Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Bikers vs. Hikers ramps up in Marin County

My satirical blog post on San Rafael Patch, including all the comments. Sign in to post your own! http://sanrafael.patch.com/blog_posts/mountain-bikers-co-opt-marin-bicycle-coalition

(But seriously, we need to stop greater incursions of vehicles in the open space lands, doncha think?)

Theyyyy’rrre baaaack! The quest for more single track trails by thrill-seeking bicyclists is on anew. And now the Marin Bicycle Coalition has joined the clamor for more single track trails to be opened for mountain bike use. I guess it’s not rewarding enough to help open bike paths along our roadways, or help kids with Safe Routes to School. No, now they’ve decided to use their considerable clout to hire a lobbyist because there just aren’t enough trails for bikers in the open space.

As someone who has represented hikers and equestrians on more than one occasion in the ongoing battle to keep our open spaces places of tranquility, not multi-use speedways, I have developed some simple rules for defusing the biker-hiker-equestrian conflicts on the mountain once and for all:

1. Don’t call them mountain bikes, call them fire-road bikes

This would be the easiest solution. It keeps them where they belong. No conflicts with wildlife, equestrians and hikers occur and no expectations unrealistically raised. Erosion and scofflaw illegal trailblazing will be eradicated. And all able-bodied bike jockeys who truly do want to experience the joys of winding mountain trails, can leave their bikes at home and walk.

2. License them

This is really a no-brainer. When I was a child, all bikes had to be issued licenses. This way, renegade bikers can be tracked down and cited appropriately. Assuming they don’t emulate TV criminals and obscure their license numbers, steal licenses from other bikes, or just steal the whole bikes and dump them in ravines when through with the thrill ride.

3. Make them go to pre-bike ownership counseling with at least one hiker and one equestrian in the room

In a mutually respectful setting, a neutral facilitator encourages all parties to let out their feelings. Then they can have a session of telling each other “How they really feel,” so long as only pillows and sofa cushions sustain damage from any unrestrained outbursts. Horses and small children should be kept outside.

4. Outlaw spandex

I know, this would impact the yoga, soccer mom and after hour club crowds too. But in light of the greater good that would result from making bikers wear ordinary clothes like ratty sweat soaked tee shirts and chain-catching blue jeans, that would be a small price to pay for renewed tranquility on the mountain.

5. (My personal favorite) Open a mountain bike theme park

This can have man-made mountains, narrow trails, fake snakes and other wildlife to squash under wheels. Chills and spills rides. Underbrush courses, for the really daring riders. Maybe adventure seeking volunteers can pretend to be hikers so the bikers can still enjoy shouting “on your left” as they pass perilously close.

Let the comments begin.

Comments (54)

Don

12:09pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

Come on, share the trails. Horses, walkers,runners, Yes, Yes even people on bikes! Share and share alike. Come on!

Alejandro Moreno S.

12:14pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

Was this supposed to be funny, or was this an actual attempt at serious writing?
I thought professional mediators were supposed to bring differing groups together. This article does the opposite.

Jeffrey Gimzek

12:25pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

What about licensing and testing equestrians to ensure they can appropriately control their huge animals before allowing them out in public? And then require the riders to dismount and clean the horse crap off the trail the way dog owners are required to. Why should I have to ride through or step in your pet's crap?
The demographics are changing, and the large swath of the middle class that are mountain bike owners often purposely moved to Marin to be near trails, and are finally getting to the point where they realize that their taxes are being spent to prevent them from accessing the trails they pay to purchase the land for and maintain.
The equestrian elite is upset that their exclusive use of public property is threatened, as their well-funded lobby has been able to dominate the discussion for decades.
Hikers do have a legitimate beef with the small segment of the mountain bike community that has poor trail etiquette, but that is an education issue, and expanded access to a greater amount of legal trails would only serve to mitigate that issue as bikers are dispersed over larger areas instead of confined to just a few (count 'em: 3) park areas. Bikes should yield. Period. Anyone who doesn't is an asshole, so feel free to call them out.
However, the above 'satire' is juvenile, unhelpful, and generally just a load of horse manure.

TimRancor

2:16pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

I think it's for comedic purposes, Alejandro.

Edwin Drake

3:33pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

Fire Road Bikes, nee mountain bikes bikes should be restricted to fire roads only. they should be forced to license and register them. Bikers want everything, yet they're unwilling to pay for anything. Let them pay bikes taxes and permit fees and trail fees. As it is they are (mostly) arrogant hot-doggers with little regard for other people. As to the person who said "share": sometimes "sharing" means doing without if your activity destroys anthers enjoyment.

Comment_arrow

Life in the Bubble

10:03pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

Cyclists pay taxes just like everyone else. In every discussion of cycling, a bike hater always has some wacky notion that cyclists don't pay taxes. Believe it or not, bicyclists also drive cars, own homes, have jobs, and pay taxes. In fact, cyclists as a demographic have a higher education and income demographic than the general population.

As someone who rides a mountain bike, trail runs, AND hikes I see all sides of the equation. In 20+ years of hiking, running, and riding in Marin, I can probably count on one hand the number of bad experiences I've had with mountain bikers. I'd counter that if sharing a trail with a mountain bike destroys your enjoyment, there are much larger problems for you to address.

John Ferguson

4:39pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

If mountain bikers are so unwilling to pay for anything or to maintain the trails that they ride, how do you explain Tamarancho? It's pretty sad that anyone buys the argument that equestrian use of trails is 'natural' and that bicycle use of those same trails is destructive. Any arguments that a thousand pound animal with sharp hoofs causes less trail damage than a 30 lb bicycle will be laughed out of the court of public opinion. Hikers certainly have a point about being surprised by cyclists, but this could be mitigated by a fair use policy. Sharing would be best, but in the super entitled world of the landed gentry equestrian or the Sierra club hikers, this doesn't seem likely. Yes, we ride bikes on trails. No, we're not going away and we won't be denied access to the trails that we all own collectively for frivolous and passe reasons.

Jeffrey Gimzek

5:03pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

I would argue that there are far more mountain bikers living in and paying taxes to maintain the trails in Marin than there are horse owners. By that logic alone bikers should have more access. Bikers DO pay trail fees.
Also, this article caused me to re-up to MCBC, and I specifically mentioned it was because of their new Trail Access prioritizing. We are not 'co-opting' MCBC: We ARE MCBC.

Stampfli

5:32pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

People who ride bikes have the same access to trails as those who ride horses or hike. They are welcome, just not their bikes. It's really simple. So the nonsense statement about their demographic outrage is ridiculous. They are not deprived, they would only have you think so. This a public safety and environmental quality argument and should stay in that arena. Also, bikes are horrific at causing serious erosion problems. The trail surface is destroyed when they run the steep single tracks, and they certainly erode the tranquility and peace of mind of other trail users. Horses are not allowed on sensitive trails either, but you rarely see equestrians act as scofflaws. Bikes should be registered to help with the enormous scofflaw problem, make bike riders accountable and liable for problems that injure other trail users or cause damage to our public lands.

Patch_comments_icon

Kelly Dunleavy

5:41pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

I dunno - I get that this was supposed to be humorous, but it didn't really sit well with me. We've come to accept really mean things and jokes said about bikers, but if you said something like "equestrians should stop wearing those silly pants, that would make everything better" that would be pretty ridiculous. And, I've only been mountain biking one time, but I run on the trails multiple times a week and I've never really had a problem with the mountain bikers. Sometimes it can be annoying when there's so many of them at China Camp, but no more annoying than when there's so many hikers that won't move over and walk three abreast. But, it's just life - you share, you get over it.

Thomas

6:26pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

This is an insulting little editorial by an author whom obviously is biased and agenda driven against mountain bikers, while trying to ploy a comedic openness.

Don

6:32pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

Share, yes you walk the trail on monday, they bike the trail on tuesday, you walk on wednesday, and so on! No body has to do with out. There are plenty of trails to use and alternate with. Dont be selfish share the enjojment of the hills. This is done all over the country on thousands of trails. Also just like the Highway if someone is caught speeding, they get a ticket! Come on lets let EVERYBODY enjoy the trails.

Gina Farr

7:45pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

Boundaries for bikers are essential to help ensure quiet enjoyment of our commons. Bikes on single track trails introduce significant noise and nervousness into wilderness areas, and are disturbing for both hiker and wildlife. Saying "Hey, c'mon, let's share!" is veiling the truth - you want it all just because you want it all.

Comment_arrow

Life in the Bubble

9:46pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

Driving your car to the trail also introduces significant noise and nervousness. In fact, any human activity in the "wilderness" has an impact. Recreation areas need to reflect the demographics of their users- period. Mountain bikes are non-polluting, human-powered, vastly less noisy than any car, carbon neutral, and healthy. Discriminating against a large segment of trail users is just that- discrimination.

