Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Horses on the beach







photos by/and courtesy of Angela Burgess
Dennis Mayo, beside a sign that closes an area he had enjoyed riding on for 50 years. Little River State Beach, right there by Moonstone Beach. This is near the trail that skirts around the backside of Clam/Little River Beach, along the frontage road. Closed for more than 4 years now.
An Equestrian's View - Finding Common Ground

☛ TS Work together to solve equestrian riding restrictions problem An Op-Ed by Uri Driscoll 11/23/08

120 comments:

Anonymous said...

Should he have the right to ride his horse in areas where he disturbs endangered species?

Anonymous said...

Except he isnt...

Been goin on for neigh on 150 years...

Species still there, any endangerment isnt being caused by someone riding a horse on a trail...

Anonymous said...

Species become endangered, they weren't always.

Anonymous said...

Just read the link. This is the right message and a positive article. As usual,great job cowboy. Thanks for trying to find us some balance.

Anonymous said...

I read it. He is bitching because he can't ride his horse through areas with endangered species. People can't take their dogs there either. Don't you want to bitch about that too?

Rose said...

Yes, 8:36. We do.

Especially after that area was BULLDOZED in an experiment to eradicate European Beach Grass, and you guys didn't say boo about any disturbance.

Yes. We do. In a thread below this one, Bob Doran brought up what a good thing the Park Expansion was. And I agreed. It is a good thing because the intention was to preserve lands so that common folks who don't own ranches and vast estates have somewhere to walk, hike, ride and camp.

Do you see the beautiful shot of the horses on the beach? THAT is what makes up the quality of life in this county.

Why do you want to eliminate that?

Anonymous said...

European beach grass, as its name makes clear, is not a native species. Erradicating non-native invasive species is sometimes necessary to allow native species to survive. There are still lots of places at the beach to ride horses, let your dogs run, ride your ATV's. Why do you think you have to shit all over everything and destroy necessary habitats? Do you really believe that being able to ride your horse where ever you please is more important than protecting endangered species? I hope you don't call yourself an environmentalist with that attitude.

Rose said...

Did anyone say anything about destroying habitats? Do you know that Dennis is aware of all the nests and is, and always has been, very careful of them - and has taken the time to let others know - LONG before there was ever a plover fence?

You never stop and think about that - and you never even consider that most people are good and considerate.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Dennis knows, but they can't make a sign that says everyone but Dennis has to keep their dogs and horses out. You don't think everyone knows or cares where the plover nests are do you?

Anonymous said...

8:36 you probably know you are wrong. On the off chance that you aren't an anti-everything plant,here's a suggestion. Go on the trail in question and see if it is threatening,dangerous or harmful to the ( endangered species). If it's safe for people to walk on and is at the outer most east side of the park how could it be any more harmful for a horse than a human? When you see that their is no reason for this particular restriction on this one trail will you reconsider?

Anonymous said...

I also just read the article. Didn't see any bitching. Saw a good view of an important issue with some very good information on solutions good for us all. Great photo's. We live in the most beautiful area in Gods creation.

Rose said...

So the horses leave footprints in the sand. And the wind blows sand in to fill the footprints. And you seem to think that is more threatening than the bulldozer that leveled the dunes?

Rose said...

'Cause funny thing. The dunes rebuild, and survive. Even the beach grass survived. It will survive the worst storms. It will survive a tsunami. It changes constantly. There's an ebb and flow to the tide, to the dunes, to the growth, even to the species that call the beach home.

Anonymous said...

Most people don't poop uncontrollably as they walk along like horses do. Their manure contains lots seeds and bacteria. Dogs kill nesting plovers.

It is obvious that you people don't give a shit about the environment or endangered species.

Rose said...

And those are valid points. But if man were to disappear from the earth today, do you think that no animals would poop on the sand? No deer? No elk? No foxes?

See - the beach, and the various species that inhabit it survived for centuries before you came along, and will undoubtedly survive long after you are gone. Maybe not all. Some do not survive. For a variety of reasons.

Should we protect as much as we can? Yes.

But your solution is the equivalent of people who cover everything in their house with plastic furniture covers so as to avoid it getting dirty. It's no way to live.

Anonymous said...

Believe it or not the poop is an important part of the flora and fauna ecosystems. Bacteria isn't always bad.

Anonymous said...

You are making a straw man argument. No one has said that the whole beach should be off limits. No one has said that everywhere has to be off limits. This is a small piece of land which is protected for the benefit of an endangered species. But even that is too much for you to accept.

Rose said...

I think you need to go up there and take a look at all the NO signs.

And you seriously - no, not you - the rest of us - have to think about what kind of world we want to live in.

I always get the feeling you guys see southern California beaches with wall to wall people when you think about the beach. Most days there are less than a dozen people on Clam Beach. Miles and miles and miles and miles of undisturbed coastline. On sunny days, maybe you get a hundred, maybe. Most a re concentrated up by the entry, and the parking lots.

Years ago - lots more people had horses, and alot of people rode on the beach. Today very very few have horses and even fewer ride on the beaches.

