(Photos © J. Maus)
Commissioner Nick Fish’s promise to improve and expand access for bicycles in Forest Park might be harder to keep than he expected.
With emotions still raw over the construction of an unauthorized trail in a sensitive habitat area of the park, tonight’s meeting of the Forest Park Single Track Cycling Committee was expected to be heated and emotional. It did not disappoint. There were pleas from Portland Parks Director Zari Santner, a walkout due to anger by two bike advocates, diatribes against the illegal trail, calls (from both sides of the debate) to shut the process down and reconvene the committee, and new information that has vast implications for the future of single track riding in the park.
“This is a tragedy… Unless… strategic management policies are in place, nothing should move forward.”
— Zari Santner, Director of Portland Parks
At the outset of the meeting, facilitator Elizabeth Kennedy-Wong from Commissioner Fish’s office, said that they decided to scrap the original agenda — which was to vote up or down on a set of trail access options — because, given the events of the week, “It would not have been a successful conversation tonight.”
Kennedy-Wong said discussions of the illegal trail would not be the sole purpose of the meeting, but she let several committee members address it.
Director of Portland Parks Zari Santner started out by calling the illegal trail a “tragedy.” “This is going to take years to fix… The impact to this unbelievably pristine part of the park is incredible.” Because of this tragedy, Santner said, the committee would have to work even harder to come up with recommendations that would put in place “management strategies [a.k.a. enforcement] and policies that are coupled with adequate resources to make sure that whatever the committee comes up with can be successful.”
manager Emily Roth is on the right).
Santner added that while she and Commissioner Fish recognize the “unmet needs” of people who want improved bike access in the park, “protection of the ecological resource values of this park is paramount and whatever recommendation that the committee comes up with has to meet that goal and be consistent with the park’s management plan.”
The committee has already agreed that protecting the park ecology and working within the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan were imperative. That is nothing new. The part of Santner’s opening plea that raised eyebrows was how she is now demanding that the committee not just identify where and how to improve bike access in the park, but also come up with management policies and “resources” (which could mean sweat equity and/or funding) to carry them out.
“This park is totally out of control… We should not go forward with anything that would increase the impact.”
— Les Blaize, committee member
“Unless those strategic management policies are in place,” said Zantner, “nothing should move forward.”
Unfortunately, for bike advocates who hoped for progress on this issue by spring, “Nothing should move forward,” was a common theme at the meeting.
There was also a lot of talk about the importance of investing in enforcement. Bob Sallinger, Conservation Director with the Audubon Society of Portland, said, “I haven’t seen the commitment from Parks or council for enforcement… The message I’ve gotten over the years is that enforcement doesn’t matter.”
Sallinger’s comments were echoed by Les Blaize, a veteran Forest Park activist. Blaize painted a dire picture of the park, saying it is at “the tipping point” due to overuse and that no increase in usage should be tolerated without studies to assess their impacts. “This park is totally out of control… We should not go forward with anything that would increase the impact.”
Marcy Houle, an author who has studied the park for 28 years (and who some might recall as the woman who jolted the committee by sending a letter to the media in opposition to increased bike access last fall), was the first person to raise the specter of reconvening the committee. Houle feels that improving bike access without enforcement policies in place and completing studies on vegetation and wildlife is like “putting the cart before the horse.”
Tom Archer, President of the Northwest Trail Alliance spoke next. He said people who ride are “nature lovers first and bikers second.” He also expressed frustrations about what he had heard so far:
“The original charge of this committee was to look to expanding single track cycling opportunities… now what I’m hearing is that we should make broad policy recommendations… We don’t have authority to do that. If the baseline to progress requires additional studies and funding allocations — I’m not saying they’re not warranted — than we should disband this committee and reform another committee to look at those issues… I think it’s a disservice to members to deviate from our original goal.”
In response, Parks’ Zari Santner repeated that they are not changing the direction of the committee, but rather, she’s just saying that whatever they come up with must be “realistic recommendations” that are “coupled with management strategies.”
“What I just heard is totally different than the expectation we’ve been operating under and it changes the equation for this committee and the community at large.”
— Tom Archer, President of the NW Trail Alliance
As committee members continued to speak, the exchanges got a bit heated. Les Blaize and Marcy Houle spoke out of turn, interrupted people, and waved their speaking cards while others spoke. Their conduct caused two other members of the committee — bike trail expert Chris Bernhardt and bike activist Frank Selker — to get up and leave in frustration (Bernhardt warned he would do so if Houle and Blaize continued to speak out of turn).
Bob Sallinger from Audubon Portland said Blaize and Houle’s “disruptive behavior” was “completely unacceptable.” “We do have [meeting] rules and if we’re not going to enforce them than it’s a waste of time for everyone involved.”
After things calmed down, Emily Roth with the Parks bureau revealed the biggest news of the night. She said they just got word from the Bureau of Development Services that adding a new use (biking) to an existing hiking trail (known as trail-sharing) would require a Type III land use review process. A Type III review requires a lengthy public process.