And no, mountain bikers don't want it all "just because." They want equity in access to the outdoors. They want trails to be individually assessed for potential usage rather than banned as a blanket policy. Mountain bikers don't want to be excluded from their outdoors by a minority.

Ralph

9:28pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

The truth is often spoken in jest. And it's easy to detect the writers truths. They say mediators are to be neutral. I'm embarrassed for this writer. I've always been a proponent of even/odd days or alternating days for bikes and hikers on MMWD watershed trails. Maybe some day. And horse hoofs have caused the most egregious trail damage I've seen. It comes with territory with 1000 lb. animals.

Life in the Bubble

9:29pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

This article is offensive and ignorant on many fronts. It is not humorous in the slightest. I'm not even sure where to begin.

Categorizing people who ride mountain bikes as "thrill-seeking" adrenaline junkies is absurd. People who ride mountain bikes are just people who like to get outside like anyone else. This is a human-powered, non-polluting, not very noisy, carbon-neutral, healthy activity. While the author wants to portray mountain bikers as some sort of Mountain Dew fueled eco-terrorist on par with a two stroke motorcycle, mountain bikers come from all walks of life, all ages, and all socioeconomic backgrounds. It may be hard to imagine, but many (if not most) mountain bikers also walk, hike, run, drive, and pay their taxes too.

In other areas of the country, 90% of singletrack trails are multi-use without major conflicts (think Tahoe, or Colorado, or Utah).

Legal mountain bike trails are increasing because mountain biking is increasing. Mountain bikes make up an increasingly large demographic of outdoor trail use, and need to be incorporated into recreation areas (including singletrack). Banning mountain bikes from 90% of singletrack just results in illegal trails being built and people riding singletrack ilegally. (Lessons that can all be learned from prohibition). More trails and access for mountain bikes are needed, because our recreation areas need to reflect real usage demographics- for human-powered non-polluting activities.

Comment_arrow

Gina Farr

9:46am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Bikers are extremely noisy. We can hear them yelling to each other over large distances. And I've been hit on a single track trail by a biker -- it's nerve-wracking to think a bike could race around a turn and...pow! There are so many fire roads and other access areas now open so that you can get outside - why do you need to extend this fast and wild activity to peaceful, wilderness areas?

Pollution doesn't just come in the form of cars - it is also about preserving a natural soundscape, not tearing up the trail, and not jarring the nerves of quiet hikers and wildlife. That you admit mountain bikers build their own illegal trails and destroy wilderness areas simply disproves your point about mountain bikers being responsible. The thrill-seeking part of your demographic will not be satisfied with terrorizing hikers on legal single track trails, that is a straw man arguement; opening narrow hiking trails to bikers will open more wilderness to mountain bike domination AND the illegal trail building will continue.

That you don't fully appreciate the impact of your activity on those who don't share it is at the center of this arguement.

Comment_arrow

Sierra Salin

10:22am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Gina (and other folks,) let the folks who want some bike trails have some, eh? We are all hypocrites really, in all that we do and consume, and drive, and travel, etc, we ARE tearing up this earth pretty badly. We may not see the strip mining, tar sands, dead animals, marine life, etc, which go into all we do, and it is happening.

If the folks who ride want some trails, and hopefully maintain them, etc, why not let them have some? The fact is that it is apretty different experience riding a trail, from that of riding a road, and some triails for just bikes could work. There are trails, roads, airports, malls, and set ups for nearly every other thing humans do.
There will always be some real jerks, be they on a bike, horse, in a car, plane, or keybored, etc, and not everyone is one. Most folks are just passing through life in various stages of ignorance or awareness, and we are all pieces of work in progress.

Jeffrey Gimzek

10:05pm on Monday, October 10, 2011

Join IMBA and MCBC: tell them Dotty LeMeiux sent you.
The tide is turning here: we might not want 'it all', but we are sure as hell sick and tired of having TWO LEGAL TRAILS (one of which is private and pay per use) in a county that has literally hundreds of miles of single track.

Sierra Salin

9:27am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Man, I wish that both sides of this messy sprawl would put as much energy into the rest of the world. This post has gotten more energy and attention than things such as, ending wars, funding education and healthcare, or changing our overly entitled and wastefully consumptive lifestyles. We are ALL fool of hot air and righteous certaintude and so what, can we get along or create a livable future? Not likely, the way things look, and time will tell. Black and white just turns to mud after a while, and what is important anyway? Horse crap and bike crap, it is all just compost eventually?

Gina Farr

10:36am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Sierra, your argument is that everything is turning to crap, so let's just turn a little more into crap? What's the difference? Wildlife and wilderness are values that I care deeply about, and I believe each of us has a duty to protect what's left. If we churn everything that is wild into degraded human use, because we can, because we want to, what will be left? That is at the heart of a consumptive attitude.

We live in extended community with each other and with wildlife. Single track trails are a part of Marin wilderness, a gentle access to the wilds, and should stay that way.

Comment_arrow

Sierra Salin

11:37am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Weeeel Gina, yes, and no. It is all messed up. I care, think about, and feel more about nature and natural systems than most modern hungry ghosts, and things do not look too great, overall. How do we have or create reasonable rules and regulations for anything? Our systems rules and laws have little to do with nature, natural systems, or any sustainable reality. They are pretty much about individual empire and profits. No, I don't think that a few bike trails here and there are going to make a huge difference, and there is plenty of erosion from horses, foot traffic, cars, planes, and all of our travels around the globe for our ever important events and vacations. One plane trip is huge, as is all of our driving around spewing.
We all have a pretty big footprint, and overall, we are absolutely terrible stewards for a sane or healthy future.
Within the madness we are swimming in, no, I don't believe a few bike trails are a huge negative, and done well, or right, do not have to be a huge negative impact. I do think that bikes overall are seen as less entitled than horses, or cars, and bikes overall are much more appropriate transportation than cars.

John Ferguson

10:52am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Gina - no one is advocating that mountain bikes be allowed on all of the single track trails in Marin. As a hiker, you probably know that there are hundreds of miles of single track trails in Marin and that about 70% of them are truly unsuitable for biking. No one in their right mind would advocate opening the Cataracts trail to bikes, for instance. It's about sharing some..

The reason that China Camp has so much bike traffic is because it's literally the only system in Marin containing single track that is freely available to bikes. I won't go into the many reasons why cyclists enjoy riding singletrack - just imagine if there were elves in the forest and they demanded that we humans could only hike on the fire roads, so as to preserve the elves' access to their natural habitat. How would that make you feel? I bet you'd justify your decision to hike those singletrack trails as well. There's no use in wishing the problem away - mountain biking and mountain bikers are overwhelmingly law abiding and respectful, but you can deny our basic rights to our use of the commons for only so long..

The places where you like to hike in Marin are *not* wilderness. They are shared recreational areas. Wilderness exists in places where there are no trails and no hikers, equestrians or cyclists and I support the expansion of those places as well, but for our RECREATIONAL lands we all have to share..

Michelle Lawrence

11:09am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

This was mean spirited. The "come on, can't you take a joke?" doesn't work here because it's not a joke. I mountain bike, I slow down whenever I see people, stop when I see a horse and generally try to be respectful. I think most people are like me. Then there's the occasional jerk, often times a young person who hasn't honed his/her manners quite yet, who flies by without a warning or apology. Don't lump us all together. Just because you got there first doesn't mean you are entitled to sole ownership forever.

Gina Farr

11:10am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Declaring that Marin wild lands are all about human recreational use and how to divide up the spoils is frustrating. The plants and animals of whole ecosystems live here and the soundscapes that support them. Life here is on another, slower speed, and should be protected.

David Edmondson

11:25am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Pushing for more mountain bike trails rather than urban bike connectivity is, to me, a step in the wrong direction, but a half-jesting rant about it won't do. It never does.

Scott Warner

1:49pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Basic tennent: any user of any trail, paved or unpaved, urban or rural, single track or fire road, needs to respect the trail and the other potential users of that trail. If someone rides, hikes, or horseback rides unsafely and puts others at risk of injury, there should be a punishment so as to avoid future problems. Regarding noise...well, I believe in keeping things peaceful and even hikers (as I tell my own family on the trail) should respect noise levels as well. I could easily say that the extreme noise from cars on the street really inteferes with my "peace" as I am bike commuting...but I won't say that (darn..too late, I already did). :)

Edwin Drake

4:33pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

I would LOVE to carry a sleeping dart and pop the aggressive, loud, obnoxious riders as they scream by, both physically and orally, Nothing would please me more than enforcement, to see them keel over and plop into a gentle slumber. But who's going to do enforcement? should I start carrying my tipped darts?

Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Kelly Dunleavy

5:03pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Edwin - you're advocating violence against a group of people. That's not really acceptable on the site - we don't allow personal attacks and we certainly don't allow the advocating of violence. Please be considerate.