You have no sense of historical or spatial perspective. But you do have a shut it down anti-human mentality. Goes right along with those damn lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

I have no interest in strawman debates.

Rose said...

The first time I saw Angela's horses was a bright sunny day, with incredible blue sky and ocean. They came riding in, two horses with riders, and the white horse, with no saddle or anything, running and leaping alongside.

The white against the blue - the freedom of the horse - it was amazingly beautiful.

They rode to the end of the beach, passed around Moonstone's point, changed horses, and came back, riding the white one, with one of the others free.

There is no more beautiful thing than that.

It is about freedom. In ways that you cannot comprehend.

Anonymous said...

You are right there, Rose. I can't understand anyone wanting the freedom to drive a species to extinction and don't want to.

As to the beauty of horses, I have owned horses my entire life. I don't feel the need to destroy sensitive habitat to get enjoyment from riding.

Anonymous said...

Nobody wants to drive a species to extinction, idiot. Get real, a few horses aren't going to kill all the plovers. It's the foxes that do.

Anonymous said...

here jackass:
http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/FieldOffices/Newport/WesternSnowyPlover/PredatorManagement.asp

Rose said...

Here -
I made your link live

Snowy plover predators identified along the Oregon Coast include American crow (Corvus brachyrhychos), common raven (C. corax), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), black rat (Rattus rattus), and feral cat (Felix catus).

Other suspected predators include coyotes (Canis latrans), mink (Mustela vison), short and long-tailed weasel (Mustela spp.), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), and gulls (Laris spp.) The table below shows the number of known predation events between 1990 and 2003 that caused snowy plover nest failure on the Oregon coast.

Rose said...

Should we shoot all the crows, red foxes, ravens, raccoons, skunks, black rats, feral cats, etc that predate the plovers?

They can't read those NO signs, you know.

Anonymous said...

Causes of snowy plover nest failure on the Oregon Coast 1990-2003
Cause of Nest Loss

Percent

Corvid (crows and raven) depredation
20
Unknown depredation
20
Mammalian depredation
6
Adult depredation
7
Avian depredation (of eggs or chicks)
0
Unknown cause
14
Buried by wind blown sand
13
Abandoned
9
Overwashed
6
Infertile
3
Trampled
1
Human vandalism
1

Anonymous said...

No, we should increase the likelihood of their extinction by allowing horses to poop all over their nesting grounds, dogs to chase them off their nests and kill them and eat their eggs. You anti-environment people should become extinct.

Anonymous said...

Unknown depredation 20%, unknown cause 14%, trampled 1%, human vandalism 1%. At least 2% due to man and a possibility that 36% of nest lost was due to man's activities according to your statistics.

Rose said...

You don't own any horses at all do ya 11:21, 10:48, 10:29. 10:00, 9:32....

Have you ever even ridden?

Anonymous said...

11:21 if what you say were true, you might have a point. What you are saying is not true. There are no plovers on the trail in question. None. People walk on that trail everyday. The trail has no vegitation, no endangered species. It is simply in the park boundry by a few feet to a few yards. It is heavily used. With all the restoration effort in the western side of the park, it might be interesting to you that most of the plovers are not in the park but are on private property of Sam Stanson.

Anonymous said...

I started riding at about the age of 4 and never quit. I don't even remember my first ride I was so young but I have pictures. I currently have one horse, but have had as many as 5. I have broken and trained 6 horses myself. I too am a Humboldt native whose family came here in 1898. All natives and horsemen aren't environment hating rednecks.

Rose said...

YOu sound sincere. But no one I know who has horses - or had horses - ever talks about them the way you do - or so completely misundertands the way you do.

Anonymous said...

In fact, I was in the High Hope Riders 4H group in McKinleyville back in the early 60's. I didn't live in McKinleyville, but that is where our leader lived. We did a lot of riding at Clam Beach.

Anonymous said...

This isn't about horses Rose. I love horses. I don't think that entitles me to destroy habitat. I like motorcycles too, but I don't think people should ride them in areas where they do damage.

Rose said...

It's about way more than horses. On that we agree.

You do realize that most people don't ride in the dunes at all? Given a choice, they ride on the harder wet sand. Easier on the horses. Easier to run on the hard pack. Fun to play in the waves, see the seagulls.

If you've really been riding that long you know that there used to be many multiple times more horses than there are now. Very few people even own them anymore, lot sizes are too small, upkeep is too high.

Even at its peak - how much damage did the horses do? No appreciable damage. Unless you had 'em crammed on a 1/3 acre lot that became a mud bowl. As many people did.

Which pristine 'environmentalist approved' area do you ride in now? With a helmet I am sure. Gotta be safe.

Anonymous said...

I prefer my cowboy hat and ride old logging roads.

Yes, dunes are hard on horses tendons and can be dangerous due to animal burrows as well.

Anonymous said...

11:50 can't you understand that the trail in question has nothing to do with habitat. Riding on that one trail has just as much or as little impact as humans walking. Again on a trail that does not impact any habitat. So what point are you trying to make? That you are as unable to use reason as the park did with this restriction. Even riding up and down dunes or right beside a plover with a horse has no negitive effects on plovers. They inter act with horses very well.

