasted.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Alex March 19, 2014 at 9:14 am

              Your smarmy tone is uncalled for as well. Or do you really think I am cute?

              I don’t understand why you are here commenting at all. You really aren’t adding anything to the conversation that has been at all worthwhile. The only thing you have been doing is essentially saying: “Maybe this older couple have a good reason to pull guns and bring violence to a natural area”. To me that isn’t helpful.

              If you aren’t getting paid to comment here then you must lead one sad and lonely life because you have more comments in this thread than anyone else and it has nothing to do with you.

              Recommended Thumb up 10

    • wsbob March 18, 2014 at 10:48 pm

      Your mind may be boggled. Mine certainly isn’t. I’m not playing devil’s advocate. It’s not certain yet, whether these people are guilty of something. That doesn’t seem to have stopped you and others here from hoping they’ll be charge and convicted of a crime.

      That’s too bad, considering that long ago, persons visiting this park regularly, that knew about the incidents occurring, could have taken the initiative to legally, and hopefully in a neighborly manner, resolve the issue before it came to be what it is today.

      Mountain biking in this park is acceptable, which I’ve earlier noted in comments to this story and the earlier one, not to mention bikeportland stories that touched on Sandy Ridge in past. Based on comments to these stories, mountain biking, if at all, may not be the main issue underlying these incidents, but is instead, people who’ve not sufficiently managed to control their dogs.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • fivefrud March 18, 2014 at 10:56 pm

        - Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve said nothing about hoping they get convicted of a crime.

        - we’ve heard from one individual that contacted CCSO to report the couple who’s report was effectively lost

        - at least one of the commenters has pointed out that their dog was harassed by the couple while on-leash

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • wsbob March 19, 2014 at 9:02 am

          “…I’ve said nothing about hoping they get convicted of a crime. …” fivefrud

          And I hope your thoughts are that before they’re charged or convicted, these people are entitled to a fair hearing of their side of the story.

          Side issue: I know nothing of this bias you speak of, that you believe bikeportland’s editor-publisher has “called me out on”. I also don’t believe this comment section is the place to discuss that. I suggest you contact Maus directly about it.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Alex March 19, 2014 at 7:11 am

        wsbob – “Based on comments to these stories, mountain biking, if at all, may not be the main issue underlying these incidents, but is instead, people who’ve not sufficiently managed to control their dogs.”

        I think you missed the biggest possible underlying issue – this may have to do with people overstepping their boundaries in “their backyard”, thinking they own something they don’t. The only issue is that they should not be bringing guns and weapons and threatening people with them to a place of peace. While I am sure they have their reasons to feel the way they feel, once you cross the boundary of endangering someone’s life with a gun there is not a lot of turning back. If they cannot handle dogs off-leash or mountain bikers speaking with them (they definitely aren’t the warmest people on earth) and their reaction is to bring weapons to deal with these situations, they do not belong there.

        Another underlying issue may be the couples psychoses. I mean, who really is to say at this point? Which you kind of keep saying, but you keep putting the blame back on the riders and dogs and siding with the couple bringing guns and violence to the equation. It makes me deeply question how serious you are treating this issue.

        I understand that you keep giving them some sort of benefit of doubt or you want to hear their side of the story, but could they really say anything that justifies pulling a gun on a person out there? I even understand macing a dog (I am not for it) as a means to protect oneself, but even that seems out of line considering the location and people who frequent the spot. Have you spent much time out there? Have you seen how happy the people and dogs are out there? How many incidents of dogs have there been out there? Have you even heard of one outside of this?

        It reminds me how Forest Park is dealt with and how it is treated by people like you and Marcy Houle.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • wsbob March 19, 2014 at 8:43 am

          Until full details about the incidents are reported, I’m not taking sides, and I’m giving all parties the benefit of the doubt.

          Could there be a reason for pulling a gun on a person in this park? Yes. Anyone having reason to fear for their lives, which these people may have felt they had, surely can pull a gun to prepare to defend themselves.

          Knock of the wisecracks about Forest Park, because these issues in Sandy Ridge park have nothing to do with it.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Alex March 19, 2014 at 9:11 am

            Unfortunately, you are taking sides. It is quite apparent in your comments – I think you are the only one that doesn’t see it.

            Based on every story I have heard, there was no cause for pulling a gun out.

            It isn’t a wisecrack about Forest Park, it is genuinely how I feel.

            Recommended Thumb up 8

            • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) March 19, 2014 at 9:25 am

              Alex and wsbob,

              I respect both of your contributions to this and other threads. However, please consider how your increasingly personal back-and-forth impacts the overall appeal of this discussion thread. Maybe it’s time to move on and just accept that people have different perspectives and different ways of finding their way through news stories.