Comment_arrow

Scott Warner

5:58pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

This is completely unacceptible to make such comments advocating violence. We as a community can never condone these types of thoughts - whether in jest or not. We can have a real discussion without such unncessisary bluster. We all owe respect to the world and to each other we need to be respectful - those that do not, we have to educate or we have to have an appropriate response. Yours does not fall into either category - we don't need that type of bullying language

Jeffrey Gimzek

4:37pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

I love the 'debate' on here, summarized below:
Mountain Bikers: Can't we all just share the trails and appreciate the outdoors together.
Hikers, et. al : Can't we just kill or maim Bikers to protect my completely made up right to silence in the woods?

Gina Farr

4:46pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Actually, Jeffery, this is a debate about environmental health and public safety. Care to join the discussion?

Edwin Drake

4:49pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

I'm an occasional hiker with three children - teenage and down - and can't tell you how many times we've heard "ON YOUR LEFT" as someone tears down the hill, moving at a speed completely incommensurate with the speed we're moving. Given that a little kid barely knows left from right, likewise myself, you'd think a slow-down and gentle ride-by would be appropriate, BUT NO!!!! Half the time we just jump in some direction or other, but I guess that's a laugh for bikers and Darwinism at work in the world you inhabit. This happens over and over. And I won't even mention the walks near the house with riders running stop signs. How do I teach my children to follow the law ans be safe on a bike at a stop when they continually see adults blow through stop signs. The bikers attitude is that we are a law unto ourselves, and screw the rest of you. Witness the comment by "Life in the Bubble," above," who basically says, "there's lots of us and more coming all the time, so get used to it!" Yeah, that's a friendly, let's work together attitude. Even in words, most of the biker comments here are arrogant and dismissive. Must be something in the DNA seeking adrenaline, but it doesn't work in a public forum or in a public recreational space.

Comment_arrow

Life in the Bubble

12:48pm on Friday, October 14, 2011

Well, since you've called me out personally...

I advocate mountain bikes being part of the process and included in multi-use trails. I advocate making public recreation areas reflect the demographics of their users. I advocate evaluating trail access individually rather than blanket policies. I advocate proper trail design and construction as a way to mitigate user conflicts and erosion. I advocate courtesy by all trail users.

I hike, stroll, trail run, and even mountain bike too. On the mountain bike, I yield to all other trail users, never skid, and always ride in control.

You, well, you advocate violence (and seemingly blind hatred against another user group).

Sierra Salin

5:32pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Most any group of 2 or more folks IS noisy folks, or even a group of one on a damn cell phone. Personally I don't like listening to bikers, hikers, extra terrestrials (well perhaps that would be interesting) or any group jabbering, and generally pretty loudly, about their relationships, investments, cars, or whatevers, and whatchysa gonna do, most folks are totally oblivious to the fact that anyone within 1/8 mile can hear every word......
This column of words is about whatever folks assume it is about. It's a wonder people can understand or communicate at all, as we are all clouded by our beliefs, ear wax, misunderstandings, and various intents.

As for rolling stop signs on a bike, there are rules and laws, and there are rules and laws, and regardless of the "laws" people should go when it is their turn and/or with the flow, regardless of bureaucracy. In other words, it comes down to beliefs, ethics, and morals, and trying to work it out with others who believe differently.

Humans tend to start shooting at each other before being willing to compromise, share, or accept other folks with the misfortune to have arrived somewhere at a later date.... Think about that one......
Not all bikers, hikers, or horsers, are jerks, and there are certainly some in all groups.
Can we accept, understand, educate, and value each others viewpoints and work something out, or not?

So far, humans have done a piss poor job of getting along or agreeing on much of anything.
We shall see, eh?

Leonard Ginsburg

11:46pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011

You succeeded. See all the comments? Now that is communication.

Jack Naqvi

11:39pm on Wednesday, October 12, 2011

I found the article openly hostile, not very funny, and encouraging an us vs. them attitude that will make things worse, not better. Dotty LeMieux would do better to apply some of those mediator skills here (assuming she has them) instead of fanning the flames with this thinly-disguised "humor" piece.

naitiveplantgal

8:33am on Thursday, October 13, 2011

This is a very emotional issue with every user group wanting access to trails. I am sure even dirt bikers would love to ride all over Marin County trails, something most people can agree is not appropriate. But lets look at some facts:

1. Mtn. bikers never sought permission to ride Mt. Tam and Marin Co. trails years ago. They just started doing it. Results have been dismal, with many user conflicts, resource damage, illegal riding and illegal trails made costing the county tens of thousands to repair.
Even key Marin bike advocates have been caught and fined for building illegal trails

2. Marin Bike Council sued Dept. of Interior to fed. court in 1996 for equal access to trails (Babbit vs. Marin) and lost, also lost in fed. court of appeals. Ruling is that land managers have right to determine who uses trails based on user conflicts, safety and resource protection

3. Compatable use. Hikers and horseback riders are a much slower user group, generally 3-10 MPH. Mtn bikers typically go much faster, many with goals to zip downhill fast, break speed records and have a rip roaring ride. This places other user groups in danger...example of elderly woman hit and killed in Washington State last year. Safety comes first. Like dirt bikes, modern Mtn bikes are engineered to go fast over rough terrain, not a suitable mix in narrow singletrack trails with hikers and horses.

4. Tahoe as an example? Google illegal bike trail building...a huge problem

naitiveplantgal

8:44am on Thursday, October 13, 2011

It's typical for Mountain bikers to justify their illegal trail building by claiming they -have- to do this becuase there are not enough trails....this is akin to me claiming I have to rob a bank becuase I don't have enough money. Fre more thoughts and facts:

China camp is again, a dismal example of failure of multi use areas...becuase the Mtn Bikers have so taken over the park they have driven out the hikers and equestrians due to the safety issues....and lets not forget illegal trails and damage there.

"recreational" areas often cannot be suitable for every user. Simple fact.

Bolinas Ridge trail is a great place for multi-use. Wide tracks, open space with good visibility and no steep dropoffs. A hiker or horseback rider can see bikers coming as a distance and get off the trail if they wish.

Single track is NOT SAFE! the speed of the bikers is the issue. This is why most singletrack at Pt. Reyes is no bikes.

San Mateo county does not allow bikes on hiking and riding trails. They put SAFETY at the forefront, with many workshops and studies to support this. Other San Mateo county non-county administered parks do allow mountain bikes, with the ensuing problems such as illegal night riding, speeding and illegal trails (Corte Madera)

Sorry folks, this has not been a responsible nor accountable user group with entitlement attitude and an apparent pact to refuse to admit their group every causes stress, danger or risk to other users.

naitiveplantgal

8:44am on Thursday, October 13, 2011

It's typical for Mountain bikers to justify their illegal trail building by claiming they -have- to do this becuase there are not enough trails....this is akin to me claiming I have to rob a bank becuase I don't have enough money. Fre more thoughts and facts:

China camp is again, a dismal example of failure of multi use areas...becuase the Mtn Bikers have so taken over the park they have driven out the hikers and equestrians due to the safety issues....and lets not forget illegal trails and damage there.

"recreational" areas often cannot be suitable for every user. Simple fact.

Bolinas Ridge trail is a great place for multi-use. Wide tracks, open space with good visibility and no steep dropoffs. A hiker or horseback rider can see bikers coming as a distance and get off the trail if they wish.

Single track is NOT SAFE! the speed of the bikers is the issue. This is why most singletrack at Pt. Reyes is no bikes.

San Mateo county does not allow bikes on hiking and riding trails. They put SAFETY at the forefront, with many workshops and studies to support this. Other San Mateo county non-county administered parks do allow mountain bikes, with the ensuing problems such as illegal night riding, speeding and illegal trails (Corte Madera)

Sorry folks, this has not been a responsible nor accountable user group with entitlement attitude and an apparent pact to refuse to admit their group every causes stress, danger or risk to other users.

Comment_arrow

Life in the Bubble

12:22pm on Friday, October 14, 2011

How then would you explain say, the Tahoe Basin which ha hundreds of miles of legal multi-use singletrack (and building dozens of miles of new multi-use singletrack all over the lake). Or Park City, Utah which has 300 miles of multi-use singletrack, or Aspen, Vail, Telluride, Sun Valley, etc. etc. etc. There are dozens of examples of areas where multi-use singletrack has minimal user conflict.

naitiveplantgal

8:53pm on Friday, October 14, 2011

You might want to google some of the illegal trails and problems in the Boulder area...many citizen groups are forming to try to protect the open space......

As far as Tahoe Basin, "Bikers Blaze Illegal Trails"
http://www.lvrj.com/news/53397297.html

I have not heard anyone advocating blanket bans of bikes...but certainly safe trail criteria need to apply. I have not been able to find any safe multi-use trail criteria from IMBA that have any specifics. You might take a look at CET&LC (California Equestrian Trails and Lands Coalition). While supporting multi-use trails, they also have some very good criteria and guidelines that trails need to comply to be safe for multi-use, i.e. adding the faster user, the mountain biker.