Rose said...

Yeah, see, you're worrying about something that isn't even a problem.

I used to ride on the logging roads. Nice soft dirt, easy on the horses' feet, peaceful and quiet. We'd sometimes chase deer, my horse and I, and she would eat thistle flowers. Quite a funny sight, the way they keep their lips from touching the prickly part. :)

Now it is all locked up. Other places we used to ride got taken over by pot growers who shot at us.

Anonymous said...

Great article. Thanks for the photos. I remember someone telling us when the vehicals were removed they'd be after the horses next. Though that was a bit phobic at the time. Looks like they were right. Not a pretty picture.

Anonymous said...

vehicles not vehicals. Share your trepidation over our future beach uses.

Anonymous said...

Horses do love thistle blossoms. Draw the lips back to nip them off and then roll them around in their mouths just so and crunch. I had one horse who would eat them until he foamed at the mouth. Not so many thistles around these days either.

Anonymous said...

I would never have risked a horse for the sport of chasing deer. You must be a brainless sort.

Rose said...

I've yet to hear the "environmentalist" side admit the predation problem is far more serious. That doesn't mean people who care about the environment but understand it, it means the ones that like to use the law as a weapon, and the horses are a means of dictating policy to control people they never met and don't care about. It's about power, an exercise in 'can we do it?' exertion of power.

Anyways, I'll rejoin you in the morning.

Rose said...

Yeah, 12;24, she did love them. The kind of thing you treasure the memory of forever. Those were good days.

There was never any risk, 12:26, except from the pot growers with guns.

Anonymous said...

What you don't comprehend is the natural predation problem is a given. We can't regulate foxes and crows. We can regulate human activity so as not to add to the stress on endangered species.

Anonymous said...

You knew where all the wild life burrows were? Have you ever had to shoot a horse because it broke its leg in a hole? Running a horse over uneven ground is irresponsible.

Rose said...

Oh, I sure as shi-ite do comprehend. It's that key phrase "We can regulate."

Kinda like the cops can't do anything about the meth dealers and murderers but they sure can bust someone for not wearing a seatbelt or turning their headlights on when their wipers are on, and soon, if they are talking on their cellphone. You can regulate the law abiding people, and what does it get ya?

Nothin.

And that's what the people get from you, nothin'

They, the people, pay for the parks, bought into the idea of parks, and they are being cheated by the regulators. For whom it is about that power "We can regulate human activity."

Rose said...

Don't worry, 12:36 - the deer were too quick, and they darted into the trees. Sometimes the chase was not a run at all, but both walking, us edging quietly closer, the deer monitoring our progress, until we crossed a comfort line, and then they would take off.

You make so many assumptions.

Rose said...

Anyhow, g'might. See ya in the morning.

Anonymous said...

We regulate all kinds of human behavior. That's why we have laws, cops, courts and prisons. Regulating human behavior on public lands is also required. If everyone could do anything they wanted on public lands they would be destroyed. There will always be people who think what they want to do should be allowed whether that is riding horses and ATV's in critical habitat for endangered species to open campfires in high fire risk areas. The public lands belong to everyone and no one has the right to damage them. That's why we have regulations about what activities are allowed in what areas. Horsemen don't like sharing trails with ATV's either. I have seen more than one rider unseated when his horse was spooked by trail bikes.

Btw, Cape Blanco at Sixes, Oregon has a great horse camping section with great trails.

Stephen said...

The arguments here by those opposed to horses is so absurd as almost to be ignored except the thinking behind banning horses on the beach is a mindset of too many supposed environmentally conscious newcomers to Humboldt County.

Horses do not eat endangered species. Dogs and cats do and yet all the time I've lived in Humboldt County, 31 years now, I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen environmentalists seriously protest homesteader's invasive species which destroy endangered species. But get one chance to protest "mainstream" resident's joy of riding horses on the beach and whammo! it's the sky falling in.

I urge every single supposedly environmentally conscious person to visit Shelter Cove and talk with Shelter Cove residents about their relationship with wildlife. I lived there and what one sees there if you live for any length of time is that most all the wild animals are not afraid of humans--why? Because they aren't being killed. And those humans? They are busy building houses and making all the racket of house building yet you see deer unconcerned, foxes scampering on the roads, all unconcerned with the human activity because they've learned the humans are going to kill them and disallow dogs to do the same thing.

Think what species actually kill endangered species and it isn't horses..

Stephen said...

Make that "they've learned the humans aren't going to kill them and disallow dogs to do the same thing.

Anonymous said...

NO ONE IS ANTI HORSES. NO ONE IS BANNING THEM FROM BEACHES. NO ONE SAID HORSES KILL WILDLIFE. STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS ARE DUMB.

Anonymous said...

Yes, so why do you keep using them. The main killer of plovers is the wildlife in the area, not human vandalism. Crows, foxes, etc., that is what is killing the plovers. What sense does it make to protect the plovers from the situation that is doing the least damage to them while allowing the situation, other wildlife, to kill them. Typical government mindset. Forget about efficient use of resources. Maybe instead of roping the beach off, they ought to figure out how to keep the crows away. Dumb shits, do you see the utter idiocy of your position?

