spingineer

So we all know there are plans to close 100 state parks, but the big question I have is, how much will it restrict what we can ride? Will this mean the end of the 7 Sisters up Mt. Tam? No Mt. Diablo? I know it will impact Mtn. Biking a lot more, but what about for road biking?

uspspro

I, for one, will be jumping the gate.

If it's closed, they certainly wouldn't be paying rangers to stop me.

Besides, I think they would just cut hours/services before closing them. Having parks is kind iconic when evaluating "quality of life" and parks influence the influx of tourism dollars.

jonathanb715

Hard to imagine they could close roads that actually go somewhere (like the one through Big Basin).

I also heard that Mt. Diablo either has to stay open or it will revert to the Federal Government. It was deeded to Ca. on the condition that it be open as a park in perpetuity. There were some other parks that were like that as well, but I don't remember which ones.

JB

subframe

From this story: https://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/06/local/me-parks6

"Those sites are Angel Island, a former Civil War and World War II military compound and immigration facility in San Francisco Bay; the top of Mt. Diablo east of San Francisco, where the Navy once operated a microwave relay station; Point Sur State Historic Park in coastal Big Sur; and three beaches -- Fort Ord Dunes near Monterey, Point Mugu State Park near Malibu and Border Fields along the Mexican border."

x136 

This is what I'm wondering. It seems like some places would cost more to be closed and protected than they would to just stay open.

For example, left closed and unattended, Bodie would probably be looted to the ground within a few years, if not months, lost forever.

Places with campsites will continue to have campers, though less likely to be respectful of the land they're using. Gated-off cycling roads will have the gates jumped. These places will need just as much patrolling as they have now, but without visitor revenue.

Sounds like there are two possible outcomes, here. Either the state loses money (vs the currently profitable parks system), or California's parks are abandoned and destroyed. This sucks.

DiabloScott

I talked to the Parks Superintendant in charge of Mt. Diablo and a few other state parks last month. Mostly he asked that I write the Gov and state legislators asking to keep the park open. (I sent Mt. Diablo postcards to all of them).

But I asked him what a closed park would look like and he said they'd probably close the gates and put up NO TRESPASSING signs at all entrances including trails and they might have sting operations to fine people who entered - it would be an easy way to make some extra money for the state... not huge penalties but similar to fishing without a license... like two or three hundred bucks each.

subframe

It's a really terrible 'solution'. Given that it doesn't solve anything, and the alternatives that were suggested would have paid for the parks operation and then some, just makes it worse. Politics at it's very worst imo

Tapeworm21

The worst thing would be having the water shut off on the mountain. Can't remember the last time I haven't gone up South Gate in anything less than 90 degrees.

DiabloScott

42 second video from last February

LINK

galyons

It is what happens when we have a system that let's a minority hold the best interests of the majority hostage for the benefit of the minority.

Cheers,
Geary

Rumpled

The state park closures are totally stupid - just as much spent on patrol and enforcement and no revenue from the paying customers.
And where state highways, freeways and such travel thru state parks - those roads would stay open; but not internal roads.

sweetnsourbkr

Let me guess how you got down: "very carefully"

rumbutter

No Diablo would mean no Devil Mountain Double
The DMD may have also a different problem next year if they go ahead with the planned closure of Calaveras to allow for dam repairs.