FYI, I am a huge supporter of closing wet and muddy trails to horses, and would never advocate that horses belong on all trails. Both horses and hikers need to avoid trails after rains and stick to fireroads, which can be maintained easier. But horses and hikers are a far more compatable mix that fast bikes.

And one more thought to chew on....aren't bikes recognized as vehicles under California Vehicle code? Do you notice that most cities do not allow bikes on 4 ft. wide sidewalks due to the risk to pedestrians? If THAT is not safe, how does riding bikes on a 12" trail (with limited visibility, dropoff's, blind corners make any kind of logical sense?

Comment_arrow

Life in the Bubble

11:01pm on Friday, October 14, 2011

This is a great example of cherry picking references only to suit an anti-bicycle agenda. Give me 60 seconds with google and I'll come up with some information about lousy behavior by hikers to present as fact, but that would be ridiculous.

Here is an example of cooperation from just one of the hundreds of organizations nationwide seeking to expand recreation opportunities for ALL trail users.

http://www.pimatrails.org

A few lines from their mission statement on their website:

PTA Goals
1. Establish an integrated multi-use public trails system.
2. Assure permanent access to trails on public lands.
3. Promote cooperation with land owners and developers to preserve access to traditional-use trails on private lands.
4. Foster cooperation and communication among all trail user-groups.
5. Communicate and cooperate with government agencies on trail matters.
6. Keep the community informed about trail issues and opportunities.

It may be difficult to imagine in self-righteous Marin, but in other areas of the country, hikers, equestrians, and cyclists actually work together to mitigate conflicts. The vast majority of all trail users are considerate, outdoors people. There are always jerks though, in all aspects of life. Remember that just because you can't imagine riding a bicycle, doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate experience for many people. (Just as I can't fathom the appeal of hunting- nevertheless I support hunters rights too).

naitiveplantgal

8:57am on Saturday, October 15, 2011

This is not cherry picking at all, there are horror stories from all over the country from huge damages and illegal trails and user conflicts. You Pima Website is encouraging; it is likely they have different types of trails, possibly more visibility, and it works better.

Marin County has had what, a 30 year of a history of failure...the Mbikers have refused to admit they cause any danger to other users or even encourage illegal trail building. What does it say when one of your most vocal bike advocates is caught TWICE building illegal trails? You have conveniently failed to respond to that fact.

Marin is not self-righteous, the hikers and horseback riders are struggling to keep historic hiker and horse trail open for safe riding. Look and see what Marin Conservation league has to say about the issue.

The absurdity of mbikers demanding access is showcased by their attempts to gain access to Bill's Trail, a shady, switchbacked narrow trail with about 0 visibility, no room to pass, and an overall steep descent, which is a prime example of NOT suitable for multi-use. And where does Bill's trail lead? Right down into a horse camp!

Talk about blanket assumptions that anyone protesting does ont ride a bike; our family has about 30 or so bikes; the whole family bikes and has been doing so for 40 some odd years. We chose bikes for both recreational and transportation uses. We do not force our presence on narrow trails where we would endanger other users.

jay kay

7:39am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Open space should be left open to wilderness. No human activity, no trails, no hiking poles, no full-suspension. I advocate human-free open space. Breathing room for the other inhabitants of Marin.

Comment_arrow

Life in the Bubble

8:34am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Awesome! I support that. It's much better for humans to experience the outdoors through their televisions, anyway. Who needs open space or exercise when we have Dicsovery channel and a couch.

Comment_arrow

Gina Farr

9:18am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

"Life in the Bubble" ... if you don't appreciate or respect the values that Marin is built on, why don't you find a place to live that is more to your liking? We have a unique situation here in Marin, a respect for ecosystems, extended community health, and room for wildlife to be free of human interference. This didn't come about by accident. We created this multi-species utopia by respecting the systems within which we can ALL thrive. If you try to remake this place into your beliefs, transform it into your human amusement park, your will find a mountain of resistance. Read a little about Marin history, the development and selfishness that we fought against in the 60's, 70's and still today to keep our community healthy and beautiful for all inhabitants. For this to be possible, we as a community must embrace some self-sacrifice, for the good of all who live here.

I'm being honest and not sarcastic when I suggest that you find another community that matches your ideas and values, and one that you can refer to with caring and respect.

naitiveplantgal

9:05am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

I agree with Jay Kay in that there needs to be open space left for wildlife; especially areas with endangered species and fragile habitat......huge value in this and nice to know humans don't have to tromp and stomp everywhere...Life in the bubble again proves that he/she lives in a bubble of their own selfish interests....as long as "I" can do whatever I want, that is all that counts, type of attitude, which is entitlement. This is evidenced also by the fact they have never responded to my facts about key Marin Bike adovocates caught and fined for building illegal bike trails, which is a huge, expensive problem in Marin County. You know, not everyone wants open space to be treated as one big amusement park......

Patch_comments_icon

Kelly Dunleavy

9:24am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

So, I went for my second-ever mountain bike ride this weekend and while I was riding I was thinking about this whole debate and how there were probably people that hated me right now for no reason just cause I was on a bike. And this was my thought: no one is ever going to be able to ban people from biking or hiking or riding horses on all the trails or even many of the trails, because there simply isn't the enforcement mechanisms in place to do so -- parks are closing and understaffed. The only way you can get people not to bike in certain places or ride horses in certain places or even ban people all together from certain places is through their own buy-in and consent. There has to be an agreement. And that's never going to happen when there's name-calling. So.

Sierra Salin

7:06pm on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

I fully support whole alive unimproved nature, and I also believe that with all of our modern insanity, and most of us driving our cars all over, or flying here n there, now and again, letting mountain bikers have a trail here n there for their use, is not such a stretch. If they want a place to ride, why not let them have one? We are not exactly being great stewards with the rest of the planet, ulp, I gotta drive up to costco and go shopping, etc. I personally don't really want to share a trail with a bike, and suggest we let them maintain and care for a few dedicated ones. At least they are out on a bike, and not glued to a gps, laptop, television, or cell phone.

naitiveplantgal

8:04pm on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Life in a Bubble says :I advocate mountain bikes being part of the process and included in multi-use trails. I advocate making public recreation areas reflect the demographics of their users."

Lets look at this with some logic. Marin County probably has an enormous population of dog owners who would love to walk their dogs and even turn them loose on open space. Many areas are off limits to dogs, even on leash. I bet there are more dog owners than mountain bikers.

Does this mean we turn over trails to dog walkers? Dogs present some of the same problems as mountain bike users; i.e. disturbance of wildlife, and risk to other users.
But you don't see this user group causing the problem that the Mountain bikers continue to do...for the most part the dog owners respect the law and don't go where it is illegal.

The law, park rules, unsafe and illegal is just that, regardless of demographics. Why do the Marin BOS keep knuckling under to this user group (mountain bikers) of entitlement bullies?

Life in the Bubble

11:28pm on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

This will be my last comment on this topic. Here's what I've learned:

- Some people think that bicycles on dirt are the embodiment of evil. (Their arguments usually include the phrase "I'm a bicyclist too, but..."). Nothing will change their opinion, ever.
- Some people view mountain bikes the same as unregulated motorcycles, or jeeps. (The fact that they are human-powered, quiet, and non-polluting is merely a technicality). Some people also view mountain bike riders as a wildlife destroying eco-terrorist cross between Evil Kneivel, and Attila the Hun.
- Some people can not imagine that someone on a bicycle could have the same natural experiences as someone on foot. Covering many miles and reveling in the joy of winding through forests and ridges is not a valid experience if it's on a bicycle. Traveling quietly with only the sound of breathing and tires quietly crunching on leaves is simply not possible on a bicycle. Riding in control on a bicycle is simply not possible.
- Some people are simply afraid of change.

Life in the Bubble

11:59pm on Tuesday, October 18, 2011

(Continued)

I've re-read each of my posts on this 50+ comment thread. Each of my posts has been about inclusion, respect for multiple trail users, courtesy, and proper trail design. Each of my posts have pointed out that mountain biking is an important form of outdoor recreation, exercise and transportation. I've tried to point out success stories and examples of cooperation by cyclists and hikers.

I don't feel compelled to answer for illegal trail building (it happens, and represents the vast minority of mountain bikers). I wouldn't ask a mountain bike hater to answer for the trash and vandalism endemic to hiking trails (which I see almost every time I hike or run), or why people can't seem to park safely at trailheads (e.g. Cataract trail on any spring weekend). I wouldn't ask car driver to answer for speeders or tailgaters. For the record, I've never advocated that mountain bikes belong on every trail, or don't need regulation.