Bike advocates on the committee had previously been told by Parks and BDS that sharing existing hiking-only trails would only require a Type II review process. With this revelation from BDS, it means the trail-sharing option is now off the table.
Tom Archer was clearly thrown a curve by this news:
“What I just heard is totally different than the expectation we’ve been operating under and it changes the equation for this committee and the community at large… It changes the whole program. Our goal was to identify new trails for bikes by spring 2010, that will not happen without trail sharing.”
The frustration by Archer is understandable. Parks’ project manager Emily Roth addressed the confusion: “Originally, when I talked to BDS, I was told it was a Type II review; but now in fact they look at it as a Type III review.”
After hearing all this, Frank Selker — the citizen activist whose work in galvanizing community enthusiasm around this issue back in December 2008 is largely responsible for the committee’s existence — said, “Bottom line is they don’t want bikes getting more access… They’re saying, ‘Go play somewhere else.’ I’m frustrated because I keep hearing selfish based suggestions.”
(Selker was responding in part to one woman on the committee who suggested that people who want more bike trails in Forest Park should find private funds to purchase a parcel of land. She said, “I have neighbors who’d like to ski and they’d love to be able to ski in Forest Park in the winter time… but they’re going to the private sector to get their needs met. I hear a lot about all the resources the bike community has… Can a parcel of land be purchased for this purpose? Rather than try and cram another usage in?”)
At the end of the meeting, several members of the public were allowed to comment. Lynn Jennings, a retired Olympic runner who runs “every inch of the park” said she understands why bike advocates are frustrated:
“The sinuous smallness [of trails] is what is beguiling… If I were shut out from that I would be upset too… If this committee doesn’t recommend some small trails for mountain bikers, there will be more [illegal] trails… Please give something to mountain bikers that resembles the beauty that all the runners love too.”
One man pointed out that the illegal trail is “not an isolated incident” and said there is a “spider web” of similar trails throughout Washington Park. “This is a problem of rampant lawlessness… Until those trails are rehabilitated, the City should not even consider expanding that use.”
Les Blaize’s wife, Barbara Blaize did not leave any question on where she stands:
“This massacre happened in my backyard. I am very embarrassed for my city… We should not be moving forward at all without more rangers, without enforcement… I think this group should reconvene and not go forward at all until this park is studied.”
One woman who said she conducted a study on Forest Park trail users while at Portland State University implored the committee to remember that the illegal trail was done by a “small group of individuals” and that, “It’s totally unfair to blanket rule against an entire user group” for their “irresponsible activities.”
At this point, it’s not clear what direction the committee will take. It is clear however, that while the illegally built trail may not have officially derailed this process, it has certainly sent shockwaves through it. As NWTA President told me the other day, “The discovery of that trail could not have come at a worse time.”
View complete coverage of this issue here.
— In related news, the NWTA has announced a joint work party with the Parks bureau to help decommission the illegal trail. The event will be held May 1st. More details on the NWTA website.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
These people need to quit complaining about the illegal trail (Blaize called it a massacre?? I wish I had her problems!!!)
The trail was probably built by a bunch of bored teenagers during Winter Break.
Let’s move on!!!
What a nightmare. Sounds like Portland Parks was leading NWTA along the whole time. No suprise there.
nightmare yes! NWTA did nothing wrong.
my 2 cents
I think the most telling comment is from Barbara Blaize – “This massacre happened in my backyard.” not “our” backyard, “my” backyard. Many of the residents whose property abuts Forest Park view it as their property, rather than acknowledging that it belongs to the entire city.
And “pristine” is a mischaracterization. The region was logged within the last 75 years, and it is surrounded by noise and air pollution. Valuable, certainly. Irreplaceable, arguably. Pristine, hardly.
Matt,
It’s also worth noting, that if bike advocates and/or Parks decide to move forward with trail sharing, Les Blaize told me his neighborhood association would file an appeal with the hearings officer… which makes it even more unlikely that any trail-sharing will ever happen.
Jonathan, thanks a bunch for the coverage on this!
Hmmm…illegal trail built by ?(anti-bikers ?), “discovered” just prior to this meeting… me thinks me smell a rat.
There should be viable bike access TO the park; but I oppose increasing bike access WITHIN the park. The spider web of unauthorized bike trails (and the frequent make shift foot trails as well) endanger what few quasi-wild areas of the park that are left.
I support a complete ban on bicycles in the park and would support enforcement of the ban though citations. Even as a bike advocate, I believe there areas that bikes simply do not belong.
If we are going to start banning anything from the park under the guise of protecting it then we must start with dogs. Anytime speaks of bans the conversation should go straight to the dogs. If the person making the suggestion doesn’t agree with that then they should be dismissed as insincere.
Why can’t the city just put up a wall along people’s property lines to distinguish where private property ends and public property begins? I hear there’s one over on 82nd.
Just as I suspected: wealthy west-hills homeowners concerned only with themselves.
