Fort Custer Trail Separation Meeting

[dennismurphy]

If #17 above is a documented fact, it seems we may be conceding a bit much - especially if this is a "first pass". We have no room to negotiate. We should be asking for more, than fall back to this position if needed. Just my $0.02.

Good luck - this is one of my favorite trails.

Don't confuse "acreage" with actual constructed trail.

FYI- Northern Indiana mountainbikers were going to bring THREE cars of people to the meeting. Based on Amy's email above, I emailed them back and they will instead email me a position statement I can read at the meeting-

[blamp28]

Thanks for your efforts Dennis!!

[Sortaslow]

Should we careful with statements as to how few equestrians use the trail? I mean, can't they turn around and say: "So we (horses) barely use the trail, and this very minimal use causes such a degradation that we can no longer coexist on the same trail as mountain bikers?"

Makes our credibility less sound when looking at it like this. I see the point that they represent a small user group wanting a large portion of trail, but one can spin this many ways to fit their needs.

Funny how that new bridge got put in right before this. Their timing is impeccable. I do believe it was the MMBA that funded (or procured funding for) the parking lot and water supply. (My understanding on this is based on the youtube video of Alan and Needham.) So if the equestrians start a who spent what war with mention of the new bridge and this is why we deserve trail, well, I think MMBA and SWMBA have enough merit with money spent and trail hours documented to counter this. But who knows what the equestrians will bring to the discussion.

[dirtjunkie]

So 5-10% of users there get half the existing trail?

I could see giving them half of Ft Custer if they were half of the users at the park. But they're not. Equestrians are a small miniority there. But any trail dedicated to their use will effectively push ALL other users on to the remaining trail. covered sand boxes aren't any fun for hiking or biking.

I think a more equitable division of trail would be like what has been done at Yankee, where equestrians get something closer to 15% of the total trail mileage.

Good point Scotty. I certainly hope the MTBrs that are showing up are armed with facts like this.

Aren't the mtb bike trails separate from the equestrian trails in the Yankee Springs Rec Area?? The south side of Gun Lake rd has an eloborate trail system for the horse folks...and it's pretty lengthy (10 miles?). They stage at the Horseman's Camp ground on Duffy road. I've been riding Yankee for years and live 5 miles away. I don't recall seeing horses on the mtn bike trail there. I'm not saying that Scotty is incorrect with the 15% assertion....I'm just saying that because they have their own trail system on the other side of the road, they don't (or are less likely too) travel over onto Yankee's mtn bike loop.

Thanks to all that are working on this. I sure hope that something gets worked out and it's favorable to the red and green trails. My wife is an equestrian coach and is involved in 4H. She doesn't understand why these people even want to ride the same trails as mtn bikers. It's just a small group of horsey-folks that like stirring the pot. The selfish desires of a few horse folks shouldn't out-weight all the work being done by the mtn biking folks.

[Scotty]

Aren't the mtb bike trails separate from the equestrian trails in the Yankee Springs Rec Area?? The south side of Gun Lake rd has an eloborate trail system for the horse folks...and it's pretty lengthy (10 miles?). They stage at the Horseman's Camp ground on Duffy road. I've been riding Yankee for years and live 5 miles away.

Yes, the equestrian loop at YANKEE is seperate from the mtb trail. The rest of the trail across the road is NOT part of Yankee Springs. That is part of the Game area. And bikes are verboten in the Game Area.

A better way of looking at it is that ALL of Yankee springs is open for hiking, but only approx 5-6 miles is open to horses and approx 12 (seperate) miles is open to bikes. There is still a lot of trail that runs through Yankee that is hiking only. I forget the total mileage at Yankee. My est. of the horse loop was that it's something like 15% of the total trail. You rarely find hikers on that 15%, though. The trail is a mess from the horses and not much fun to hike.