In return, I've seen advocating violence against trail users, been told to leave Marin, and been called a bully for advocating inclusion.

The ironic part of this discussion is that I probably log more miles as a hiker/runner than most of the bike haters combined (20-30+ miles/wk on foot on Tam, MMWD, and MCOSD). See you on the trail. I'll be happy to see you out there whether you are on bike, foot or horseback.

Monday, September 19, 2011

What are the Repubs smoking?

Watching debates, hearing the spin, seeing the Repub Presidential candidates' heads go whirling madly on their necks like latter day Exorcist (the movie) stars, I have to say President Obama is looking better and better. His jobs program, not enough, no, but better. His health care plan, not enough but way better; his few testy moments, when he snarks back at the loonies to his right, really good

Keep it up. Keep them spinning. Get bold and bolder. We want you to succeed. We want to love you. We want to want to walk our asses off for you.

So Go, Obama, Go. Run, Obama, Run. Slam those Repubs. in the wallet, in the gut, in they tiny little brains. Make 'em weep. make the American people proud. Don't give in to fear. cuz that just leads to, you know, more fear, and then all that fear adds up to some powerful bad mojo.

Keep Hope alive. Corny as it is. Even if you lose on all fronts, keeping Hope alive, will keep us all on our feet and fighting another day.

Saturday, June 04, 2011

Redistricting Madness

Is the new non-partisan, non-denominational "citizens" redistricting process in California, where 14 ordinary folks decide where you vote, who you vote for, who your new fellow voters are, any better than the old "gerrymandering" process of days now gone by?

So far, the maps don't show the benefit. Admittedly it's a tough process, absorbing all the information, from census data, to Federal law, such as the Voting Rights Act, to deciding what constitutes a "Community of interest." Is the fact that the Napa Valley grape growers want to have more influence in congress a good reason to carve out a district for them?

And does that then push the dominoes in a direction that squeezes other districts like icing in a tube, so that the 6th district now snakes along the Coast all the way to the Oregon border? Well, yes, say the maps.

Are the interests of Northern prison town Crescent City the same as those of Bay Area coastal Stinson Beach? And what of the Assembly, the State Senate? Will Marin, with coastal and rural and suburban communities be lumped with the more central and sprawling Solano County to the east?

Does this make it fairer, allowing more diversity perhaps, more chance for others to take a crack at the legislative prizes? Who knows? The Shadow? I don't know, can't say, the new maps are "visualizations" only, a dreamscape of possibilities, suggested by whoever shows up and expresses an opinion, within the legal parameters.

I don't envy the commissioners. I don't envy the public of which I am one. We strive to understand. We hope for the best. More to come.

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Candidate Training for the Marin Women's PAC

On May 7th, my partner in all things campaign, Lise Stampfli, and I were part of a presentation for the new Marin Women's Political Action Committee. This group was formed to take the place of the National Women's Political Caucus, Marin Chapter, which had been threatening for months, to throw us out because we refused to tow the line over their complete prohibition on the endorsement or recommendation or even rating, of male candidates.

Our policy in Marin had been from time immemorial, at least as far back as anyone could remember, which means the 70's as that is when the group started, we had been "recommending" men in those races with no viable woman running. Viable means mostly pro-choice and with a grasp of the issues, and willing to help other women who came along afterward with their campaigns.

We thought this was a perfectly logical position, as half the population is male, and we need that half to work with us to get important legislation passed. The goal of NWPC is 50/50 by 2020, which means what it sounds like - by the year 2020, we will have an equal number of women in elected office as we do men.

Our goals are the same, we too want 50/50 by 2020. We too want to see more women in office, and are dedicated to helping them get elected. But we recognize we need the pro-choice men, and so when no viable woman is running, we feel free to :recommend" a pro-choice man.

The new leadership of NWPC took offense, serious offense and with their threats came our resolve to become independent and thrive.

And so we have. Dues do not have to be split with National and we are free to make our own policy and keep all the proceeds from our programs to fund our candidates. One of our main programs is the training of candidates. We usually do this twice a year, once in the months before filing opens and once in the fall, after filing has closed.

This was the before training. Now it is on You Tube and here for all to see. Hope you like it and learn something.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Right and the Right to Bear Arms: Follow up to Shooting Rampage in Colorado

This was posted as an Opinion Piece in the Marin IJ, and on my Facebook page. It started quite a long back and forth. Very interesting. Comments welcome:


Whether they listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or other right wing spewers of vitriol or just pick up the vibes through their fillings or beamed to them by aliens via a tin foil hat, it’s hard to believe “lone nuts” like Jared Loughner have not been at least somewhat influenced by the anti-government rantings of professional hate mongers.

When Sarah Palin puts cross hairs over her opponents districts on a map and talks about reloading, and Glenn Beck calls for “shooting them in the head” about media pundits he claims are calling for revolution and Rush Limbaugh and his compatriots continue to denigrate the president, by calling him a Kenyan born Muslim, not a real American, that rhetoric leads to toxic stew that’s in the very air we breathe. Just like second hand smoke can damage and kill, so can words tossed out into the atmosphere incite and inflame minds already on the bring of madness.

Saying that these toxic messages contribute to the actions of someone like Jared Loughner who made a assassination attempt on the life of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson is not the same as “blaming free speech” as a January 13 Marin Voice piece by Sally Zelikovsky states.
It’s a statistical fact that gun violence is more common in red states that blue. A recent study published in the Atlantic shows that “Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66).” (The Geography of Gun Deaths, Atlantic Monthly, January 13, 2011)
That Jared Loughner was anti-government, paranoid and prone to outbursts are all true statements. When pundits on the right, on Fox news and even in the Congress, are telling you the government is out to get you, to kill your granny and to take your job, that cannot be ignored as a factor in the kind of violence at the Tucson Safeway.

It’s a common ploy of the right to try to equate contentious speech on the left with inflammatory rhetoric on the right. “They all do it, don’t blame us” is a common refrain. Zelikovsky does it in her editorial, equating groups such as New Black Panthers, SDS, La Raza and the Ku Klux Klan.

While the New Black Panther Party may spout extreme rhetoric, they have been denounced by other black leaders and never been accused of killing anyone.

SDS thrived in the 60’s to organize students against the Vietnam War and for recognition of civil rights. It never spouted violent rhetoric. A splinter group, the weather Underground, was soundly denounced for their acts of violence, by other left wing activist groups.

La Raza is dedicated to improving civil rights and improve opportunities for Latinos through lobbying and education. It can hardly be equated with either the New Black Panthers or the Ku Klux Klan, who left a trail and of carnage and death in its wake across the south for decades.

Gabrielle Giffords became the symbol and the target of a deranged young man who feared the government. That the right now claims the left, and the so called “liberal media” is exploiting the tragedies of that day, while themselves pointing fingers and taking no responsibility for their part in creating a climate that can only encourage the paranoid and delusional to act, is shameful.


Dotty LeMieux is a political consultant and attorney. She is also vice chair of the Marin Democratic Party. These are her own opinions.

Friday, December 03, 2010


The meme practiced and honed to a fine pitch coming from all Republicans everywhere, loudest from those in Congress, is tax cuts for the wealthy means more jobs for everyone else.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute here. Who says this is true? Other than John Orange Man Boehner and his pack of merry prankster Republican sycophants. Let's take a look at the whole story. Rich person Warren Buffet has this to say in an interview with ABC News' Christiane Amanpour: "But that [trickle down economic theory - or give it all to the rich and some will dribble back down onto the poor] has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." A 2006 report by United for a Fair Economy found that: "The president's tax-cutting policy is a failure in regard to job creation, and we need to recognize it as such...While there is no evidence that massive tax cuts create jobs, there is considerable evidence that they contribute to economy-choking deficits."

And top economist Alan Blinder said in the Wall Street Journal in July: "We could get some substantial job creation by simply reprogramming the $75 billion that would be saved over the next two years by not extending the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts and spending it instead on unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the like."

Don't Republicans read the reports? Don't they read the Wall Street Journal? Don't they listen to anything but the buzz and buzzwords echoing in their own fevered brains?

Job creation comes about by creating the jobs. Not giving the money away to those who least need it; those who will not use it to create jobs, but stick in an offshore account somewhere. Or if they do create jobs, they are jobs in some other country, some poor island colony of the corporations, where peasants slave away in dismal conditions for pennies a day.

Here's an imaginary conversation between a rich, but well intentioned, CEO and his money manager:

CEO: "I'm taking my tax cut and creating more jobs with it, Bill."

MM:" Sir, you can't do that. That would result in no net benefit to you or the stock holders."

CEO: "But, Bill, I'm sitting on a piles of cash, and think of those poor Americans out of work. We must do something."

MM: "But sir, if you create jobs here in the United States, those people will expect to be paid real American dollars. Your dollars sir. The dollars that the hard working Republican Congress has fought for. It would be a betrayal of that trust."