It’s becoming more and more obvious that the Parks department won’t stand up for an entire class of users who actually want to enjoy the park, not just live next to it.
a.O – if you’re out there, I now get the picture of what you were diplomatically trying to convey about this group in your responses to the intial story on the illegal trail.
This does not sound like a good faith effort to figure out where trails can go. It sounds like west hills people bent on shutting out users that they don’t like.
Jonathan, thanks, as always, for excellent coverage!
I agree completely with kgb (#9) – the biggest issue in the park, in terms of damage, wildlife harassment, invasive species, etc, is dogs – and dogs should be banned from the park. There are dozens of other parks in the city for dogs, and if environmental protection is the highest priority, that’s where efforts need to start.
BTW, by derailing this process, the residents near Forest Park have effectively said that they ONLY want illegal mountain biking in the park. It will continue – if there are no legal options, then those who don’t care about the park will continue to bike there illegally. They need to be prepared to demand enforcement, provide a more tempting target for illegal bikers, or accept the consequences. NWTA’s members aren’t the problem here, it’s people who don’t care about public property who are the issue – and they aren’t willing to drive to Scappoose when Forest Park and Powell Butte are so close.
#9 and #13 – are you two referring to dogs off leash (currently not allowed), or dogs…period?
If it is the later, I’m curious how me running with my dog on leash and on trail and picking up after her (in other words, obeying all the rules) is more detrimental than biking.
Now it feels like both of my Forest Park oxes (oxen?) (dogs and bikes) are being gored!
singletrack would be great but how about fixing the closest double-track to downtown and Thurman which is Holman Lane. This firelane could be more trail-like but currently you don’t even want to walk/run uop it let alone pedal due to the mud. It is now wider than a road in many places and sveral inches deep with mud. Needs to be closed at this point.
Unbelievable…with all the real problems in the world. I guess you gotta laugh to keep from crying.
Matt #4:
My sentiments exactly.
Ryan (#14) – re: how are dogs worse than bikes – they’re not. I’m saying that if the highest priority is protection, both should be banned. I also don’t believe that the highest priority for Forest Park should be protection – it should be recreation, in my opinion. The Mount Hood National Forest has plenty of wilderness with the same species, as do areas in the Tillamook State Forest. Forest Park is a city park – if we want to preserve it for nature, then transform it into a nature preserve. Parks are for recreation, and while that recreation must be managed, it should not take a back seat to preservation – that’s why we created the nature preserve designation in the first place.
Parks’ priorities are screwed up.
Matt,
I think those who oppose bike access due to concerns about “increased use” should also work toward capping the amount of general use (runners/hikers) because that use is also skyrocketing and is happening without any studies or enforcement in place. I put this to Les Blaize and he sort of said he’d agree to that but it didn’t stop him from explaining his opposition to more bike access.
Also, the rhetoric around how sensitive the park is is an interesting part of this dialogue. I realize it’s sensitive, but last night Marci Houle compared it to a wilderness in a National Park… which is just factually untrue… but it serves to bolster what I feel are her intentions of spreading hysteria about bike access via scare tactics and cries about “safety” and the sensitivity of the park’s ecosystem being irrevocably harmed if more bikes use it.
I plan on exploring a lot more of these issues next week. stay tuned.
Ryan,
Don’t get me wrong. I love dogs, just ask my lab who also loves to go on runs in the park on his leash. I’m making a point. When people start talking about banning bikes to protect the park I have to call bs because if you are talking about protecting the park then you should be focusing on the biggest threats and problems. The fact that Leslie Blaize and Marcie Houle are so focused on bikes leads me to believe they are being completely insincere in their true motivations here. I think they should be removed from this committee as they obviously are not operating in good faith.
I have been following the rules and riding my bike in the park since I a kid in the early 80’s. The idea that we should all be punished because of a few bad actors is obscene to say the least.
Also everyone, enough with the generalizations. The residents of the West Hills are like any other cross section of society (ok maybe with more money) but many of them are highly supportive of single track in FP just as many people in North Portland are against it.
If we, as the general public, wanted the environment first at the park, we would ban PEOPLE from the park. However, the park is supposed to balance micro (and quasi) wild areas with foot paths for public use. Exactly how that balance is worked out is up to the public debate process.
Again, my personal thoughts support bike access TO the park, but not WITHIN the park. I think that is the best balance.
Jonathan (#21): you hit the nail on the head. Even if banning bikes is good for the park (which I think it is), the save-the-park discussion needs to address the environmental impact of the ever increasing pedestrian use of the park. I am willing to beat one voodoo doughnut that general use foot traffic has more of an impact on the park than the bike traffic. However, a high volume of foot traffic is by itself a reason to be cautions about creating shard use trails. As a general rule, trail riding does not mix well with families with small children.
Not long ago, my five year old was almost ran over in the park a trail rider. The very nature of the trails limit the sight line of trail riders.
Marcus wrote:
That is your general rule Marcus, and it fits with your position of wanting to ban bikes in the park. Obviously safety is important, but public policy should not follow personal anecdotes. Shared trails happen all over the country and there are trails in Forest Park where sight lines and trail design are adequate to support it. Let’s let trail design experts decide what rules we should follow.