Anonymous said...

DUMB SHIT HOW DO YOU KEEP WILDLIFE AWAY FROM WILD AREAS? IF THE CROWS CAN'T GET IN AND OUT NEITHER CAN THE PLOVERS. IDIOT.

Rose said...

I believe the only way to keep the crows OUT, 7:37, is to SHOOT them.

So you have a choice. Kill one to protect the other. You're unwilling to make that choice, and you can't regulate the crows, so you stab at the one thing you can regulate. And destroy a way of life in the process. And that's a bigger discussion than just his one little trail. It is happening everywhere.

And the people who advocate against excessive regulation are treated the same way the property rights guys are here.

Anonymous said...

This is a good example of how stupid restrictions are made. How little to no rational information is used to support bad policy. Many of the posters have lied outright or are spouting some mantra they have heard. There needs to be places with multi-use,limited use and restricted use but those decisions need to be made honestly. Yes,people are trying to ban horses from beaches right now in Humboldt Co. This process has happened the same way in California before and ultimatly horses were banned. Talk about a dumb strawmam argument. There is no reason,none,for banning horses on the ONE trail in question. The human behavior needing regulation is out of control agencies and zealots on staff.

Anonymous said...

CAN YOU ONLY ARGUE WITH STRAWMEN? NO ONE IS DESTROYING ANY WAY OF LIFE BY CLOSING OFF A LITTLE PIECE OF BEACH TO HORSES AND DOGS.

Anonymous said...

WHERE ARE HORSES BANNED FROM BEACHES? NOT IN MENDOCINO COUNTY. NOT IN SONOMA COUNTY. NOT IN MARIN COUNTY. NOT IN SAN MATEO COUNTY. NOT IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY. A FEW SECTIONS OF BEACHES HAVE BEEN CLOSED TO HORSES IN A FEW AREAS TO PROTECT THE ENDANGERED PLOVER.

I WOULD GLADLY SHOOT CROWS. HATE THOSE NOISY NASTY F--CKERS.

Anonymous said...

NOT TO THE POINT OF EXTINCTION OF COURSE

Anonymous said...

FOR 4:16 STRAWMAN ARGUMENT IS WHERE YOU ARGUE FALSE POINTS WHICH YOUR OPPONENT NEVER MADE. IN THIS CASE, ARGUING AGAINST BANNING HORSES FROM ALL BEACHES IS A STRAWMAN BECAUSE NO ONE IS ADVOCATING THAT. CLAIMING THAT SOMEONE IS ADVOCATING THAT IS JUST A COMMON EVERYDAY LIE.

Anonymous said...

I read this stupidity and smile. If some want to be grad student did a paper show horses should be put on endangered list from lack of exercise these idiots would pass a law requiring that all horse owners live near a beach and ride horses on beach as a condition of ownership

Rose said...

Ok, 8:54 - And saying all people who want to use the beach don't care about endangered species, and just want their precious right and damn the rest to hell, horses pooping and dogs killing, isn't exactly the same kind of argument? That's just BS.

Maybe this will help you - think of that little right to ride on that one little trail as an endangered species. If it falls, so goes the rest. That's the endangered species argument, yes? If one goes they all go. Same with rights.

Same with freedom.

Anonymous said...

NO ONE HAS SAID THAT EITHER ROSE. ALL YOU DO IS ARGUE WITH STRAWMEN. YOUR DOMINO CONFLATION IS BOGUS TOO. SPECIES ARE INTERDEPENDENT. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ABUSE PUBLIC LANDS. YOU SEEM TO BE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT SPECIES SHOULDN'T BE SAVED FROM EXTINCTION WHEN POSSIBLE BECAUSE DOING SO MIGHT INCONVENIENCE A FEW PEOPLE. THAT IS A LOGICALLY INDEFENSIBLE POSITION BUT MAKES IT CLEAR WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM.

Anonymous said...

SHOW ME ONE QUOTE HERE WHERE ANYONE SAID "all people who want to use the beach don't care about endangered species." CLASSIC STRAWMAN.

Anonymous said...

HURRY AND INSERT AN ANONYMOUS POST NOW SO YOU CAN CLAIM AN ENVIRONMENTALIST MADE IT, MAYBE THE INFAMOUS HERALDO, JANE, JENNIFER OR ANN COULD BE BLAMED.

Rose said...

Ok, we have an agreement - species are interdependent - duh. No question about it. No one has the right to abuse public lands, duh. No question about it.

The question is - WHEN DID RIDING A HORSE ON THE BEACH OR ON A TRAIL BECOME ABUSING PUBLIC LAND!!!!

Anonymous said...

YOUR INABILITY TO DEBATE HONESTLY AND RATIONALLY IS SHOWING ROSE.