CEO: "But I thought they wanted me to create jobs. Isn't that what they are always saying? Tax cuts for the wealthy equals jobs."

MM: "Well, sir, there is a way."

CEO: Tell me!"

MM: "Your company doesn't really make anything, just shuffles the money around, so jobs here in the U.S. wouldn't be of mch use anyway."

CEO: "But we could make things. Didn't my great great granddaddy used to make things? Steam pipes or something?"

MM: "Pipefittings for gadgets to bring the outdoor plumbing in the house. Very profitable in 1910."

CEO: "Well?"

MM: "Sir, those are all made in China now. The company is long gone, but the money lives on. That's the beauty of money, it multiplies like bunnies. Only you have to manage it wisely."

CEO: "Hmmm. Do I want to make pipe thingies in China?"

MM: "No need, Sir. All taken care of. But if you are interested in creating jobs, you may need a money counter and a vault overseer for your offshore accounts."

CEO: "Yes, yes, let's put an ad in the New York Times right now."

MM: "No, sir, you don't have to do that. We can get those people right off the streets in that little island, where the money lives."

CEO: Oh, I see. I will be creating jobs where the money is, not here in the U.S."

MM: "That's right. Now you get it."

CEO: "Good plan, Bill. You are a smart man. How much do I pay you?"

MM: "Well sir, I do receive a nice stipend from the profits on those accounts..."

CEO: "Bill, I hate to do this to you; you've been a loyal employee, but I see I can save money if I hire my money manager right there on the island. Thanks for the great advice. And pick up your severance pay on the way out. Wait, you'll have to get it from the offshore account. And Bill, I'm sorry, but it's going to have to be in local currency."

Tuesday, April 28, 2009




California State Convention news and pics

Posted 4/27/2009 9:38 AM PDT


Yes, we did have a Clean Sweep with our progressive women takng over three powerful positions: Chair of the Progressive Caucus (which itself has led to many changes in our Party in the last four years); Chair of the Women's Caucus (Whole Progressive slate); and most impressive, Controller of the State Party. I was thrilled to be elected Secretary of the Progressive Caucus by acclimation. Marin's own Ralph Miller took the Treasurer slot also by acclimation and our wonderful Mayme Hubert, who is the inspiration behind much of what gets done, is an Office at Large, with J. Brian Washman and Dr. Bill Honigman. A good group. See the pics up top for the "rest of the story" - First pic: I meet Howard Dean, with Wendy Baker, that's me on the right (Howard's left); next pic: Our three great winners: Karen Weinstein, Women's Caucus chair; Karen Bernal, Progressive Caucus chair and Hilary Crosby, our new State Party Controller.

Women rock!


This was an amazing celebration of a very successful year. Next year will continue the work. We are aiming at adding Democrats to the legislature. More later. Back to work with the new improved GreenDog Campaign team.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Rush Limbaugh in the Ring

Rush Limbaugh to Star in Remake of the Wrestler
Posted 3/3/2009 9:55 AM PST

Why wait ten years to remake a Hollywood favorite? The Republicans, sensing their base slipping away, today announced that they will finance the remake of last year's surprise hit, The Wrestler.

Starring in the comeback role of the once washed up combatant, is Republican apologist and bombastic talk show host, Rush Limbaugh.

"Rush is perfect for the part," effused his one time rival, Michael Steele, head of the RNC, now chief producer of the Wrestler remake, to be called The Rustler, signifying the rustling up of the base who hunger for real blood and guts, long staples of Republican diets. "I know Rush and I sparred a bit, but I have apologized to him, as we have all agreed this project goes beyond petty internecine bickering.

"Our true enemies are the pinko-commie, socialist, abortion promoting, homosexual loving Democrats. Rush's comeback from his own foray into the dark world of illegal drug use and dropping ratings, not to mention his cholesterol laden gut, make him just right for the part of a down on his luck Republican operative, making one last gasp at bringing home the Party loyalists."

Critics were scratching their heads as they opined on the nightly news about the wisdom of the "last gasp" strategy.

"I don't know," said Ben Mankiewics of ABC's At the Movies "if this is really the image they want to broadcast to the public. In the original movie, the Mickey Rourke character appeared to be suffering a fatal heart attack as he flung himself from the ropes onto his opponent in the ring. I'm not getting the symbolism here."

However, Fox's Bill O'Reilly lauded the project as a sure box office hit, "and in politics, fundraising is everything. So what if Limbaugh expires in the movie; his ratings will soar and the coffers of the Republican Party will swell.

"I think it's a brilliant move. Liberals watch out"

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Dick Cheney Father of Octuplets

In a surprising revelation today, former VP, Dick "the terrorists are coming" Cheney told shocked news reporters that he is the father of Nadya Suleman's octuplets.

"How else do you think she got eight babies when only six were implanted," growled the proud Papa. "and you thought Dick Cheney was through."

He continued, "We need all the resources we can muster in the country to fight the terrorists, coming to murder us in our beds. Obama won't do it, in fact he's out there passing around condemns to the poor, so I have decided to grow my own domestic army, starting with these little sweeties. I call them my "Battling Babies."

"Of course, most American women are too busy getting manicures and having their feet waxed to breed for America, but I'm pleased to report that another seven are on their way. The mom is in a secure, undisclosed location as we speak."

While reporters struggle to find the words for the many questions swirling through their scrambled brains, Cheney muttered something under his breath, and, in a puff of sulfurous smoke, disappeared.

Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas was heard to exclaim, "Damn, I was afraid of something like that," as she joined the throng out the door of the now smoldering press tent.

Published at sfgate.com

Monday, January 19, 2009

2008 in Review

Yes, we did!


Yes, we did. Tomorrow is Inauguration Day. I'll be dressed in my finest in San Rafael dancing to oldies and watching Obama boogie on the big screen.


This year Green Dog Campaigns had a most interesting race in Sonoma County. Shirlee Zane, newcomer to electoral politics, faced off against Sharon Wright, veteran campaigner. Shirlee was backed by labor and environmentalists and social service types. Sharon had big business and developers.


Guess who had the most money and endorsements?


Guess who ran the best campaign and won?

Yes, we did! Shirlee proved to be an ace campaigner. She came in first in the primary, with three others. Sharon was next. Into a hotly contested general, complete with nasty campaign attacks from Sharon and her developer cronies. They spent a wad trying to defeat Shirlee's fast moving train.


Heavy use of i.e.'s in a local campaign


Labor put money behind Shirlee in numerous independent expenditure (ie) pieces, both positive and negative. More than I've ever seen in a local race. These guys are playing on a whole new ballfield.

Sharon' developer funded negative hits came fast furious the last week, including a TV ad. But this time, dirty campaigning failed. The unions were always tasteful and truthful in their negative pieces against Sharon. The developers were not, calling Shirlee a puppet of the unions.


Shirlee used up a lot of shoe leather, walking and knocking on door throughout the large district. Her volunteers were all troopers. On Election Night, she was the victor by 11%! A stunning win.


New strategic partners and an award nomination for Green Dogs


Green Dogs put our all into this race, with lots of targeted mailing; the graphic talents of Lise Stampfli outshone the competition. We even did polling, adding Target Research as a strategic partner. And the dulcet tones of Peter B. Collins on our radio ad didn't hurt either.


That ad, written and produced by Peter, is up for a Reed Award. we are so proud, of Shirlee, of our new strategic partners and of this time in America.


Green Dogs looks forward to a new era, a great 2009 and some fun campaigns in the years ahead. Check our site http://www.greendogcampaigns.com/ for more examples of winning campaigns.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

I was debate watching last night with the rest of the Country and was heartened by Obama’s steadfastness, his humor and his unflinching responses to McCain’s outrageous and repeated accusations.

I watched the debate at the studios of Green 960, progressive talk radio in San Francisco, invited as a listener guest. After the debate, two of us went into the studio with veteran host Angie Coiro for an on-air discussion of the debate with callers. Joining us were California Democratic Party Chair Art Torres, and San Mateo Republican Party vice chair Deborah Wilder. It made for an interesting discussion, you can imagine.

Small plug here:

If you don’t already listen to Green 960, you are missing a great radio experience. Tune into 960 on the AM dial. Angie Coiro is “live and local” at 3 pm every day and I never miss her show. Check the website for other shows and news of the progressive community in the Bay Area. www.green960.com If you are outside the Bay Area, there are live podcasts and archives of most shows. Check it out!

Who won?

All the major networks except Fox found Obama to be the winner. McGrumpy made some points with his newfound aggressive style, but most agreed it was too little too late. Actually too much is more like it. My co listener guest Kim called it “Kitchen sink politics.” Obama never ducked the flying objects McCain kept tossing at him. He didn’t need to. McCain wore himself out to the point he was having trouble articulating, calling his running mate “a breash of freth air” at one point, but that might just be because he gets all hot and bothered thinking about her. (Did you catch the way his gaze kept sinking to her bottom when he first introduced her as his Veep pick? But maybe he was just falling asleep.)