As a life-long and avid biker, I just don’t see any legitimate “unmet need” to allow bikes on anything except Leif Erickson Drive. I would love to hear why anyone thinks this ought to happen.
While I admit I don’t have a great deal of familiarity with the issue, it seems like as case of folks who are invested in getting adrenaline rushes wanting to be able use Forest Park to get that, despite clear environmental costs in terms of erosion and the like. It kind of reminds me of controversies in my home state of MN, where people wanted to be able to freely use loud and rather disruptive jet skis on otherwise quiet and pristine lakes. In short, nature as sanctuary vs nature as rambunctious playground. Often you can have both, but in the case of Forest Park, I would definitely lean towards sanctuary. Being able to tear through forest trails on a mountain bike just doesn’t qualify as a “need” in my mind, but rather a luxury that I think the city is certainly not required to prioritize.
Matt and kgb,
Thanks for the clarifications. I agree about the inconsitency of banning bikes while allowing other uses that have similar impacts. There are certainly some false assumptions and questionable logic being being used to bolster the arguments for not granting more access for bikes or banning them altogether.
Matt, I love your last post #18. I was thinking the same thing while reading the quotes in the story about
“protection of the ecological resource values of this park is paramount…”
sorry, I just don’t agree with that statement.
A “park” implies recreation and a place where people come to enjoy nature. A “Nature Preserve” is how this group of people is perceiving and attempting to restrict access.
Change it to a Preserve, or start figuring out ways for people to use it please.
KC,
Do you need to walk in the park, no you do not so I can apply the same logic and bam look we don’t even need the park let’s cut it down again.
The fact is there are large areas of the park that need serious attention. The lower part of fire lane five was buried in Blackberry brambles before cyclists started to fix it, now it is one of the best maintained (if not the best maintained) trail in the park. There are numerous areas where a trail could be built and leveraged for monitoring and removing invasive species just look of to the left of the top of Springville road for example. But no Marci and Leslie would rather let the forest be strangled by IVY than solve the problem, why? Because they care about their own personal EXPERIENCES in the park more than they care about the park itself.
A few people on the committee just don’t want to share “their” park. Their reasons keep changing even as we debunk previous ones with facts. They couch it in whatever they think will carry sway at the moment – safety, wildlife, administrative hurddles (and they contacted BDS directly to maximize such hurddles), illegal use, solitude, tipping-point, “out of control” … but it’s clear for them it’s not about park health or nature — they just don’t want bikes on trails because they either think park trails are only for people who want to use it like they do, or they just don’t want anyone else in their personal nature reserve. And they are loud.
But they are a small minority. Most people on the committee (including some who live near the park and non-cyclists) are thoughtful, smart, and far-sighted. And I am impressed with Parks, Nick Fish’s office, and other professionals who are involved, including Bob Salinger with the Audubon. I am optimistic that we will get a reasonable outcome because I believe the center-majority (which extends beyond cyclists) will carry the day. Cyclists won’t get everything we want (no one does), but I believe we will get progress.
Yes I believe someone will appeal anything we propose. We have heard plenty of threats from them about appeals and “blowing up the process.” That is how they are trying to use the illegal trail now, and they will keep trying new ways of going around the committee to other commissioners, BDS, etc. to sabotage it. I am not concerned about their appeal – we will be reasonable in what we propose, and they will lose.
The meeting yesterday was rough, but the previous one was constructive and I think the bulk of the committee will come together with useful and far-sighted proposals in spite of everything.
Frank
Frank,
I can’t thank you and the members of NWTA enough for all the hard work you doing.
Thank you!
I believe there is still some fundamental misconceptions by those opposing more single track access for bicycles in Forest Park about the nature of mountain biking.
KC’s comment sort of crystallized this notion for me. KC, an avid cyclist you may be, but I venture to guess, a mountain biker you are not. Therefore you have as much access to Forest Park as you will ever need/want.
Which led me to my next thought which is how much the media has represented mountain biking as this adrenaline junkie sport where all participants do is shred down hills hucking off of man-made jumps and terrorizing the locals. And not just the media, but the industry itself since it is more appealing to the younger demographic and has much greater crossover appeal and looks good on TV. But in reality that is one small faction of what mountain biking can be for some. As a matter of fact that is a very narrow and specialized aspect of the sport and I don’t think anyone in the mountain bike community is suggesting we build or allow access to FP for that discipline.
What mountain bikers want is the opportunity to enjoy some of the same trail experiences that hikers currently enjoy and for many of the same reasons.
And now I am heading up to Leif Erickson to ride in the mud and dog poo. @Thurman gate 2pm.
“… And “pristine” is a mischaracterization. …” Matt Picio #4
WordWeb definition of ‘pristine’:
“Immaculately clean and unused”
Infrequently visited by humans…75 years of recovery from logging… . This, and just the few pictures of it I’ve seen suggest that the North Management area of Forest Park is indeed pristine, or relatively so for being as close as it is to a major city’s downtown.
