Jacoby Creek Forest closed to the public

Jacoby Creek Forest closed to the public

There are 29 comments on the Eureka Times Standard story from Jan 2, 2009, titled Jacoby Creek Forest closed to the public. In it, Eureka Times Standard reports that:

Arcata is reminding people that the Jacoby Creek Forest is off limits to the public, an area that is experiencing erosion due to the treading of trespassers.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Eureka Times Standard.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
The Dude

Meadow Vista, CA

#1 Jan 2, 2009
The motorcycles can stay out, but I have been mountain biking there since I was 8, and I'm 24, so screw the city.
cut er down

United States

#2 Jan 2, 2009
Public forest my a*!. It is not public if the city is not allowing anybody to go there right now. Arcata City Council is crooked.
Bump

San Francisco, CA

#3 Jan 2, 2009
Didn't the residents of Arcata pay for half of it?

Public agencies have the responsibility to provide recereation on public lands, ask the planners at BLM or the USFS.

This is leftist facism (read the signs surrounding the plaza if you need another example), right in line with needing city approval to remove a tree from YOUR property within the city limits.
mee

Arcata, CA

#4 Jan 2, 2009
What the hell do those signs mean that say "bike friendly 2000-2010"? Can we run them over in 2011?
riverdude

Arcata, CA

#5 Jan 2, 2009
The Dude wrote:
The motorcycles can stay out, but I have been mountain biking there since I was 8, and I'm 24, so screw the city.
I will introduce myself to you both.....
I am a local of 25 years, my name is Mike.
Many in the bike community know me. I have ridden dirt with far west m.c. in the old days on PL prop etc. Ive also been on Simpson. Simpson was technically tresspassing I admit, however with far west we had permission. My point is that as much as I love cycling, I have seen what continued erosion(single track) can do to the trails. I used to be in denial as to the erreversible damage just so I could ride. The ruts make hiking difficult and the silted runoff is not nice to Humboldt bay. We need to not impact the trails during the wet season. I choose to ride in six rivers and on private property with permission. Yes it is a longer drive but I sacrifice. Yes the downhill from greenwood heights into jc is epic also, but it is getting pretty bad from outlaws in the winter.I commend Karen to work an amiable use for all.She is a smart lady. You should have bought the property yourself so you could do as you please.
P.S. To the guy from Oakland, I grew up in Orinda and rode the Hayward hill climbs in the seventies. Have you been there? I am ashamed to say I contributed selfishly to the enormous ruts there. It was legal at that time. Im sure that is no longer the case.
Happy New Year!! Tread lightly
Anon

Santa Rosa, CA

#6 Jan 2, 2009
riverdude wrote:
P.S. To the guy from Oakland, I grew up in Orinda and rode the Hayward hill climbs in the seventies. Have you been there? I am ashamed to say I contributed selfishly to the enormous ruts there. It was legal at that time. Im sure that is no longer the case.
Happy New Year!! Tread lightly
riverdude...who did you know in Orinda...
I grew up there too. I didn't ride motor bikes
but a lot of people I knew did.
Codypup

Arcata, CA

#7 Jan 2, 2009
River Dude, we did buy it ourselves. All of the property the City owns was bought with our taxpayer money.

There may be erosion issues in JC, but the significant ones are all due to old logging practices, not the small group of people who bicycle in the valley. The City can hardly unfavorably compare bicycle traffic effects to their active logging of their property in the watershed.

The runoff from the cars on the gravel section of road past the pavement caused by people who live (and often complain about others entering their little feifdom) is worse than anything all the bicycles will ever do.

Motorcycles have been in the valley since the sixties,(a few) and bicycles since the eighties. I would be confident that a survey of the trails used in the valley would show such minimal erosion as to be an insignificant effect on the health of Jacoby Creek.

If the problem is damage to the trails, then what is the point, since the trails do not legally "exist" anyway?

Yes, the forest is off limits. I personally find it cruel that we are surrounded by so much beautiful land on the northcoast and that so little of it is accessible to us. Not everyone (kids?) can afford the time and money to drive to Six Rivers. Also, you would have a tough time bicycling through the several feet of snow that covers it much of the year.

One of the wonderful things about living on the Northcoast is that there is room for all of us and that we shouldn't have to fight over scraps of land left over from urban development like they do in Marin County. We can be better than that.

Personally, I think the current situation in Jacoby Creek is fine-light use by varied persons with no expense to the City. A non-sanitized outdoor experience where users tend to respect each other. Hikers may not be wild about seeing mountain bikes, or heaven forbid, the occaisional motorcycle, but the trails they walk on would not exist without the maintenance efforts and brush trimming that is almost exclusively done by people with wheels.