It’s all about the Supreme Court:

For me the watershed moment was McCain’s declaration of a Culture War. No he didn’t say those words, but he did say we need a change of culture, and he was referring to the issue of choice. Saying Obama was allied with “pro-abortion extremists” because he would make an exception for the health of the woman in opposing late term abortions. (Yes, I was disappointed he opposed them, because they are always either for the health of the woman or because the fetus is so badly deformed it couldn’t survive in any meaningful way outside the womb. Hey, these are women who want to have babies. This is not a last minute change of heart or whimsy on their part, as the anti-choice crowd would have you think.)

McCain was flippant, insulting and grossly ignorant or worse, in his cavalierly dismissing the health of the woman as a consideration.

And Choice:

Make no mistake, under a McCain presidency the cause of choice would be set back if not downright overturned altogether if he gets to pick who sits on the Supreme Court. He says he would not make Roe v. Wade a litmus test, but it is clear he would. It ain’t over yet folks. Stay tuned. And if we win, the Reps are already planning a challenge based on “voter fraud,” about which they know plenty.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Dear Friend, Goodbye. A Satire

Dear Friend,

I won’t embarrass you by using your name, or myself by knowing it, so let me just call you “that one.”

I must say good bye and end our long friendship, that is acquaintance, since I have had my investigators look into your past and have found some pretty troubling information.

Like that time in kindergarten you whacked Suzy Shepard over the head and threatened to “kill you,” if she didn’t give back your favorite dolly she was pulling all the hair out of. Such violence cannot be tolerated.

Or that time in high school when you and your hooligan gang threw toilet paper all over the vice principal’s house on Halloween. Such a blatant lack of respect for authority is beyond the pale in these times of fear and terror.

Worst of all may be the well founded rumor which circulated in the sixties that your anti-Vietnam War sympathizing had actually turned into radical terrorism as you kicked the nice policeman in the shin, while he tightened the handcuffs around your wrists and lifted you oh so gently off the ground to toss you into the paddy wagon with the rest of your terrorist protesting buddies. Non-violent disobedience my tuckas!

And just being an anti-war sympathizer in this time when our brave troops are fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here is something I can no longer overlook.

So I must tender my resignation to the Board of our Homeowners’ Association, although it pains me to do so, since we are so close to working out the landscaping for phase three, and I was so looking forward to overseeing the planting of my beloved semi-double laciniated pompom mums in the common area. But to keep an association with you at this time is to put into jeopardy my future political career as a Republican candidate for Sanitary Commissioner.

I am copying all my fellow Board members as well as the press, as it is my civic duty to let them know what kind of individual they have placed their trust in.

I am sorry I will not be able to attend the ill-advised wedding of our two daughters, as we had planned. Jessica is no longer speaking to me, her own mother, so you can see how far the seeds of your radical past have been sown.

Next time you want to serve on a board of directors, be sure not to omit the pertinent facts outlined in this letter from your resume, so that all may be forewarned and not learn the hard way, as I have,

Your former friend,

Upstanding Citizen and phase two condo neighbor

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Angry "Older" White Women

I have been an angry white woman a good part of my life. Now as a boomer reaching 60, some might classify me as an "older angry white woman."

I’m angry over the fact that we still don’t have an Equal Rights Amendment. That women still make 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man; that we are losing women in our legislature, that some younger women don’t seem to appreciate all the sacrifices their mothers’ and grandmothers’ generation made to get where they are today. (taking for granted that they too can take their place at the corporate trough), angry that we still have a corporate culture, not the cooperative society we all believed in the 60’s.

One of the things I am NOT angry about is Hillary Clinton. Sure, I’d love to see a woman president and I’m glad to see a viable woman candidate, who was able to rally millions to her cause go as far as she did (even though Hillary herself is a little corporate for my tastes.) A major step in the right direction.

But when I hear the media says Obama will have to work hard to win over older white women, that some of them (us) might actually vote for McCain out of spite, I just don’t believe it. Would I, as a feminist, really want to throw away all I’ve worked for on a bland white Republican, because my candidate didn’t win? Would I want to sell the legacy of future generations to endless war and a Supreme Court stacked against all I hold dear? Would I do this out of anger, bitterness or a sense of if I can’t have it neither can you as the corporate media would have you believe? Not likely.

So who are these angry older white women who might vote for McCain? The Democratic equivalent of the Guns, God and Gays voter?

I don’t think they exist. I think they are a figment of the media imagination. All the older white women I know who were rooting for Hillary have swallowed their disappointment and moved on. To work on uniting the Party, to defeat the right, to defeat the tired old George Bush neo-con agenda, and work for change.

Hillary would have been change. Obama is going to be change. Change for the better. If you were for Hillary, you’re not going to be for McCain. The Peace, Environment and Choice voter is just too smart to vote against her own (and her children’s) self interest, no matter what the Gays, Guns and God voters do (if they even exist either).

Don’t let the talking heads convince you otherwise.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Obama and Language or Much ado about....

Oh, wait, that’s been said before; I mean, there’s a tempest in a teapot brewing… No, that’s off limits too. But in all this rush to accusation over Obama’s use of some well worn phrases to express sentiments that rouse the public, where’s the beef? (Sorry little old lady peddling burgers)

If politicians went out of their way to pen speeches with nary a reference to any concept ever before expressed, and all new speeches, who’d know what the bleep they were talking about?)? In all this bloviating about Obama’s use of words that may have been uttered by others, no one is mentioning it’s the use of the familiar that drives campaigns.

Get a grip (full disclosure, not my line) pundits. We’re not talking about turning in someone else’s homework here.

All this media buzz (not my words either, I stole them from 6 or 7 different news papers and blogs, so sue me) over Obama’s rhetoric expressing in some of the very same words, some of the very same sentiments of other candidates or officials has left my head reeling (commercial for something? TV?)

So now he has the audacity to sound like John Edwards, after months of people begging him to pick up some of Edwards ideas and run with them (football term). I know this from the horse’s mouth (Joyce Cary, title of a novel, that I know darn well he didn’t make up. Did anyone sue him for plagiarism?) I was on a conference call with Obama and former Edwards staffers not two weeks ago who were urging him to do just that.

So is Obama just supposed to express these sentiments in different ways? Like, instead of saying, let’s talk unions, would you rather he say, let’s talk about those guys and gals who you know organize other guys and gals into groups of guys and gals to try to get better working conditions? (Oh, yeah, Guys and Gals, maybe too close to Guys and Dolls? Musical based on book by Damon Runyan.)

Is he supposed to ignore the mass culture of drug companies trying to dupe us into thinking we’ll be happier if we’re doped to the gills (whoops, heard that somewhere before too, stop me before I plagiarize again), by using the same imagery Edwards did of happy people cavorting in a field after ingesting some kind of pharmaceutical or other? Good image that. Why not use it? Better than take this pill and you’ll be able to fit through a keyhole, enter the land of Wonderland. (as in Alice in, novel by Lewis Carroll.)

And now they’re going after him for his “Yes we can” slogan. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank needs a history lesson. His article in today’s (Feb. 20) Chronicle attributes the “Yes we can” saying to a kiddie show cartoon character called Builder Bob. (The online version of the original article at least gives a nod to its use by Caesar Chavez) That saying, “si se puede” in Spanish, was first coined as a rallying cry by Dolores Huerta of the United Farmworkers Union in 1972. Its use by a kiddie TV character shows just how far language reaches into popular culture.

In the immortal words of Lewis Carroll:

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch "

from The Jaberwocky

Cutting and running for now (George W. stolen from old nautical term, no attribution or apologies ever offered),

your faithful correspondent Dotty the Green Dog Democrat.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

WHEN COMMUNITY LEADERS RUN FOR OFFICE

(A version of this article first appeared in the Sierra Club Bay Chapter Yodeler in May 2007)

If you’ve worked as a volunteer on practically any conservation concern, you’ve probably had occasion to contact public officials and even to put your volunteer spirit to work helping get environmental candidates elected to office. It’s just a hop, skip, and short hike on Mount Tam to go from volunteering for a candidate to becoming one yourself. I spoke with several local Sierrans who’ve taken that hike to the top of the mountain and discovered several common themes.Sierra Club issues made them into candidates

Volunteer Power


Some people run for office because they want power. Others are frustrated over the lack of response from their elected representatives on an issue of importance to them and decide they can do better. For this article, I talked to Sierra Club leaders whose interest in running for office began with activism on particular issues. But if you are active in any local organization, your child’s school or ad hoc neighborhood committee, the same principles apply.