For generations of Portland residents, this area, and the balance of Forest Park’s 5000 acres comes as close to ‘wilderness’ and a ‘wilderness experience’ as can be expected in a city park in a major city. For these many, many Portland residents, the simple activity of being in and enjoying the many natural, wilderness-like wonders of that park, is without question, recreation.
What percentage of Portland residents really want off-road bikes on single width trail in Forest Park? What percentage of Portland residents support the Parks Dept’s efforts to protect Forest Park’s wilderness-like…if you will…character, over a parceling out of its trails to uses that may detract from that wilderness-like character?
Where’s the security at these meetings? If someone is being disruptive and not allowing others their turn to speak, they should be removed. This kind of crap from Houle and Blaize would never be allowed to go on in city hall, where the ever present security guards are prepared to restore civility.
The majority are fine with increasing access to bicycles in the park but since you don’t live in Portland how would you know. More access has nothing to do with Pristine there are large areas of the park that far from being pristine and in fact are in great need of attention but you don’t really care about that do you?
Since the park is so over used maybe we should start by limiting access to it to the residents of the city of Portland.
Honestly,massacre – weak wording… I would have said genocide or holocaust and compared the evil bikers with hitler… uh…
Actually, as a biker and skater I dislike sharing my skateparks with bikes for a bunch of irrational and crazy reasons – safety, impact on the park etc. Everyone is insane and irrational in their own way.
But seriously, thanks to the Frank and the other folks who are fighting the good fight to get single track bike access in forest park! Keep up the good work I appreciate you patience and determination.
“… I think those who oppose bike access due to concerns about “increased use” should also work toward capping the amount of general use (runners/hikers) because that use is also skyrocketing and is happening without any studies or enforcement in place. …” Jonathan Maus (Editor-in-Chief) #21
Maus, think about what you’re saying. Sure, capping numbers of people visiting parks due to excessive use does happen. Someday, it might be required for Forest Park. In fact, I’d be surprised if the Parks Dept wasn’t conscious of that possibility.
You’re referring to people traveling in the park on foot…meaning slower speeds and taking up less space on the trails compared to bike travel. Bike travel, based on simple average speed alone…7mph and more compared to 3.5mph for walking. Compared to walking, biking has the potential to double the number of people brought into the park.
I haven’t forgot the joggers runners, but am inclined to think they may be a smaller percentage overall on-foot travel.
Would people propose that on-foot travel be capped as a means of providing off-road bike access to single width trail in Forest Park? I wonder how the public might respond to such an idea.
kgb – I think you only answered half of KC’s question. If mountain bikes have access to fire lanes and Leif, what is the compelling need (for the city, not just MTB enthusiasts) for singletrack? Why not upgrade the existing MTB trails (some of which are in horrible shape) to create better riding?
This strikes me as similar to the street access debate. The city proposes a bike lane or sharrows that work for most. A subset of riders grouses viciferously that it isn’t a separated cycle track and they will not be happy unless the track is built. Then the city throws out a MUP as an alternative. The riders then gripe that the idea sucks because it isn’t exclusive to bikes. Eventually, nothing happens for years while it gets endlessly debated.
So, is new singletrack really necessary or politically viable? Or, would it be better to get Portland Parks to vastly improve what exists and then work out a Portland Trail Plan 2030 that allows for smart future planning in Forest Park?
Bob you can split hairs and blow things out of proportion until the cows come home, but when it’s all said and done, the core of this issue is sharing.
If ever there were a collection of posts that anthropomorphized ‘analysis-paralysis’, yours are them.
Once again mountain bikers get fooled into thinking that Parks has any interest in improving access to trails for a human powered green activity – mountain biking. Looks like what is best for the environment is for mountain bikers to drive an hour out of town to ride trails. That sounds pretty “green” to me. If these illegal trails had not been found, I’m sure there would have been a million other excuses for why mountain bikers can’t use the trails. I guess the message going forward is: build all the trails you want, it’s not like you can diminish biker’s access to trails in the park, because there never will be!
Until they find the people who did this I think we should stop accepting that it was a bicyclist. Having this illegal trail to hold up as a reason to derail the process is exactly what these people want and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that one of them built the trail.
Also I have never seen these no skiing signs in the park. Is XC-skiing actually a prohibited use? I think if there is snow it is actually allowed to ski in the park.
There are dozens of illegal trails in forest park. Finding who is responsible for these trails is often no harder than following the trail to where they are camped. Why the fuss about one bike trail. I doubt the people who built this trail are responsible for jacking cars at the trailhead.