I don't recall seeing horses on the mtn bike trail there. I'm not saying that Scotty is incorrect with the 15% assertion....I'm just saying that because they have their own trail system on the other side of the road, they don't (or are less likely too) travel over onto Yankee's mtn bike loop.

They have their own trail system at Yankee, but it's much closer to the their proportionate size as a user group (ie. it's not 50% of the trail). IMO, what equestrians get out of Yankee is a horse specific campground/parking lot off from Duffy Rd.

[Guppie]

It seems the horse people carry more weight than the dominate users of the trailer: bikers.

Am I correct in this? If so, why is it that way?

[Scotty]

It seems the horse people carry more weight than the dominate users of the trailer: bikers.

Am I correct in this? If so, why is it that way?

That's the $50,000 question!! If you're a member of the dominate user group why do you give up half of the acreage and offer to help buid out the segregated trail for the equestrians?

I hope I'm reading more into the bits below than needs be. But if I just lost half of what took nearly 3 decades to build, there's no way in *beep* I'd be lifting a finger to help 0.05% of users improve their access to that land. Let them do it themselves.

It makes me wonder whether the same results could be had for cyclists (getting half of a trail system designed for other users) simply by poaching it and demanding the trail for ourselves.

2. Develop a 17 mile trail system on the west side of the park for equestrians and mushers built with the assistance of SWMMBA.

17. Equestrians WHO REPRESENT ½ OF ONE PERCENT OF ALL TRAIL USERS would have the use of 1600 of the 3000 acres available in the park. Mountain biking would excluded from this half of the park.

I wish the SWMMBA all the luck in the world. This is a real headache. Watching it unfold from the neighboring chapter can't be half as frustrating as having to deal with it up close. I hope I can continue to visit Custer occasionally in the future and not have to navigate around piles of equine cr@p and Belligerent horse owners.

[dirtjunkie]

They have their own trail system at Yankee, but it's much closer to the their proportionate size as a user group (ie. it's not 50% of the trail). IMO, what equestrians get out of Yankee is a horse specific campground/parking lot off from Duffy Rd.

Right and agreed. There are numerous trail systems in the Yankee Rec Area and the surrounding Barry State Game area (the horse trail and the bike trail are within several hundred feet of one another, and they both are in the Yankee Springs Rec area). The equestrians not only get their own staging area, but their own trail (which I've heard from numerous people that they like). It would be nice if they (Fort) could use this as an example of all user groups (mtn bikers, equestrians, hikers, XC skiers...etc) having their collective share and getting along.

[dennismurphy]

I suggest that perspective is in order- I could care less if the horse riders get 50% of the "acreage" and the developed blue loop if it preserves our riding on the Red, Green and Yellow loops. Acreage is only important if you intend to develop it widely- and there's still plenty of trail building opportunity on the half proposed by the chapter to be maintained as bike access

The far LARGER threat is the horse group demands 50% of the currently existing TRAILS- which should be argued against for numerous reasons
a) Red and Green were developed by the SWMMBA and most of these are not suitable to horses due to construction
b) the yellow facilitates destination cycling by families and groups with wider ability levels
c) attempting to give the horses any parts of the Red, Yellow or Green risks continued conflict due to the intersecting nature of the trails

Further- putting the horse groups on their own terrain will aloow them to put up or shut up- they often say they contribute to building maintaining trails but rarely put up numbers to back this claim. Give them the blue and observe the behavior the next four years. I would be five bucks that in four years you won't see ONE MILE MORE of added trail in their section.

[cramer]

That's the $50,000 question!! If you're a member of the dominate user group why do you give up half of the acreage and offer to help buid out the segregated trail for the equestrians?

Based on what I've read in the past, it's the mountain bikers pushing for trail separation, not the horse people as much. The quotes that I saw from those representing the horse groups said they preferred to share the trails vs. separation and losing some access. Since we're the group that doesn't want to share (for obvious reasons), it makes sense we might need to make some concessions to the group we're trying to exclude, regardless of which is the dominant user group. I think the splits that have been proposed are reasonable and fair.