              Recommended Thumb up 7

              • mran1984 March 19, 2014 at 12:20 pm

                At least Alex rides a bike. Why is westside boy allowed to post such garbage without being called out. If anyone has to drive a car to get to Forest Park they should not have an opinion about it. Oh yeah, it’s MOUNTAIN BIKING. Off road cycling is what you are doing if your buddy does not believe in 29′ers. If you ride a mountain bike how can you stomach “his” lobbying. Quit commenting on something that you, wsbob, know nothing about. If you want to play devils advocate please choose a topic where you are not so pathetically predisposed. Oh, you are so concerned about your two armed buddies out there… the second encounter that I had with them involved me directly asking them what they were doing out there. Same response as the first time. Maybe you cannot rely upon body language and demeanor assessment, but it has always served me well. Since being off topic is so popular on this thread when are you suburban nightmares going to accept your responsibility for Barbur? Were you attacked by some sort of “off road” bike? Bye, bye… I will be riding a bike instead of responding anymore. Cheers to folks who actually ride!

                Recommended Thumb up 9

              • wsbob March 19, 2014 at 5:51 pm

                Maus…sorry. I’ve made every effort to be civil, respectful, and reason with some of these people, to no avail. I’ve come to the realization, reluctantly, that no point is served by showing them the respect of further responding to their comments.

                As for the issue at hand, incidents having occurred in Sandy Ridge park, I’m hoping CCSO,and the DA will soon give you some info on what their thinking is about whether charges can and should be made against the couple.

                As I’ve mentioned in an earlier comment, to help avoid this kind of situation occurring again, or confront it more expediently if it does occur, some changes may be worth considering. Such as, a park ranger and volunteer staff whose duties would be respond to these kinds of situations, and others.

                Tualitan Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) Nature Park’s operation could offer some good ideas on that order. It’s got a part time ranger, and Park Watch volunteers that regularly travel the trails and keep a log of what needs tending to. Going on beyond what may be needed at SR, but also has a visitor center, meeting rooms, rest rooms. About 200 acres in size.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

                • Zimmerman March 20, 2014 at 12:00 pm

                  “These people”

                  That is delicious.

                  Recommended Thumb up 7

              • Alex March 20, 2014 at 8:53 am

                Jonathan,

                I apologize. It is very frustrating for me (and based on the comments, the rest of the community) to see someone come in a thread who really has no stake or first-hand knowledge of what is going on, who also has a history of anti-mountain biking sentiments and comments so aggressively – comments which seem to defend, to some degree, bringing violence to an area that I frequent. Many of his comments are passive-aggressive, often contain personal attacks and really aren’t contributing to a peaceful environment here.

                I definitely recognize my role in the escalation and for that I apologize to you and the community – I intended no harm. My goal was to quell the undertones of violence that I saw coming through comments and the passive-aggressive defense of bringing and allegedly pointing a gun at people and the threats of violence directed towards families and pets.

                I hope the situation at Sandy Ridge resolves in a peaceful way and the couple can find happiness, peace and tolerance in their lives – whatever the cause is.

                Thanks.
                Alex

                Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Joe March 19, 2014 at 8:32 am

    I don’t mind getting sniffed but Ive hit a dog when he charged at me. :( going slow too, hit him in the head

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • q`Tzal March 20, 2014 at 11:08 am

      Only dog I’ve ever run over was on Saltzman. Poor dumb golden retriever puppy. He came loping over towards me with all the coordination of a just fully grown puppy, tail wagging like mad as he saw me as a new toy.
      He looked so dejected and surprised after he hit my bike and gave me this sad look like “but I was just playing!” Better a bicycle slowing down than a car I said to the apologetic owner. The realization filled their eyes with dread.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Bill Walters March 19, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Of course this is only the latest of many, many threads saturated by wsbob, to their detriment. Might he be the BP comment areas’ greatest obstacle in remaining useful and relevant?

    It’s often, though not always, the case that truth and accuracy are easier to defend and thus require fewer words. Might be fun to plug comments into Microsoft Word and keep track. (This comment has 68 words.)

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Spliffy March 19, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    These dumb meth heads need to go up wildcat creek road 5 minutes away
    It’s gated and paved- it’s very similar to sandy ridge

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alex March 20, 2014 at 7:27 am

      Please no….there is also mountain biking up there.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • mowichman March 20, 2014 at 8:25 pm

        There is not really any biking at wildcat mtn. There used to be some trails a while ago but whoever was maintaining them bailed. the trails are nothing but water troughs now, with trees down everywhere. And the road up is just as bad.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alex March 21, 2014 at 11:36 am

          That’s not the experience I have had.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • mowichman March 20, 2014 at 8:29 pm

      Enough methheds go up there already, there is so much trash up there it looks like a waste land. It’s too bad losers have to trash everything. That’s why they’ve been closing down all the old forest service roads in Clack Co. Methheds/losers who can’t pick up after themselves. Nothing wrong with partying, just pick up your trash!

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Spliffy March 19, 2014 at 8:53 pm

    Ya he’s a cretin

    Recommended Thumb up 1

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.