Forest Park is not a “wilderness area” or a “national park.” It is a City of Portland “natural area.” These areas which also include places like Oaks Bottom, Ross Island and Smith and Bybee Lakes have been acquired and preserved specifically for the purpose of protecting natural resources and providing access to nature. Over the past 15 years voters in our region have passed close to $400 million in bond measures to protect places like Forest Park for their natural resource values. We don’t need to compare them to national parks or wilderness areas–our natural areas are important in their own right. We need to protect both large wild landscapes, but we also need to protect critical natural resource areas on our urban landscapes if we want to reverse wildlife declines and improve water quality. An increasingly large share of the the cause for declining wildlife populations and degraded water quality is a direct result of the fact that we have historically done a poor job of integrating our built and natural landscapes. Those who say that Forest Park is not “pristine” are absolutely right—every single natural area, creek and wetland in the entire metro region is degraded to some degree. A tremendous amount of effort is going into restoring these types places now that folks have come to realize the responsibility that we share.
Access to nature is critical but it is also a challenge to do it in a way that does not undermine restoration efforts and so that different types of access don’t conflict with one another. Those are the issues that this committee is ultimately struggling with. I don’t personally believe that access to the Park will be capped now or in the future. As it currently stands the de facto policy of the city is promote visitors to the park—we promote the park to residents and tourists alike…we write books about the park…Audubon is proud to serve as one gateway to the Park. I think the key is to do it in a way that promotes a stewardship ethic and which channels activity so that it does not sprawl onto every ridge and drainage within the park. It also involved being realistic and recognizing that a place like Forest Park can die a death by a thousand cuts (or trails), If try to make it everything to everyone, the one thing it will eventually cease to be is a natural area. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the committee doing a bit of struggling to find solutions. However I also think that it is making progress.
wsbob (#31) – “Pristine” from your own source:
1.Completely free from dirt or contamination
2.Immaculately clean and unused
Neither of those is true. We can debate semantics, but my view of the discussion is that certain people are trying to paint Forest park as untouched by man, unique, and deserving of special protection. I disagree with all 3 points. If I did agree with all 3 points, then my recommendation would be to make it a nature preserve and curtail human access and prohibit domestic animals.
re: what percentage? That’s a very good question, and I think someone should be polling residents on that one.
Bjorn (#37) – I agree. I’ve been told that the trail has ramps, jumps, etc – even though they aren’t shown in the media coverage. That proves that the trail looks like it was built for bike use, though it doesn’t prove mountain bikers built the trail. The timing of the announcement is suspect. And it’s obvious that somewhere, there was a miscommunication as to the level of review required. In any case, it’s unlikely a solution will be found this year, and trail-sharing appears to be out.
I think there needs to be a public review and a vote as to whether Forest park is intended to be a preserve or a park, and policy decisions made accordingly.
This meeting was deliberately torpedoed by the city. This trail was known about for quite a while (the OPB crew filming the owl episode knew about it) but they broke it as “news” right before they’d have to put up on their previously made trail promises.
Things aren’t going to change as long as we have Zari Santner in charge.
“Bob you can split hairs and blow things out of proportion until the cows come home, but when it’s all said and done, the core of this issue is sharing. …” f5 #35
Okay, f5, let’s get this straight: You’re saying to the public…because it’s the public, through the city’s Portland Parks and Rec Dept, that determines and manages accepted and desired uses for Forest Park… that it’s not ‘sharing’ because it apparently is hesitant to provide for off-road biking?
Does anyone hear the sound of masses of Portland residents coming to rally the cause of providing single width trail in Forest Park to off-road bikes? Where are the mass demonstrations of people in the streets? The critical mass of mountain bikers on Forest Park trails…even legal ones? None. Zero. Zip.
Folks, there’s no public mandate for this use in the park. This fact should have been clear long ago to everyone. NWTA faces an uphill struggle on this use in the park because the Portland public just does not seem to be that interested in having bikes on single width trail in the park. Portland residents seem to place great value on their unique place of peaceful repose, derived in part from the fact there aren’t a bunch of vehicles on the trails.
Despite this lack of overwhelming public demand for off-road single width trail in the park, eventually, mountain bike advocates will likely get more single width trail in Forest Park. That is, if they don’t pull anymore big guns out and shoot them directly at their feet.
Portland residents are generally fair minded people. Park and Rec seems to be doing a fairly decent job of handling this touchy issue. Certain members of the trails advisory committee’s might think to tone their emotions and comments down a peg or two, but it seems their intentions for Portland residents best interests relative to the park, are good ones.
These illegal trails were most likely built by a bunch of bored local kids, with the time and energy to do the hard manual labor. They probably don’t have any clue that a process is in motion to solve their needs, all they know is they want to ride, and they don’t have a car to get to the trails. You can’t stop them, they will continue to build trails because they have no where else to go, any attempts to police them will only fuel their desires and makes them heroes among friends. Yes, when they grow up they will feel shame for their deeds, but another generation will be right behind them, ignorant of history… So how do we prevent this from happening? You give them a better place to go, an easier place to go, where they don’t have to dig and build. Where they can focus on doing what they want, just to ride a bike and hang out with their friends. Their needs have nothing to do with Forest Park, it was just the easiest place to build, where no one would bother them.
