When I returned to the parking lot after a training summit of Mount Hood in Santa Rosa I was met by a CA park ranger. She informed me that the "Sugarloaf" side of Hood will be closed starting 12/1 due to cuts. We chatted for a while and it sounds like a lot of our state parks are facing the same mis-fortune. Sad...

ScottyP wrote:She informed me that the "Sugarloaf" side of Hood will be closed starting 12/1 due to cuts.

I think many of us are curious about what "closed" will really mean. Is the side not being closed not a part of the park, or is thought going into cuts to try to make the best of the situation?

On the bright side, several of the state parks that made the cut list, including the big one near me, have benefited from folks who found creative ways to keep them "open."

http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/ca-state-park-closures-still-moving-forward-t58480.html

SeanReedy wrote:I think many of us are curious about what "closed" will really mean. Is the side not being closed not a part of the park, or is thought going into cuts to try to make the best of the situation?

The north side of Hood Mountain is accessed via a regional park that is contiguous with the state park. "Closing" the part of the park that the ranger (seems to have) mentioned is dumb, since the park provides no infrastructure or services other than a parking pullout along the road. The Goodspeed-Nattkemper trail itself passes through completely wild territory., which the park does nothing to handle, as far as I can tell.

As far as the local state park up in this neck of the woods, I hope they close it and sell it to the Forest Service. Castle Crags SP is a farce to begin with, since the Crags aren't actually in the park. All they do is collect an entrance fee to let you hike on the National Forest. The SP does provide a campground, but the FS can take it over pretty easily.

This is not to say that I am for closing the State Parks, I just do not like Castle Crags SP. I think that the state needs to get its act together and allocate the funds to the things they actually have a responsibility to do, not through money down the hundreds of ratholes they are currently shoveling it all into. MORE billions for a high speed rail? How many billions is that going to take now? I bet the current budget of this non-existent agency would cover the state parks supposed shortfall.

Not so sure the FS can easily take over any more than it already has, as the FS is broke as well...

I think the public is in for many more surprises when it comes to our public lands being under-funded. In my neck of the woods one ranger station closed completely, and all the others are cutting back pretty drastically on staffing, services, and hours they can be open. Picnic grounds and campgrounds are also closing some days. And wilderness permits will likely be switching over to recreation.gov - which means normally free permits will now have a cost to them.

Bubba, I agree. I actually started on the north side and was doing a double climb when I ran into her. She told me after the first I would have to turn around at the bench, the dividing line. She then lectured me on the fines should I ignore the signs...

ScottyP wrote:Bubba, I agree. I actually started on the north side and was doing a double climb when I ran into her. She told me after the first I would have to turn around at the bench, the dividing line. She then lectured me on the fines should I ignore the signs...

So if I understand this correctly, the state park will be closed due to lack of funds BUT they will still pay a ranger to check and see if hikers are ignoring the "closed signs"? That actually makes sense when it comes to our state government.

ScottyP wrote: She then lectured me on the fines should I ignore the signs...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzaZkRnrQA8[/youtube]

Bubba Suess wrote:

SeanReedy wrote:I think many of us are curious about what "closed" will really mean. Is the side not being closed not a part of the park, or is thought going into cuts to try to make the best of the situation?

The north side of Hood Mountain is accessed via a regional park that is contiguous with the state park. "Closing" the part of the park that the ranger (seems to have) mentioned is dumb, since the park provides no infrastructure or services other than a parking pullout along the road. The Goodspeed-Nattkemper trail itself passes through completely wild territory., which the park does nothing to handle, as far as I can tell.

Thanks...that's actually exactly what I was picturing!

Bubba Suess wrote:As far as the local state park up in this neck of the woods, I hope they close it and sell it to the Forest Service. Castle Crags SP is a farce to begin with, since the Crags aren't actually in the park. All they do is collect an entrance fee to let you hike on the National Forest. The SP does provide a campground, but the FS can take it over pretty easily.

