Day 10 Summary and Questions

*Notes 6/16/09
*

*Mike Barrow – guest speaker, Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance *



*Recreation Advocacy in the 1990s*

-Bikes banned from trails early on

-Trails were not built to a standard that could handle mountain biking and
bikers didn’t understand the idea of “tread lightly”

-Boulder Off-Road Alliance – service oriented organization that worked on
trails for the first decade, attempted to get along with everyone else

-2001 – BOA made the conscious choice to become politically involved

-1998 – Boulder needed to come up with a human management plan

-2002 – Open Space Tax passed by a narrow margin (wake up call)

-Mountain Parks merged with Open Space and Real State – OSMP

-Meanwhile, acquisitions are becoming more scare/expensive and the money for
buying is drying up, Management has become a higher priority

*OSMP’s Visitor Master Plan*

-Took 7 years and millions of dollars to create

-OSMP got a new director

-VMP makes everyone unhappy, expect for bikers (bikers got rights and
everyone else got restrictions)

-Before VMP, visitors could go anywhere at anytime

-Adopted in 2005 by City Council – make aware of recreation needs

-Trail Study Areas and Public Process began – many meetings and lots of
controversy, staff did not understand and execute the resource inventory of
the properties to the public properly

-Resource Inventory – water resources, trees, animals, and flora are
examined before information is released to the public about the land for a
TSA, determines where recreation should happen to avoid harming species

-It is up to the community to determine how we will enjoy the land (create
management plan for TSA)

*Death by Meetings*

-BMA leaders were frustrated

-Outreach to historically contentious groups

-Attempted to find out what groups agreed upon

-One standard deviation is the mainstream that agree upon moderate rules,
rest are extreme opinions

*What’s next?*

-Mountains parks TSA

-Walker Ranch Management Plan

-Technical Trails in the USFS

-Valmont Bike Park and the Parks and Recreation Department (will begin
building by end of the year)

Not intended for natural values

A park through Parks and Recreation

Intended for all ages, a family experience

-Goal is to create a quality mountain bike experience without the use of the
car

-Trails are the tool that deliver recreation to the population

*City Council Votes*

-Position 7 & 8 candidates, the ones who need the critical votes, will be
more heavily influenced by advocacy groups such as BMA because they needs
the group members votes



*Access and Dogs*
*
*

How accessible should the open space be? That is the main concern of the
people.

Arguments for accessibility:

-Recreation

-Connection to nature

-Spirituality

-Education

-We (the public) paid for it.

Arguments for restricted access:

-Preservation of wildlife and habitat

-Humans and dogs can be damaging to the landscape.

Arguments for dogs, pros:

-Owners are able to get outside with their dogs.

-Dogs can experience nature.

-Dogs provide security for owners.

-Gives dogs more freedom

Arguments against dogs, cons:

-Disturbs the wildlife and the natural ecosystem.

-Creates confrontation. Some people are frightened by dogs.

-Voice and sight doesn’t always work.

4 questions: access/preservation



What is nature? A place to experience recreation with your dog/meant to be
preserved, no dogs.

Are humans apart of nature? Yes, we paid for it we should have access with
our dogs/no, recreation leads to degradation.

How should we use it? For recreation and a place to walk our dogs/preserve
it, keep people and dogs out.

Who should decide? We (the public) should decide, we paid for it.





*Balancing Recreation and Preservation*



Recreation Pros:

-Exercise, Self education, Relate to nature, Use the land we paid for,
Healthy life style

Recreation Cons:

-Degredation, Attracts too many people, Segmentation, Disruption of wildlife

Preservation Pros:

-Aesthetics, Less impact on ecosystem, Habitat

Preservation Cons:

-People aren’t using land so people wont want to pay for it

Discourages a healthy lifestyle

Process Issues

-Public vs community leaders vs science

City council decisions should be made on sound science and common sense

Public should decide because they paid for open space



4 Questions: recreation/preservation



What is nature? Recreation/intrinsic value intended for existence

Are humans part of nature? Yes, land is to be enjoyed/ no, free of humans

How should we use nature? Enjoyment, maintaining and restoring trials/ least
possible human impact

Who should decide? The public, community, people who paid for it/ scientific
evidence, not the public



*Should competitions be allowed on open space?*



The law: competitive events prohibited on open space, 4 or more persons not
allowed to exceed each other in performance



First take on 4 questions (mr wright)

1. views open space as recreational playground

2. believes recreation is not very damaging

3. people should use however they want

4. city council and board of trustees wield too much power and are to harsh

Response (friends of open space)

-Balance bw playground and sanctuary

-Feels that OS should buffer cities

-passive recreation

-four designations for open space (ag, passive rec, conservation, wildlife
area)



*Hogan Conservation Easement Purchase*



500+ acres, south of BoCo in JeffCo

10,000,000 for conservation easement and development rights



Article 1:

Greenlee: Boulder goes too far south

-Recreation advocate

-Believes strongly in public opinion/voice

-Concerned with lack of access to the land

-Believes there was a lack of a collective decision making for the purchase

-place to be enjoyed by the public, stewards of the land – aesthetics and
conservation

-public opinion and consensus of different parties

Article 2:

“Checkmate JeffCo”

-aesthetically pleasing

-hinders development – a good thing

-prevents urban sprawling

-if boulder had not purchased development rights, anything could have
happened

-beautiful land to be protected

-appropriate use of open space tax

-okay with only city council making the decision

Article 3:

“Hogan deal goes forward”

-Made mention of Hogan family

-Mentioned recreation and husbandry

-We are both stewards and users

-Personal opinion hidden – attempted to show both sides of the argument

Article 4:

Julie McCabe “Hogan Ranch Purchase”

-Nature and recreation go hand in hand

-There should be a public consensus

-There is a lack of accessibility considering how much money the land cost

-The decision was too hasty

-Nature is a place to enjoy and recreation access is important





*QUESTIONS FOR TEST*



1. Why does the Visitor Master Plan make bikers happy and other recreation
groups unhappy?

-Bikers received rights and limitations were set on other recreation groups



2. According to the Visitor Master Plan, is it the community's job or the
staff and government's job to determine how land will be enjoyed?

-Community's



3. What is a resource inventory?

-Study of environment before TSA to determine where recreation should happen
to avoid harming species in the area



4. Where are the future TSAs happening?

-Mountain Parks



5. (T/F) In 2002, the Open Space Tax passed by a landslide

-F



6. What are the tools that bring recreation to the population?

-Trails



7. What are the arguments about how the Hogan land was purchased?

-Decision was good to prevent development on the land

-Decision was too hasty for the amount of money being spent with limited
recreational access



8.What is the biggest problem with leaving open space decisions up to the
public?

-Most of the public is uneducated



9.Who approved the Hogan Land Purchase:?

-Boulder City Council



10. What are one of the major pros for dog owners having access to open
space?

-Owners able to get outside

-Dogs experience nature

-Dogs provide security for owners

-Gives dogs more freedom