ABOVE YOU SAID YOU CHASED DEER ON HORSEBACK, THEN YOU SAID YOU DIDNT AND THEN YOU SAID SOMETIMES THE CHASE WASNT A RUN AT ALL. WHICH IS THE LIE? THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE.

Anonymous said...

IT BECOMES ABUSE WHEN THE EXPERTS IN OUR PARK SERVICES SAY IT DOES. WHO ELSE SHOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? EACH INDIVIDUAL?

Rose said...

Your inability to have a conversation is - geez, something, I don't know what.

Both, dear. Don't worry, 12:36 - the deer were too quick, and they darted into the trees. Sometimes the chase was not a run at all, but both walking, us edging quietly closer, the deer monitoring our progress, until we crossed a comfort line, and then they would take off.

Ok - now we see where you are truly coming from. The government decides. Not the people.

CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Anonymous said...

TIMES HAVE CHANGED. THE MAJORITY NOW BELIEVES THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS WORTHY OF PROTECTION AND THEY ELECT LEGISLATORS TO PASS LAWS AND GOVERNORS TO APPOINT REGULATORS WHO HIRE EXPERTS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO SO. MOST PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PUT UP WITH THE BASICALLY NONEXISTANT INCONVENIENCE OF HAVING TO FOLLOW PARK REGULATIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN DO WHERE. YOU CANT CARRY GUNS IN A PARK EITHER. IS THAT A VIOLATION OF YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OR JUST A COMMONSENSE WAY TO DISCOURAGE HUNTING AND DANGER TO OTHER VISITORS?

Rose said...

Actually, sometimes, if we were very still, as my horse was grazing, the deer would themselves come in close. It's a truly magical thing.

No discrepancy.

Rose said...

OH? Only now do people believe in protecting the environment? Only now that there is LEGISLATION to tell them how to think?

Don't worry. You get your way. As the legislation makes it so onerous to try to ride, no one buys horses anymore. There's nowhere to ride. So you end up with your win.

Soon it will be dogs.

You're a raving idiot and more of a danger to our society than any rabid animal or terrorist. God protect us all from people like you. That's what our legislators should be doing.

Anonymous said...

"SOMETIMES THE CHASE WAS NOT A RUN AT ALL" DIRECTLY IMPLIES THAT SOMETIMES THE CHASE WAS A RUN. NO OTHER WAY TO INTERPRET IT.

Anonymous said...

YOUR INSULTS SHOW THAT YOU CANT ARGUE THE POINTS. I'LL LET YOU OFF THE HOOK NOW BUT YOUR DISHONESTY AND ILLOGIC HAS BEEN DULY NOTED.

Anonymous said...

ONE LAST NOTE AND QUESTION:

DOGS ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED FROM SOME AREAS IN PUBLIC LANDS, AS THEY SHOULD BE. WHILE THEY ARE COMMONLY SEEN AT SEQUOIA PARK, THEY AREN'T OFFICIALLY ALLOWED. WOODLEY ISLAND HAS RESTRICTED AREAS AS WELL.

MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT APPROPRIATE USE OF PUBLIC LANDS, WHO SHOULD?

Rose said...

Sigh. SOMETIMES the chase WAS a run. SOMETIMES it wasn't. That is WHY I used the word SOMETIMES.

Actually, I could have said MOST OF THE TIME it was a quiet "chase." Because that was much more fun, and much more rewarding, and much more mystical.

You should try it. Might calm you down a bit.

Anonymous said...

SO YOU DID RISK YOUR HORSE CHASING DEER FOR THE THRILL "SOMETIMES."

Anonymous said...

I'M SURE IT WAS A THRILL FOR THE DEER AS WELL.

ANOTHER NOTE, THE DOGS ARENT ALLOWED IN SEQUOIA PARK TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN, NOT WILDLIFE.

Rose said...

Yep. it was exhilarating. It was wild, and it was free. The horse and I were one. She didn't even need a bridle. I could touch her neck and she would turn, or tighten one leg, and she would know.

It's not the kind of thing you can explain to someone like you.

And it is the kind of thing that should be kept available to all future generations for all eternity, and if the legislators can't protect those simple things, they should be removed from office.

Legislation that you are pushing is a deadening thing. A killer of joy. Of life, and of freedom.

Anonymous said...

IF NOT OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, WHO SHOULD DECIDE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAND USE?

Rose said...

EXPERTS and LEGISLATORS have decided that marijuana is illegal, and that you should go to jail for just possessing it, much less growing it.

Do you obey those laws? Do you agree with them? Because the legislators are all knowing and should dictate your choices?

Anonymous said...

I DONT USE ANY ILLEGAL DRUGS BUT DO LIKE MY BEER. SHOULD PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO GROW MARIJUANA ON PUBLIC LANDS? I DONT CARE WHAT PEOPLE DO ON THEIR OWN LAND SO LONG AS IT DOESNT DO DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR OTHER PEOPLES LAND.

YOU HAVENT ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT WHO SHOULD DECIDE APPROPRIATE USE FOR PUBLIC LANDS OTHER THAN OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. YOU SAID THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH LETTING THE GOVERNMENT WE ELECT MAKE THOSE DECISIONS BUT HAVENT SAID WHO SHOULD.