Yes, Castle Crags is the state park I am actually most interested in due to memories formed there throughout my life, and due to the annoying circumstance described. My dad actually really likes the campground there, but I'm not interested in fancy campgrounds.

Bubba Suess wrote:This is not to say that I am for closing the State Parks, I just do not like Castle Crags SP. I think that the state needs to get its act together and allocate the funds to the things they actually have a responsibility to do, not through money down the hundreds of ratholes they are currently shoveling it all into. MORE billions for a high speed rail? How many billions is that going to take now? I bet the current budget of this non-existent agency would cover the state parks supposed shortfall.

If the project continues, I hope the vision for what it will do for the state holds true, but it just seems incredibly doubtful, as well as ironic under current circumstances. For most in the State of Jefferson area, the Eastern Sierra, and the deserts, this project is especially irritating.

[quote="Marmaduke] So if I understand this correctly, the state park will be closed due to lack of funds BUT they will still pay a ranger to check and see if hikers are ignoring the "closed signs"?[/quote]

Exactly what many of us are wondering.

Thanks for the insights and details everyone. It is these kind of details on the subject that I have been awaiting. Does anyone have the answer to Marmaduke's question yet? I'm hoping it is the sort of situation where you are unlikely to get caught, and then likely to get a warning the first time. Nevertheless it would be irritatiing to go through considering ignoring the rules and worrying about what the consequences would be. I would likely avoid the area and go elsewhere, but that is easier for me in my location than it is for folks with less options. Will the state make a point to penalize to send a strong message to keep off closed public land?

What about this state bill? Wasn't this bill going to aid in keeping the parks open?
http://www.calparks.org/press/2011/governor-signs-legislation-to-help-keep-state-parks-open.html

There is a contact at state parks on the above link which should be able to provide information

Marmaduke wrote:What about this state bill? Wasn't this bill going to aid in keeping the parks open?
http://www.calparks.org/press/2011/governor-signs-legislation-to-help-keep-state-parks-open.html

There is a contact at state parks on the above link which should be able to provide information

Our state park system was created by the creativity and passion of dedicated citizen groups, and it is time for today’s generation of organizations to pick up the torch.

I don't recall how far the above issue got updated in the original thread, but Marmaduke's link does align with what I am aware of happening and I think it is what happened with Coe Park. I used to live right below there and am still nearby. I have actually seen more wildlife (feral pigs, bobcats, coyote--both in packs and solitary, foxes, tarantulas, turkey, deer, raptors, but no mountain lion yet) while mountain biking in Coe Park than anywhere else. I have considered adding some minor peaks there to SP.

Personally, I live in a location and have the means to easily go to places I appreciate more than state parks (less amenities, less crowds, less regulations--especially no dogs on trails rules, and less fees). I'm mostly interested in the state parks saga as a philosophical issue and as a sign of what may follow with other types of parks. My wife has contact with state park leaders through a program that brings urban kids to a campout in Coe Park. I'll post if I hear anything interesting via that connection.

SeanReedy wrote:I have considered adding some minor peaks there to SP.

I know you are embarking on a thesis, but please do add some peak pages...and an area page too. I think the paucity of info for that area available on Summitpost is lamentable.

Bubba Suess wrote:

SeanReedy wrote:

Marmaduke wrote:I have considered adding some minor peaks there to SP.

I know you are embarking on a thesis, but please do add some peak pages...and an area page too. I think the paucity of info for that area available on Summitpost is lamentable.

Would you go into a little more detail to explain this post? And exactly where did "my" quote come from?

Marmaduke wrote:Would you go into a little more detail to explain this post? And exactly where did "my" quote come from?

See above.

Bubba Suess wrote:

Marmaduke wrote:Would you go into a little more detail to explain this post? And exactly where did "my" quote come from?

See above.

Marmaduke, if the confusion/curiousity was anything more than the quotation error, see the "What's New in CA thread" before your most recent post there. As far as Coe, last I checked (years ago) there was decent info. and a great map for mountain biking and trail hiking available on the web. However, there is not as much information about peakbagging as there could be, and there is not a great one stop spot for the area by SP standards.