This entire thing is a repeat of the skateboarding issues of the 80’s and 90’s. Teenagers with skateboards had nowhere legal to go to practice and hangout. They would skate whatever concrete block provided the most challenge. Sometimes this was a city park, but most often it was a commercial property. Sure, the companies all hired rent-a-cops, but that only made the skaters feel like outlaws, which made the ‘bad’ skaters behave like outlaws. Soon they didn’t even care so much about the skating, just about the next run-in with the man. The thrill of the chase. Meanwhile the ‘good’ skaters begged and petitioned the city to build them a place to go, but no one listened. It stayed this way for years. It wasn’t until the corporations got tired of paying to repair their curbs, and paying cops to chase kids. Once the companies realized how much money they were losing to the endless barrage, they woke up. They realized the money spent on enforcement and repair could go on forever unless they found a solution. So they they took the money and asked the cities to build them a refuge, a place where the kids would WANT to go, a place that was enticing enough to pull them away from from the business parks and mall parking lots. This is how the kids finally got a skatepark. Once the first few parks were built, it was obvious. The kids PREFERRED to go there and the problems disappeared. The kids were stoked, a place to play without being chased out. With no more curbs to clean or cops to pay, the cities and companies were happy too….
Same old story.
kgb, your response seems hyperbolic and unnecessarily oppositional. I’m not a full-time policy geek, and I generally don’t have the time or inclination to lay out all the intricacies of my viewpoint when I step forward to write something here. So I, and I think conversations like this in general, rely on a certain generosity of spirit from the reader to avoid things getting blown out of proportion as we try to understand one another’s point of view and work towards agreements.
To your respond to your point, strictly speaking, yes, you’re right. I don’t need to walk in Forest Park, so yes, it could be cut down and I would be fine. But people do need access to nature (I can’t cite a specific one off-hand, but I’ve heard of all sorts of studies correlating access to nature with general human health), and by extension a healthy flourishing urban area needs to provide its citizens with fairly easy access to natural spaces or risk being unhealthy and stagnant. People also need a way to get exercise and have fun on a regular basis, lest Jack become a dull and overweight boy. And it would be great if they could have all three at once.
So given that it’s a larger issue of social need rather than individual need, core issue in my mind is how to provide the widest range of different types of access to nature, exercise, and fun while being thoughtful stewards of the land and staying within budgetary limitations. The range of access methods that occur to me, in roughly ascending order of impact, is something like: hikers, runners, folks with dogs, mountain bikes, horse riders, dirt bikes, ATVs, and finally 4×4 trucks. The ideal in my mind would be to provide ALL of these things in such a way that they don’t conflict with the long term needs of the land, don’t infringe on the other means of access, and don’t cost too much. Of course that’s not possible, so somewhere we have to draw the line. Excluding motorized vehicles is, in this town at least, an easy place to start. But THEN what?
My mind goes to this: exercise can be had in all sorts of ways, fun can be had in all sorts of ways, let’s make sure we provide the most simple access to nature to the most people, with the least impact on the land and the Parks budget. To me (again, being fairly new to the issue) looks like: foot traffic on trails, foot and non-motorized wheeled traffic on Leif Erikson. With that, you’ve given access to a huge expanse of nature to the vast majority of the populace. After that, expanding trail use further into horse and mountain bike is a luxury. It would be great, yes, but only so long as it doesn’t degrade the land, impinge on foot traffic, or cost much.
I take this position even though I’ve more than once been taken aback by the speed of mountain bikers going down Leif Erikson. It hasn’t usually seemed reckless, mind you, just, well, awful fast. I’m walking down the road in “connect with nature” mode, and they appear to be in “rambunctious play” mode. It’s often startling, and sometimes it even feels intrusive. But because it’s OUR park and not MY park, and because it’s a nice wide road, I’m happy to make room for it. But in the narrow and erosion-prone space of a trail, I really don’t want to make space for it.
One thing you appear to be saying, kgb, is that the mountain biking community would put forward energy in removing invasive species in exchange for building some bike trails. Is that it? I’m kinda guessing, because you don’t say who would build the trails, and I’m not sure what you mean by “leveraged”. Anyways, I think it’s interesting idea to have that community invest in the park in exchange for building some infrastructure for their fun, assuming the long term damage to the land is minimal. It’s awesome to hear that the community cleared brambles from one of the fire lanes, I didn’t know that.
With respect to Marci and Leslie (who I don’t know at all), I have to ask, kgb, did they say they’d rather rather let the forest be strangled by ivy than solve the problem? Have you checked that out with them personally? If not, it sounds like you’re misrepresenting their positions and even impugning their motives. When people feel like their positions are being misrepresented or their motives impugned, they tend to get defensive, which can take a lot of energy away from finding solutions. Witness me writing this crazy long response largely because of a one-sentence out-of-hand dismissal of my viewpoint. So while I would never suggest that you give up your position and viewpoint (just the opposite, keep it so I can understand it better!), I do invite you to invest more energy into reaching out to understand my and other folks’ points of view.