Anonymous said...

PARDON MY CAPS BIG OLD FINGERS ON LITTLE KEYBOARDS DONT WORK VERY WELL.

Rose said...

It's just a stupid question. Of course the legislators set the rules, because we elect them to and we allow them to.

The question is - is what they are doing RIGHT?

And hitting the caps lock button doesn't take any great dexterity. But, I'm not Carson Park Ranger - I don't delete comments just because they contain caps. :) So y'er safe. It's a little taste o' that freedom we cherish. My gift to you.

Anonymous said...

THEY ARE DOING WHAT THE EXPERTS THEY HIRE TELL THEM IS RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THOSE PEOPLE WHO WENT TO COLLEGE FOR YEARS AND GOT ADVANCED DEGREES IN NATURAL SCIENCES BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR PLANET AND ALL THE SPECIES WHO DEPEND ON IT?

WOULD YOU LIKE ALL SMALL LETTERS BETTER? MY HANDS ARENT VERY DEXTROUS SO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WORKS BEST FOR ME. HUNT AND PECK IS HARD ENOUGH WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT SHIFTS.

Rose said...

Yeah you musta pulled a finger muscle last night.

Doesn't bother me - use all caps if you want.

Anonymous said...

NO, JUST GOT LAZY TODAY. TYPING IS FASTER THIS WAY.

NO RESPONSE ON THE TOPIC?

Anonymous said...

"ANOTHER NOTE, THE DOGS ARENT ALLOWED IN SEQUOIA PARK TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN, NOT WILDLIFE."

Not true. Dogs are allowed in Sequoia Park... on leash.

Dogs are allowed on the Headwaters Trail and must be under owners control. Leashes are only recommended.

Rose said...

It's just a stupid question. Of course the legislators set the rules, because we elect them to and we allow them to.

The question is - is what they are doing RIGHT?

Rose said...

Do you understand what Scrooge represents?

Anonymous said...

DOGS ARE ALLOWED ON LOTS OF PUBLIC LANDS, AND HORSES TOO. EVERY POSSIBLE USE ISNT COMPATIBLE WITH EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE USE. DO YOU THINK ATVS SHOULD HAVE FREE ACCESS TO ALL LANDS? SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED IN ALL AREAS USED BY HORSEBACK RIDERS? DOES THE MAJORITY (THROUGH THEIR REPRESTATIVE GOVERNMENT) HAVE A RIGHT TO RESTRICT USAGE OF PUBLIC LANDS TO NONDESTRUCTIVE USE AND MAKE THE DECISIONS AS TO WHAT IS DESTRUCTIVE? SECOND GUESS THEM ALL YOU WANT. WHEN YOU HAVE TO LIE TO PROVE YOUR POINT (CLAIMING ANYONE WANTS TO BAN HORSES FROM ALL BEACHES OR THAT ANYONE BELIEVES EVERYONE WHO USES BEACHES WANTS TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT) YOU LOSE ANY CREDIBILITY.

Anonymous said...

You have finally come close to the correct answere. You needn't attack a responsible horse back rider or walker or bird watcher or atv rider or enviro. You should not accept blindly that your superiors know it all or that to question them is bad. Aren't many of you right now attacking the experts about the war in Traq? Or no many other issues? Why can't a recreationalist have the same consideration you have? You keep running from answereing the QUESTION. This one trail has no inpact so why close it? Isn't it fair to have an open public process to determin what areas should be open,closed or managed in multi-use? There has been no due process to the public. No public process at all. This is what is wrong with this total closure. You are trying to use an atom bomb to kill a fly. I think you know this though and are unwilling to have open talks about it. That's why you talk in generalities and insults.

Anonymous said...

THE PUBLIC PROCESS IS ELECTIONS. ELECTING THE PEOPLE WHO WILL CARRY OUT THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY. EXPECTING TO HAVE A DIRECT VOTE ON EVERY REGULATION AND DECISION IS UNREASONABLE. THAT IS THE JOB OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. YOU CAN VOICE YOUR OPINION TO THEM ON ANY ISSUE AND REQUEST THAT THEY VOTE THE WAY YOU WANT. THAT IS HOW A DEMOCRACY WORKS. WHAT YOU WANT IS ANARCHY.

Anonymous said...

I HAVENT INSULTED ANYONE BUT HAVE BEEN INSULTED SEVERAL TIMES AND MY WRITEN OPINIONS BLATANTLY MISREPRESENTED. I AM TRYING TO HAVE AN HONEST AND RATIONAL DISCUSSION HERE BUT MAYBE THAT IS TOO MUCH TO EXPECT.

Anonymous said...

Go back and read your posts. You are always to the extreem. Answere the questions. Should there be a public process? yes or no If their is no impact and people are using the one trail why should horses be banned from that one trail? . Don't try. Do. When you can answere those two questions we have a bases to start talking with you. No more strawman BS.

Anonymous said...