River dude-since you have given up on riding JC per your post, how do you know about the conditions caused by outlaws? Or are you still and outlaw (and hypocrite) too?
riverdude

Arcata, CA

#8 Jan 2, 2009
Codypup wrote:
River Dude, we did buy it ourselves. All of the property the City owns was bought with our taxpayer money.
There may be erosion issues in JC, but the significant ones are all due to old logging practices, not the small group of people who bicycle in the valley. The City can hardly unfavorably compare bicycle traffic effects to their active logging of their property in the watershed.
The runoff from the cars on the gravel section of road past the pavement caused by people who live (and often complain about others entering their little feifdom) is worse than anything all the bicycles will ever do.
Motorcycles have been in the valley since the sixties,(a few) and bicycles since the eighties. I would be confident that a survey of the trails used in the valley would show such minimal erosion as to be an insignificant effect on the health of Jacoby Creek.
If the problem is damage to the trails, then what is the point, since the trails do not legally "exist" anyway?
Yes, the forest is off limits. I personally find it cruel that we are surrounded by so much beautiful land on the northcoast and that so little of it is accessible to us. Not everyone (kids?) can afford the time and money to drive to Six Rivers. Also, you would have a tough time bicycling through the several feet of snow that covers it much of the year.
One of the wonderful things about living on the Northcoast is that there is room for all of us and that we shouldn't have to fight over scraps of land left over from urban development like they do in Marin County. We can be better than that.
Personally, I think the current situation in Jacoby Creek is fine-light use by varied persons with no expense to the City. A non-sanitized outdoor experience where users tend to respect each other. Hikers may not be wild about seeing mountain bikes, or heaven forbid, the occaisional motorcycle, but the trails they walk on would not exist without the maintenance efforts and brush trimming that is almost exclusively done by people with wheels.
River dude-since you have given up on riding JC per your post, how do you know about the conditions caused by outlaws? Or are you still and outlaw (and hypocrite) too?
Fair enough Cody, I know how much maintenance goes into keeping trails open, especially the @#$% brush that grows here. I honestly havent been down the jc trail from greenwood for some years. I live in willow creek a good deal of the time and yes there is lots more land there. Snow is snow fun on two wheels, nor is ice like on the titlow hill area. At least for now gas is relatively cheap. Kudos for your work maintaining the community forest, I think the growing mountainbiking community is great here, but challenging with land use. Marin is certainly a hot bed of controversial land use I understand. Ride-on!
riverdude

Arcata, CA

#9 Jan 2, 2009
Fair enough Cody, Yes an awful lot of maintenance goes into the trails and we owe it to the mountainbikers. They are a great growing bunch locally. I am glad to see the events also. It is sad to have such limited land to access while being surrounded by so much. I do have a mountainbike but have prefferred a motor the last few years. I agree with your input on old logging.I have not been down the jc trail for a year at least. I think Karen will find a happy common ground. Ride On!
riverdude

Arcata, CA

#10 Jan 2, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
riverdude...who did you know in Orinda...
I grew up there too. I didn't ride motor bikes
but a lot of people I knew did.
Hi Anon, must be short for (bikes anonamous),eh? Ha ha I went to Campo 73-76 with one year at feather river boarding school. Lived on Warford Terrace.
Ran with alot of Miramonte crowd, and you?
Furry Squeeker

Alameda, CA

#11 Jan 2, 2009
Sounds like the tweakers are migratine into a non-polluted redwoods so they can make meth now.
Boyd Smith

Alameda, CA

#12 Jan 2, 2009
Our we talking about the "couch trail" leading to J.C.? I have not ridden that trail for years because of the knee deep ruts; It's more of a mud slide than a trail up top. I suggest the people who are complaining save their breath and go do some trail maintenance to keep it open. Rather than complain about those who selfishly insist on destroying the environment, I will quote Bob Marley as an appropriate metaphor; " nobody wants to plant the corn, but everybody wants to raid the barn."
Anon

Santa Rosa, CA

#13 Jan 2, 2009
riverdude wrote:
Hi Anon, must be short for (bikes anonamous),eh? Ha ha I went to Campo 73-76 with one year at feather river boarding school. Lived on Warford Terrace.
Ran with alot of Miramonte crowd, and you?
Think I am a bit older than you. You might have known Stuckert (Bates Blvd) PeeWee, Hal Smith,
Sutterley's. Myself I lived in Orinda (Miramonte) and then Canyon for several. We probably went to the same keggers...Hung out at Orinda Mobil (which has been wiped off the face of the earth) Jeez, I don't know of ANYWHERE to ride in that area now. Every place has a house on it.
changes