Finally, I wanted to say Charlie: you have me nailed exactly. I’m a tourer and a commuter. It would be interesting to hear in a more detailed fashion how the majority of mountain bikers want to use the park. And with that, how do you propose to mitigate the impact of the adrenaline junkie minority should mountain bikers win greater access to the park?
Picio, that word ‘pristine’ was used by park staffers quoted in the recent bikeportland story in reference to the North Management Area of Forest Park specifically, rather than the entirety of Forest Park’s 5000 acres.
I’m comfortable relying on their assessment of that part of the park’s condition until I come by information that accurately contradicts it. The pictures accompanying the recent bikeportland story, with exception of the illegal trail gouged into the land, certainly seemed to depict an environment that was… “2.Immaculately clean and unused”.
Wordweb’s first definition for ‘immaculate’ probably applies to this area as well. As for the condition of the rest of the park…as far as I know, which is by no means exhaustive….the park needs a lot of work, because it’s not presently immaculate, clean and unused.
That raises the question, ‘What do Portland residents want for their park with respect to the state of its natural condition and use of it as an opportunity for a natural, wilderness-like experience in close proximity to the city?’. Are they saying…’It’s too far gone to be a wilderness-like experience anymore…let it become off-road biking.’ Is the public saying this?
Some off-road bike advocates seem inclined to use the parks less than pristine natural condition to argue that the idea of the park being a place where people can experience wilderness close to the city…should be dispensed with, to provide single width trail for biking. Do Portland residents in general support that argument?
I just now noticed Bob Sallinger’s clarification in comment #40, of what type of resource Forest Park is relative to some of the others known by frequently used terms ‘wilderness’ and ‘national park’:
“Forest Park is not a “wilderness area” or a “national park.” It is a City of Portland “natural area. …” Bob Sallinger #40
Sure…’natural area’ fits. Though they may not technically or officially be wilderness, the areas Sallinger mentions in his comment are places that it seems people can go to experience at the least, nature, if not an actual wilderness experience. Close to the city, that’s hard to beat.
What would happen if we had a public poll on riding in the streets? I’m pretty sure I’m the only one within about 3 blocks of here (an apartment rich area) that has ever put a tire on the street, nevermind other places that we are allowed to ride, like highways and Skyline. We simply cant govern by the will of a majority that has no idea what any of this is about.
We need to make decisions based on both desire, and evidence. Evidence from other places with shared use trails shows that it can work, and does not significantly degrade the environment.
Two other points, I too have never seen a no skiing sign, so why should we not ski if it snows? Well, it might be a bit narrow. So our red herring of a trail? Why did it cut through this “pristine” area? Because it is the most hidden location in he park. There are other trails made by walkers, “campers” and deer too. Where is the security preventing walkers from making new trails or widening them by stepping around the mud?
You all should do well to read the “Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan”, the official city document on the Park, if you are serious about expanding bicycling in the park.
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=47529&a=103939
fwiw, bicycling is defined explicitly in Chapter 4 as an allowed ‘passive’ recreational use, no different than walking in the Park.
What is differentiated, is WHERE you can do these activities.
Anyone who shows up at these meetings and proclaims that bicycling is invasive should be acknowledged as not knowing what the management plan states.
Alternatively, bicyclists should not be so naive to think that they will get increased access to the park without working out the funding issue. Parks is perennially cash strapped, and has experienced layoffs.
A type III LUR should be the goal of bicyclists, but you are gonna have to ‘pony up’ the resources to get it done.
Bjorn (#37) and anyone else wondering about the physical components of the unauthorized trail:
I hiked the entire length of the trail from the bottom to the top on Wednesday. I took a bunch of photos as I was hiking it. I was accompanied by a member of the Single Track Committee.
First, and please excuse my lack of proper mountain biking terminology, this trail appears to be more of a downhiller experience rather than a single track experience. For purposes of comparison, Maple Trail would serve as what I am thinking of when I say single track experience.
This unauthorized trail is built with log jumps or jumping off points (again with proper terminology, apologies) and clear banked turns. It appears to be a trail that is only ridden downhill judging from the deep tire tracks downhill of the log jumping off points. Same perception when looking at the banked curves.
I took photos of these features. I also took photos of the elk hair, elk tracks and fresh piles of the elk scat that were within inches of the side of the trail if not on the trail itself.
I don’t know who built this trail anymore than anyone else and I will not speculate. It is abundantly clear it was built for one purpose and one purpose only: for mountain bikes.
KC, I’m perfectly comfortable with my assessment of Marci and Leslie with respect to this issue.
With respect to this:
The range of access methods that occur to me, in roughly ascending order of impact, is something like: hikers, runners, folks with dogs, mountain bikes, horse riders, dirt bikes, ATVs, and finally 4×4 trucks.
The acutal order is: hikers/runners/cyclist about even dependent on circumstances then dogs and you seem to have managed the rest ok. Do some research if you don’t believe me.
With respect to the rest this is exactly what NWTA is proposing, fyi there is no mountain biking community beyond NWTA it is a myth and the vast majority of people riding bikes in the park are far from adrenline junkies.