THERE IS A PUBLIC PROCESS. ITS CALLED AN ELECTION. WE VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT WILL VOTE FOR WHAT WE WANT. THEY HIRE EXPERTS TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD DO. SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARENT SUBJECT TO VOTES. THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS WANT ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTED. YOU BELIEVE PEOPLES RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT. YOU CAN TRY TO CHANGE PEOPLES MINDS ABOUT IT, BUT LYING JUST PROVES YOU DONT HAVE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE.

Anonymous said...

You have shown your true colors. The open public process is the correct process for closures,management plans,etc. Not by elected reps. No elected rep closed Little River State Beach. CEQA is a public process so is NEPA. You are so biased and so out of touch with reality that your opinions are no more than party line slobber. Every person has the right to adress the economic,recreational,enviromental concerns in managing our public lands. That's fair. Of course in your picture I'll need to send my son off to Iraq because (your words)"THEY HIRE EXPERTS TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD DO" All of us want necessary species protections. You are the STRAWMAN of strawman arguements.

Anonymous said...

Spot on 6:13. Rose ,thanks for the photos and the link. Thanks for sticking up for balance and reminding us that these issues still haunt us. 4:43 reminds me of the Three Stooges. They just never could get it right.

Anonymous said...

YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT IS. I AM NOT ARGUING POINTS YOU HAVENT MADE, JUST STATING MY OWN.

ONCE MORE, OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS PASS THE LAWS WHICH GIVE AUTHORITY TO REGULATORS WHO ARE APPOINTED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. THEY HIRE EXPERTS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED BY REGULATING AGENCIES.

ALL LANDS CANT BE USED FOR EVERY POSSIBLE ACTIVITY WITHOUT DOING ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE. SOME AREAS FAUNA AND FLORA ARE STABLE ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND THE ONSLAUGHT AND SOME ARE NOT. THOSE THAT ARE NOT HAVE THEIR USE RESTRICTED TO LESSEN THE IMPACT. YOUR INABILITY TO GRASP THAT SIMPLE CONCEPT IS EVIDENCE OF YOUR MINDSET. I WONT WASTE ANY MORE TIME TRYING TO HAVE A RATIONAL DISCUSSION HERE. HAVE A NICE LIFE.

Rose said...

In many ways this argument relates to the General Plan process.

A. You have Kirk Girard in charge of that, and I am not sure whether it is fair to call him an 'expert.'

B. Lovelace and others who influence Girard say "oh no, we wouldn't EVER tell you you can't build on your own land. You can build as long as you meet the criteria" Yet they set about to put in place a General Plan that says that you can never meet the criteria, because ooops, you don't have this, don't meet that, can't pass this, etc. This lets them look like good guys who are looking out for you but in reality they are not.

C. Now you tell us you would never say people can't ride on the beach, yet there are drafted plans saying exactly that, and signs saying exactly that, and even more things in the works. There are people who are tracking all that, and sites like this one whose focus is solely on that. But you ridicule them.

...and all the while you are trying to pretend you are horse friendly - all of your statements and arguments show that you truly are not.

You may like the idea of horses, on some big silver screen, in a Disney movie, where they never poop, never get muddy, never have to be groomed or fed.

You claim to care about the environment but you have no faith in the environment.

Worse, you think people are the enemy, that they are stupid careless, thoughtless and less than you.

I think people are mostly good, some are incredibly good, even heroic, and that you cannot punish them all for the actions of a few. You have to trust in the goodness of people, and you have to stop killing off the very freedoms that nurture their souls.

Anonymous said...

DUMB SHIT! WHAT ABOUT THIS TRAIL? WHY DO THEY NEED TO CLOSE IT? DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO PROTECT A SPECIES FROM WHAT DOES THE LEAST DAMAGE TO THEM? GO TO THE HOSPITAL WITH A HEART ATTACK AND A HANGNAIL AND YOU ADVOCATE WORKING ON THE HANGNAIL. WAKE UP. QUESTION AUTHORITY. IF THESE DECISIONS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION LIKE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (YOU KNOW, THE EXPERTS) GIVES OUT TO THE BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION (FALSE AND ILLEGAL), THEN IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE.

Anonymous said...

You wait until the guy says he is leaving and then you attack with all the lies he has refuted. You know as well as anyone that the BOS doesn't make CEQA regulations or laws regarding endangered species and none can be changed with the GPU. You are despicable. Your little band of idiots may not understand it, but you certainly do.

Anonymous said...

Your emotional appeal is as lame as your strawman arguments.

Anonymous said...

I'm having a hard time following which strawman is which. Keep riding those horses. Keep advocating for balance. That means reasonable protections and fair access. Great post Rose.

Rose said...

Well, 6:36, it may be the attempt at a 'rational discussion' fails because we are looking across a divide, a chasm, so wide that we can't even see each other on the opposite sides.

Whether it's a glass half empty (you) vs a glass half full (me) - whether it is anti-human, or pro-human, whether it is left vs right, city vs country - this country is in a world of hurt because of it.