Eureka, CA

#16 Jan 3, 2009
Yeah,what is it with those people on the gravel end of Jacoby Creek Road. I've been occasionally hiking out or down that way since mid-1980s. Only last few years have those folks gotten rude about their little "fiefdom". But then there are so many more out that way-crowded neighborhood now. And almost all are growing weed. If they have the right to keep us off the road why don't they put up a gate? That would end their paranoia.
clearcut

Eureka, CA

#17 Jan 3, 2009
What a joke, you can't even recreate in your own backyard even though you pay the taxes on it. Just doesn't make sense. Next your going to have to pay to go for a walk through JC. Nobody seems to care so nothing will improve, kind of like everything else.
Codypup

Arcata, CA

#18 Jan 4, 2009
changes wrote:
Yeah,what is it with those people on the gravel end of Jacoby Creek Road. I've been occasionally hiking out or down that way since mid-1980s. Only last few years have those folks gotten rude about their little "fiefdom". But then there are so many more out that way-crowded neighborhood now. And almost all are growing weed. If they have the right to keep us off the road why don't they put up a gate? That would end their paranoia.
They can't put up a gate because they don't own the road. The road was built by loggers in the fifties and no specific rights of way were ever granted to adjacent owners to cross each others land where the road runs.

Their only claim to the road is in the hazy legal area of having used it for years, just like the mountain bikers.
ConsiderTheFacts

Oregon House, CA

#19 Jan 12, 2009
1)The JCF was purchased 100% by grant money from STATE Wildlife Conservation Board. Not a penny from "arcata". The agreement stipulates that no access without a permit... as for research, bird watching, or other non-consumptive activities. That is what the City promised to the State, to get the money.
AND the grant stipulates that any public access consideration is secondary to the primary goal, which is preservation of wildlife habitat. Any plan to introduce more people up there is detrimental to the wildlife habitat.

Arcata wrote the grant, and assured neighboring landowners (who by the way, OWN and maintain the gravel portion of the road) that they would in fact control public access as outlined. I will be breathing down their back forever to make sure they are held accountable for this multi million dollar promise to the state (and to wildlife)

Folks, the Jacoby Creek Forest is no different than the Headwaters reserve. It is to be set aside for wildlife habitat preservation and above all, restoration.
Codypup

Arcata, CA

#20 Jan 13, 2009
Consider the facts:
One key difference between the Headwaters and City owned Jacoby Creek Forest is that the Ciy routinely logs in Jacoby Creek. How does that "fact" coexist with your statements re: "non-consumptive" use?

Also, last time I checked, Humboldt County was still part of the state of California and "State" money was still our tax dollars, grant money or no. WCB money is bond money, to be re-paid by taxpayers.

The land the gravel road is on is owned by the property owners, but as far as I have ever heard, there is no reciprocal right of way in writing that allows each landowner to cross each others property. Hence the "grey area". If the landowners were so sure they could do it, they would have put up a gate years ago, instead of putting the gate above the old rock quarry.

WCB funds do routinely stipulate that public access be granted as part of their agreements. While access is secondary, that does not mean that it is excluded.

I would also ask, is one of the ways you will "guarantee" the Citys' agreement is kept is by accessing the property yourself? If so, do you have a permit? Or are you part of the "feifdom" who seems to believe that they have access rights, but not others?

“HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE”

Since: Dec 07

McKinleyville

#21 Jan 13, 2009
A.D.A. accessibility for a publicly promoted "public area"?

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District
neomoderate

Dublin, CA

#22 Jan 14, 2009
I would suspect recreational users (hikers and bikers included) would have a legitimate case for prescriptive rights to that logging road. I still don't see why it matters that people use the road. I mean, does every visitor up the hill from you need to check in to cross your property? Why does it matter? Bikes and hikers need to be considerate, not blast down the road, etc., but ya'll are members of the community too. Act like it. Most of us moved up here to escape just the attitude (mine! all mine! go away!) you're displaying.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arcata Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News TAP helps people get back home; bus tickets, ga... (Nov '11) 12 hr MAH Plzzzz get me 757
My son needs help 12 hr miss mammy 3
Trump Statue Molested & Messy 12 hr Bollox Bros 1
Looking for Steve Chanez Mon CrCk420 2
News Two ex-officials of Armenian Consulate arrested (Jul '09) Mon JenJen211 136
Tommy Smiley Mon Aunties Ghost 1
Kimberling City Missouri Aug 21 Aaron 1

Arcata Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arcata Mortgages