[Scotty]

That's the $50,000 question!! If you're a member of the dominate user group why do you give up half of the acreage and offer to help buid out the segregated trail for the equestrians?

Based on what I've read in the past, it's the mountain bikers pushing for trail separation, not the horse people as much. The quotes that I saw from those representing the horse groups said they preferred to share the trails vs. separation and losing some access. Since we're the group that doesn't want to share (for obvious reasons), it makes sense we might need to make some concessions to the group we're trying to exclude, regardless of which is the dominant user group. I think the splits that have been proposed are reasonable and fair.

So, your basically saying that Mountain Bikers negotiate like Democrats.

[cramer]

That's the $50,000 question!! If you're a member of the dominate user group why do you give up half of the acreage and offer to help buid out the segregated trail for the equestrians?

Based on what I've read in the past, it's the mountain bikers pushing for trail separation, not the horse people as much. The quotes that I saw from those representing the horse groups said they preferred to share the trails vs. separation and losing some access. Since we're the group that doesn't want to share (for obvious reasons), it makes sense we might need to make some concessions to the group we're trying to exclude, regardless of which is the dominant user group. I think the splits that have been proposed are reasonable and fair.

So, your basically saying that Mountain Bikers negotiate like Democrats.

Yes....errr, I mean "I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it would be considered political in nature and thus banned from the forum"

[Guppie]

so they want grannies kitchen

[Tom L.]

so they want grannies kitchen

I have no idea who you're saying wants granny's kitchen but why would anyone want to steal it? It's a pretty awesome place around Thanksgiving but only if granny is in it.

[dennismurphy]

Based on what I've read in the past, it's the mountain bikers pushing for trail separation, not the horse people as much. The quotes that I saw from those representing the horse groups said they preferred to share the trails vs. separation and losing some access. .

Of course the (few) horse riders want to share- and why not? They get 20+ miles of trail to ride, they don't work on it to repair the damage. Damage they do to the bike trail has to be repaired by the bike group in order to maintain a rideable trail but if not repaired it doesn't impact the horse riders one bit.

The arguments for separation are based on rational concepts
The Red and Green loops were built by cyclists for bikes (works well for hikers) but not constructed to withstand the weight and use by horses and their riding on these loops mostly only in the last five years has created the conflict.

From what I remember I don't recall horses on these two loops back in 1999 to 2003 or 2004. Their presence on- and growing use of- the Red and Green loops is very recent- as Scotty mentioned- they basically poached trails NOT constructed with their user group in mind

I think the proposal by the Chapter to the DNR makes great sense-
a) clear geographic separation
b) offer to help expand their section to increase their mileage

From the tidbits of converstation at the meeting tonight, the horse riders representative proposals still encompassed them riding significant areas of the terrain where the Red and Green are located but we got no specific details

Mike (SW Chapter) cautioned the DNR that the small group represented by the Ft Custer horse riders should not be taken as speaking for ALL equestrians.

The Fort Custer Cyclery owner made the solid business point that destination trails at Custer bring money not only to the park but numerous businesses in Augusta- bikes can be seen at the taqueria, the pubs, the gas station and the ice cream shop all summer- you rarely see a horse trailer pulled up at any of these businesses.

It makes me wonder whether the same results could be had for cyclists (getting half of a trail system designed for other users) simply by poaching it and demanding the trail for ourselves.

The same thought came to my mind at the meeting.... hmmm
a) Begin riding a trail you're not supposed to be on "officially"
b) conflict ensues with original trail group
c) go to mediation and get half of a trail one wasn't supposed to be on in the first place

Others can chime in from the meeting but there was about 40 mountainbikers there. The SW chapter (Gordie and Mike primarily) led the comments with their proposal.

The DNR will be looking at the two competing proposals as well as take in other user group input (dog mushers, etc) to try to make a decision in the spring

Good Luck SWMMBA