Alot of hay is made over a survey that says some percentage of the American people believe things are headed in the wrong direction - be aware - it may not mean what you think it means. It may mean people have had it with all the doom and gloom shut it down, restrict retard and deny rhetoric and tactics that come from, for lack of a better word, YOUR SIDE.

Rose said...

I'm listening to this debate and I'm thinking I guess the Taliban is right to stone women since they are the experts and leaders in that country. If we must trust in the state and not in ourselves we go against everything that this country was founded on. There's a reason why the founders wanted us to have the right to keep and bear arms. It is in case the experts. the government. our own government. turns on us.

But by anonymous above's reasoning, stoning women to death must be tolerated because it has been decreed.

And it must not be questioned.

That's the chasm I am talking about.

Anonymous said...

As Rose points out, the so called experts often times have an agenda. Information is collected and disseminated by the experts with certain conclusions, but often times if you read the data yourself, the conclusion does not make sense and can be challenged. Look at the recent health department position that plan "A" will lead to a healthier community. Never mind the fact that the comparison was to San Francisco, a geographically, economically, and demographically vastly different area. On it's face it is ridiculous to suggest people living a rural lifestyle are less healthy, but that's the gist of it. The problem is the definitions - what they are calling sprawl up here is 20 acre parcels while in the rest of the country sprawl is wall to wall buildings, at the densities suggested in plan "A". Go figure.

Anon.R.mous said...

What, not one person here bitching about how the signs (aluminum and wood)are bad for the area? Those aren't natural and should be removed! Didn't the spotted owl get on the list because it's bigger cousin started taking over the owl's area and killing them?

Sometimes, animals die off for reason that we don't quite understand. It's also why you don't see solid orange cats, their genes where not meant to be.

Anonymous said...

At last count there are 96 signs just along the clam beach frontage road. So fucking beautiful you don't need to walk in the dunes.

Anonymous said...

Don't know who the nut with all the CAPS is but they are not only ignorant they are insane. Beaches are closed to horses. Lay of the pills and booze and you might be able to find peace with the awful truth that nuts are out to close the people off our public lands.It is a tough struggle and the nuts are slowly winning. "CAPS" is proof positive of that lies rule.

Kym said...

The photos are so beautiful, I've come back to look again.

This time, I thought I'd weigh in.

Just because a government official decides that something is environmentally damaging doesn't mean it is. People still have the right to look at the decision and come to their own conclusions and try and change the ruling.

I don't understand enough about this particular case to know if the horse riders or the government is correct.

What I see as the biggest problem is the government's imposing rules without trying to work with people involved. Sometimes, new solutions can be created that work for most people when everyone tries to find compromises. That never happens when rules are imposed top down.

Rose said...

Beautifully said, Kym, THANKS for weighing in.

Those pictures are spectacular, and Angela's horses, on the beach, on any given day, are even more so. You gotta see 'em some day.

I do believe the Plover fencing - roping off the nesting areas - is a good compromise.

Closing the trail(s), not at all.

You can still see the areas where the dunes were bulldozed. I tried to get pictures. If they are good enough, I'll post 'em. Just to illustrate the point that a horse's hoofprints in the sand are not as damaging as bulldozing - and yet the bulldozing is fine with that certain faction, and the horses are not. It's a strange disconnect.

Anonymous said...

Where are the trails advocates? Where's Buttner? Is he supporting Dennis?

Anonymous said...

The beach and dunes master plan is a part of the general plan update.Thousands of people signed pititions and made their feelings known to the board of supervisors that they wanted reasonable protections and expanded aceess. To get it they called for a greater law enforcement presence,more park caretakers,and no more infrastructure changes. App. 200 people were for radical restrictions. The county hired a consultant to do a survey of park users and visitors. That survey said people were happy with the beach the way it was. Diaregaurding it our supervisors went with 200 radicals and took the most restrictive approach and has joined with state parks in a dune restoration folly that will further restrict our access and use. There are a few dedicated people who stand up for the public's right of access and use and we must support them. It's funny that the so called trail community isn't behind reopening this historic trail at Little River. It effects all user not just horse back riders. If it isn't paved I guess they don't consider it a worthy trail.

Rose said...

For all the hoopla and wringing of hands and angst over Cheri Moore - there wasn't a single candlelight vigil nor even an article on the anniversary of her death this year because there isn't any political gain to be had by the activist/Salzman community. I keep rechecking the date thinking I have it wrong.

It's the same thing, I think, with the trail access emotional upheaval and heavy PR effort. To hell with the existing trails, and the horseback riders. You're not cool like the kayakers. And once the trail is in, see how much caring goes into maintaining not only the trails, but the user's access.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to believe there are dip shits out there that are so screwed up they will complain about horse back riding at the beach or on a trail.Beam me up Scotty,these folks is crazy!

Rose said...

I actually have a funny story to add to this post - about a certain high up environmentalist and his wife and two dogs, and a pile of horse poop. But I'll save it for later.

Rose said...

I will add this adjective, a certain COWARDLY environmentalist. So some of you will know exactly who I am talking about.

Rose said...

Hope for some progress -
TS Work together to solve equestrian riding restrictions problem an opinion piece by Uri Driscoll