Let’s reflect a moment about the changing nature of the desires of outdoor enthusiasts’ over the past one hundred and fifty years. A hundred and fifty years ago, hunting (including market hunting) was a predominant desire of outdoor enthusiasts. Hunters had already hunted out tule elk and beaver across the Central Coast, and they were quickly driving to extinction California quail and band tailed pigeons. Wildlife laws and enforcement had to be put in place to change those behaviors and expectations. Then, a hundred years ago, Santa Cruz citizens flocked to the County’s North Coast to enjoy wildflowers, a national trend. Here and across the United States, city people went to the country on day-long sojourns to picnic, walk, and enjoy wildflowers which they picked, dug up, and brought home for bouquets and gardens. It took a concerted effort and rulemaking to conserve wildflowers, to change public behavior on open space.

Fast Forward: A New Desired Outdoor Experience in the 2000’s

A well-funded and organized political campaign can have a lot of impact. We’ve been surprised by marginal segments of the population gaining traction and power in so many aspects of our lives. The group Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz (MBOSC) is an excellent example, and their statement ‘we need more mountain bike trails’ is the rallying cry that has propelled them forward over a very short time. We can learn a lot about marketing, rallying cries, and how a functioning democracy can effectively counterbalance minorities by examining this parks management issue in Santa Cruz County. All politics is local.

Local Trail Statistics

There’s a lot behind the statement about ‘needing’ more mountain bike trails. In 2017, I first encountered this statement when MBOSC started circulating deceptive statistics about the limited number of mountain bike trails in Santa Cruz County. Shortly thereafter, a local land trust used those same statistics in a misguided effort at a partnership. MBOSC staff said: “We have 220 miles of legitimate trails here in the county. Of those, less than 40 miles are open to bikes.” On the contrary, my statistics (linked here) documented 136 miles of trails open to bikes.

What Need?

When pressed, MBOSC noted that the skewed data they presented was because their constituency wants more ‘narrow single-track’ trails dedicated only to those recreating on mountain bikes. So, first we must delete the word ‘need’ and replace it with the word ‘want.’ With that, let’s also get more honest about the group and who wants what, where, and why. Here’s their marketing phrase, restated more honestly:

“According to an advocacy organization, a subset of those individuals who choose to recreate on mountain bikes want increased mileage in Santa Cruz County of narrow single-track trails that exclude all other types of recreational use, which they feel would otherwise interfere with their own recreational experience.”

Designing Trails for Desired User Experience

What processes do we have in place to weigh some parks users’ desired experiences with that of others? How do we balance the desire for “narrow single-track trails dedicated to mountain biking” versus other user desires on public and conservation lands? Here is a link to an overview of the modern method of planning for these issues in parks.

The Purpose of Parks Institutions

To plan for park visitor use correctly, one must delve into the institutional purpose of a given land management agency. To continue using my example of State Parks, this is what the State has to say about whether or not single-tracked trails only for use by mountain bikers are appropriate:

“Improvements that do not directly enhance the public’s enjoyment of the natural, scenic, cultural, or ecological values of the resource, which are attractions in themselves, or which are otherwise available to the public within a reasonable distance outside the park, shall not be undertaken within state parks.” (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 5019.53)

I suggest that ‘narrow single-track trails used only for mountain bikers’ are ‘attractions in themselves’ rather than enhancing ‘the public’s enjoyment of the natural, scenic, cultural, and ecological values’ of a park. In the same manner, do we seriously want to argue that zip lines or drones would ‘enhance’ anyone’s enjoyment of the scenic values of a park?

A Specific Park Goal

Planning for desired visitor experiences proceeds with the definition of the purpose of a particular park. For Wilder Ranch, the purpose is:

“…to protect, preserve, and make available to visitors the cultural and natural resources, including historic features, natural biotic communities, geologic and edaphic resources, and related recreational values of this portion of the coastline and coastal mountain region of central California. Public use and enjoyment of the park is encouraged in the limits established by the State Park classification and resource sensitivities.”

So, Parks planners at Wilder Ranch State Park get to determine which types of desired visitor use experiences fit within those goals, which are clearly related to protecting and preserving lots of things at the park.

Visitor Experience Conflict

When parks managers created the management plan for Wilder Ranch State Park, in 1980, they worked with UCSC professors and students to study the park and there were lots of public meetings. Those studies and the public meetings suggested a potential for visitor experience conflict between the two user groups recognized at the time: hikers and equestrians. As was common with the outdated approach, since hikers outnumbered equestrians, they delineated 27 miles of trails for hiking use only and 9 miles of trail for use by both equestrians and hikers. Parks planners did not envision mountain biking at all, and the plan has not since been updated for that use. Without formal adoption of this new user group in the Wilder Ranch General Plan, mountain biking is not officially allowed at Wilder Ranch State Park. Obviously, there are conflicts between the desired experiences of bikers, equestrians, and hikers…and even more conflicts now recognized by subsets of bikers (thrill riders versus family riders) and hikers (exercise hikers and wildlife viewers).

Next Steps

To minimize conflict and plan to integrate the many modern visitor use experiences at Wilder Ranch State Park using standard modern protocol would require an update of the General Plan. This is important, anyway, at Wilder Ranch State Park as Gray Whale Ranch and Coast Dairies Beaches have since been added to the Park…without any review/planning (no thanks to #CaliforniaCoastalCommission and #CaliforniaNaturalResourcesAgency for being okay with that!).

User experiences are ‘balanced’ not in terms of majority rule, but rather in terms of minimizing conflict with other users and natural resources. In other words, just because your advocacy campaigns make a lot of noise about wanting more miles of ‘narrow-single-tracked trails only for mountain bikers’ doesn’t mean you’ll keep getting more and more of those ‘rad experiences.’ There are too many other conflicting types of users wanting experiences in nature for that to happen, especially when the primary purpose of so many of our parks isn’t active recreational sports, but rather conservation.

Let’s recall that visitor use and wildlife conservation are conflicting goals on open space. This requires careful planning to accommodate both in a given region, across park boundaries. To make this point more strongly, I urge everyone to use the statement “active recreation in open space is Nature Extraction” – we now understand that recreational use disturbs and even eliminates certain species of wildlife. We are extracting recreational areas of open space for human gain…same as mining, only perhaps less obvious. This is one of the top ten threats to biodiversity worldwide and we can find solutions right in our own county, if we take this seriously.

-this one originally posted at BrattonOnline.com as part of Bruce Bratton’s regular weekly blog of news and events in and around the Monterey Bay area.