Take Helen Burke, the first Bay Chapter leader to get elected to public office, who after years of advocating on behalf of the Sierra Club, was urged by her fellow Club leaders and other environmental activists to run for the Board of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Volunteering 40 - 60 hours a week on the Conservation Committee wasn’t enough for Helen, so she took her friends up on their offer to help her win the seat from the newly created Fourth Ward. She ran on a platform of water conservation and reform and won in a landslide, becoming the first woman and first environmentalist to serve on the EBMUD.

Helen went on to mentor other activists whom she encouraged to take their volunteerism to new levels. Andy Katz, a member of the Northern Alameda Group Executive Committee and newly elected to the EBMUD seat that Helen used to hold, credits her with inspiring him to jump in the race. Andy finds that “Serving in public office is an opportunity to put environmental goals into action.”For some, a single issue sparks the decision to run. A long-time activist on Hayward planning issues as well as chair of Sierra Club California in 1991 - 92, Sherman Lewis was inspired to run for the BART Board to stop a parking structure proposed for the Hayward BART station.

In Marin County, long-time Political Committee member Alex Forman was motivated by his concern about a proposed pipeline to bring water from Sonoma to Marin. This pipeline would have had a devastating effect on the flows of the Russian and Eel Rivers and on their salmon fisheries. This issue came to a head during the campaign, when his much better-funded opponent took the opposite position.

In looking for the right office, don’t think only of obviously environmental positions. You can put your environmental principles to work in a number of local offices. John Rizzo had long dreamed of developing a program in green technologies and environmental sciences at the community-college level. As a Club activist and chair (2005 - 06) of the Bay Chapter, John Rizzo decided to run for the Board of San Francisco City College. A strong environmental message and the help of active Sierrans, helped put him in a position to make those dreams a reality.

Building coalitions—the key to winning public office

An important building block of any campaign is bringing together people from various backgrounds and interest groups. In running for MMWD Alex Forman realized that not only environmentalists were lining up behind him for his stand against the pipeline, but also a host of tax-reform advocates, because the pipeline would cost the ratepayers more than Alex’ alternative of expanding conservation measures. This coalition of “unlikely allies” won Alex unexpected support from more conservative voters for sailing to an easy victory. Alex still serves on both the MMWD Board and the Marin Group, where he is the political co-chair. He also continues his work on the Political Committee of the Bay Chapter.

Veteran Berkeley Councilmember Kriss Worthington has become a champion coalition builder over his years in office. Even before his involvement as a Sierra Club activist and Bay Chapter ExComm member, Kriss had worked for years with the student community. Building a labor/environmental coalition worked well for Andy Katz as well. Having coalition partners on board with your campaign can help with other endorsements and donations, which can make the difference in getting your environmental message out to the voters.

John Rizzo’s win shows how a strong progressive message can transcend party lines. Although he is a proud Green Party member, John earned the support of influential Democratic Clubs in his San Francisco City College bid, including the liberal Harvey Milk Club.

And of course, that all-important Sierra Club endorsement can not be over-emphasized.

Getting Your Issues on the Table as a Newly Elected Official

Transitioning from Club volunteer to elected official is not always easy. It helps if the environmental activists who helped you to get into office stick around for the heavy lifting. Keep those volunteers involved, advises EBMUD’s Andy Katz. Their voice at meetings and on advisory committees can be invaluable in helping the office-holder keep the environmental issues on the table and “provide an elected environmental advocate the ability to translate that perspective into real policy.” It also can boost the morale of an outvoted environmental office-holder to be surrounded by supporters, who will keep them energized and focused on the task at hand.

When you work strictly as a volunteer, you have the luxury of taking firm positions and stating them unwaveringly. As an elected official, you must work with others to accomplish your goals. Helen Burke calls this “boring from within”.Starting out as a lone voice for the environment, Helen started making a difference right away, finding support for her ideas of instituting tiered water rates. Her lively campaign and new ideas transformed EBMUD meetings from dull to delightful and attracted local press as well to see what this energetic woman could do.

Some tasks take longer than others. One of Helen’s proudest achievements was an end to the practice of subsidizing developers for the cost of the water infrastructure for their projects. “It took 12 years and getting a second vote on the Board, but eventually that subsidy was eliminated!” says Helen. Dennis Waespi, first elected in 1999, today serves as president of the Board of the Castro Valley Sanitary District. He is proud of the innovative environmental programs his Board has instituted, including making Castro Valley a leader in recycling and recently instituting a pilot program in the schools to collect and compost food waste. Castro Valley was the first town in Alameda County to successfully integrate food-waste collection into its green-waste recycling. Waespi urges other Club members and activists to run, saying “We need more environmentalists involved in the political process. And the time is now.”

Are you next?

Running for office isn’t for everybody. But it is one way to extend your environmental volunteerism. One intermediate step is to get appointed to an advisory board or commission. And we all can volunteer to help the environmental leaders who do run.

Dotty Le Mieux

Dotty LeMieux first ran for office when her never-to-be-named coastal Marin town was threatened with overdevelopment. The only local body that dealt with issues related to growth was the Public Utilities District, which had for years maintained a moratorium on water hookups due to shortage of storage capacity.

She ran for that seat and won in 1981; later she was encouraged to run for county supervisor, receiving Club support against an incumbent whose environmental rating had slipped over his years in office. Although she didn’t win that one, her campaign brought environmental and social issues to the forefront, prompting the incumbent not to seek another term.

Dotty went on to serve on the Sierra Club Marin Group Executive Committee, serving as chair for four years.

Today she runs a campaign-consulting firm in Marin, Green Dog Campaigns and Communications. Alex Forman was her first successful client. She has since helped many Club-supported candidates win tough races, including Marin County Supervisor Susan Adams and Fairfax Councilmember Mary Ann Maggiore. Her most recent victory was the election of Lake County Supervisor Denise Rushing, who, with the Club’s support, was able to defeat a long time incumbent.

For more information, contact Dotty at:
del@greendogcampaigns.com or check her web site:www.greendogcampaigns.com

Thursday, February 22, 2007

New Blog Check it out!

For some months, the Green Dog has been posting at the new Community Blogs section of www.sfgate.com, the San Francisco Chronicle's Blog central.

My Blog is called Boomer Bytes and still contains satire, unapologetic progressive politics, as well as Boomer related tales. (My youth as an anti-war activist during Vietnam, mostly.) I'm posting there more than here, so won't you check it out today and leave me a comment on the new site?

url is http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/contribute/sn/persona?plckPersonaPage=PersonaBlog&User=greendogdemo

Come on over!

Dotty the Green Dog Democrat

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Demos in; Rumsfeld out!

ODDS AND ENDS FROM THE (PROGRESSIVE) CAMPAIGN TRAIL

What a night! Democrats rocked the House and maybe have even taken the Senate. We are keeping our fingers crossed over Virginia. Yes, some of these Dems are from the Republican wing of the Party, but at least there's a shift.

And what better way to acknowledge it than to dump Rumsfeld? George had to admit he took a thumpin' from the Dems. But watch out. He and Cheney are not gone yet. And if the Senate splits, then Cheney gets to cast all those deciding votes. The Dark Side is plotting, you can be sure.

On the local front, one of the best progressives we have in Marin, Frank Egger, lost his bid for a seat on the MMWD to a newcomer, a "water manager" for San Francisco. Could there be a conflict brewing?

We shall see as the saga unfolds. The voters seem to have a thing for so called "experts" when they vote for boards that cover specialty areas, such as Health Care District (progressives lost here, too, as the voters put two more doctors on the board, and one of those had been recalled from the very same board years ago!) and water board.

Two years ago Richard Rubin, another well qualified, well known contender was trounced by a nobody with "water engineer" after his name.

Go figure. At least Jennifer Rienks was elected as the third Health Care District board member, probably because she had "health policy analyst" after her name, not because she's a progressive community activist.

The Progressive Caucus of our own California Democratic Party is hoping to make some gains in Party leadership this year. Watch this space for news of of our Progressive Plan, the progressive 58 County Program for California.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

IT'S STILL THE WAR STUPID!

What I would like the Democrats to be saying about now is that we have lost more American lives in Bush's uncalled for, unneeded, disastrous War in Iraq, than were lost in the World Trade Center attack on 9/11. In fact, this has been the case for months. World Trade Center deaths 2819 or 2823, depending on whose account is more accurate, the Americans' or the British.

Iraq War deaths as of October 30, 2006 - 2834. So, say what you will how the World Trade Center happened, we know George Bush is responsible for the Iraq War deaths, and for no reason that has become discernible over the years.

Not to mention at least 21,000 wounded Americans and countless non-combatant Iraqi deaths.

Hammer this point home Democrats. Cheney is out scaring people with Halloween talk of how a Democratic victory in Congress means the terrorists win.

Bush and Cheney are the terrorists. It's them or us. It's all war all the time, or it's fight back now.

Got it? Now, let's put those sneering Republican death's heads back in the closet until next Halloween.