Middlesex Fells - Big changes proposed by Mass DCR

[Amicus]

While the Mass DCR's Middlesex Fells Reservation, which comprises 2600 acres in Medford, Malden, Melrose, Winchester and Stoneham, is less well-known than the Blue Hills, it provides comparable opportunities for hikers in eastern Mass. and is more convenient for those of us who live north of Boston.

Its urban location has led to conflicts among different user-groups. Many hikers, represented in particular by the Friends of the Fells, which maintains trails and publishes an excellent map, think the mountain-bikers are out of control and degrading the environment, while the bikers, represented by NEMBA, feel they are being unjustly maligned and unduly restricted in the trails they can bike. Both groups resent irresponsible dog-owners who ignore the leash requirement that now applies to the entire Reservation, while the dog-owners resent the absence of at least a few leash-free trails or areas. Nearly everyone is irked by the open lewdness that has long affected one particular area, near the Sheepfold.

The DCR has refereed the squabbling and recently published this Draft Fells Trail Plan, which would make some significant changes. If you read all 50 pages, you will learn a lot about the Fells. The recommended changes, however, don't start until p. 39. Highlights include the closing of some trails and the opening of others that have been hiking-only to bikes. Also, the Sheepfold would be made leash-free on a trial basis, at least at certain times.

A chart at p. 20 of the Draft Report shows that NEMBA did a better job organizing the bikers than Friends and other groups did with hikers, as by far the largest number of comments that led to the Draft Report's recommendations came from bikers. Friends thinks that has skewed those recommendations, and is attempting to rally comments from those who oppose the expansion of biking in the Fells, and certain other aspects of the recommendations. This dominates the front page of the Friends' website. I quote just the headline from their "Friends Alert!":

DCR planning to convert the Fells Reservation into a mountain bike park.
Please help stop this plan.
Don’t let the nature of the Fells be lost!

I would say there is an element of hyperbole in that, but users of the Fells should judge for themselves. As they note, the deadline for comments on the Draft Plan is November 19.

 

[griffin]

I would say there is an element of hyperbole in that, but users of the Fells should judge for themselves. As they note, the deadline for comments on the Draft Plan is November 19.

Gee, you think?

I would definitely advise skipping the FoF site and going directly to the plan itself. I'm actually not keen on some of the proposed changes, either (I fear some of them may increase the potential for user conflict rather than defuse it) but I don't think hyperbole and distortion are particularly helpful.

 

[SteveHiker]

Nearly everyone is irked by the open lewdness that has long affected one particular area, near the Sheepfold.
...
Also, the Sheepfold would be made leash-free on a trial basis, at least at certain times.

Will that increase or decrease the lewdness?

 

[Bill and Sheep]

Given the potential for a lot of really bad decisions, I'm impressed with the balance in the actual proposal. I had fear that they would give in only to the desires of FoF and make decisions that would limit access to both mountain bikers and dog owners.

I've always found that hiking in the Fells is an enjoyable time and the various groups tend to coexist quite nicely. I've never encountered any rude mountain bikers and have never had any issues with dogs (I am one of the outlaw off-leash dog people and intend to stay that way).

For the most part I think the Fells are a fine example of a community of people who appreciate and take care of the resource we have been given. I'm not sure we need many more regulations but I'm glad to see that most of the proposals are reasonable for all involved.

 

[erugs]

Interesting report on a valuable urban area. I grew up in Malden, not far from there, and my brother and his family live in an abutting neighborhood. Rules and regulations are a necessary evil. One idea the report poses is that of possibly limiting types of usages to different days jumped out to my eyes when skimming the report. I'm guessing that would be something like horses one day, mountain bikers another? This will be interesting to follow.

 

[griffin]

Will that increase or decrease the lewdness?

Considering that the Sheepfold is a de facto off-leash area now, I doubt it would make a difference - unless the off-leash area (or perhaps a few new bike trails/obstacles) were moved to that specific corner. Which is probably not a bad way to deal with said "lewdness."

I'm with Bill on this, though. I feel like the actual users do a better job of sharing the resource than the squabbling by the established groups. These days my usage is mostly limited to (very) early on weekday mornings, so maybe my experience isn't representative, but the bikers, runners, dog owners and occasional sunrise-prayer groups seem to coexist just fine.

 

[erugs]

I feel like the actual users do a better job of sharing the resource than the squabbling by the established groups.

Seems true. BTW, the report misspelled bouldering as boldering. Maybe those who boulder need to be bolder?

 

[Amicus]

Nearly everyone is irked by the open lewdness that has long affected one particular area, near the Sheepfold.
...
Also, the Sheepfold would be made leash-free on a trial basis, at least at certain times.

Will that increase or decrease the lewdness?

I wondered the same thing! The Draft Report doesn't connect the one thing with the other, and since the leash rule is already largely disregarded in that area in particular, I think lewdness won't notice the difference.

As to the leash rule, my own experience colors my attitude, as the Fells is one of the two locations where I have been bitten by a dog in my adult life, a couple of years ago on a Trail not very near the Sheepfold, by a large, off-leash dog that had clearly not been trained properly by its owner. I would not have been displeased to see him prosecuted for violation of the leash rule.

 

[audrey]

I agree with Griffin and Bill & Sheep.
Consider what happened here in Lexington: A few dog haters were able to convince the Conservation Commission that Willard Woods was being overrun by mean messy dogs and their owners when in fact several independent reporters found nothing of the sort.
Now the rule is on-leash on weekends and there's nobody there. It hurts those who work all week and have to find somewhere else for their pups to have a good run.
The "Friends" would really like to have the Fells all to themselves.

 

[Amicus]

The "Friends" would really like to have the Fells all to themselves.

I'm not active in the Friends, although I bought and have much enjoyed their Trail Map, and the newsletter I got from them for a while after that had much useful information and also testified to the trailwork a lot of their members put in. From their website Alert, their beef is not with the dog-owners but with the bikers. At least, none of their specific complaints relate to the dog regulations.

I am not a dog-hater but I do hate being bitten by them. I was bitten by an off-leash dog in the Fells in violation of the leash rule, so I will never be able to muster any enthusiasm for general elimination of the rule. If they are permitted on certain trails and areas and I am feeling dog-averse, I can avoid those trails and areas.

 

[griffin]

From their website Alert, their beef is not with the dog-owners but with the bikers. At least, none of their specific complaints relate to the dog regulations.

True - at the moment. They have focused their attentions on dog owners (in general, leash-using or not) in the past. I do appreciate their maps, and their trail work. I also appreciate the trail work that NEMBA has done, and I've been told that the Friends have actively opposed some of those efforts.

Back to the Fells itself, one of the things I really want to look at is the plan to eliminate some of the minor trails. I get the idea, and in some places, they can be a spider-webby mess. But in others I find they're useful for creating loop hikes as well as other users (I don't mind bikers, but my dog has other ideas).

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

While the Mass DCR's Middlesex Fells Reservation, which comprises 2600 acres in Medford, Malden, Melrose, Winchester and Stoneham, is less well-known than the Blue Hills, it provides comparable opportunities for hikers in eastern Mass. and is more convenient for those of us who live north of Boston.

Also very convenient for those who have to rely on public transport as I did for some time. Orange Line to East Fells, Bus 100 (IIRC) to the western side.

 

[McRat]

Friends of the Fells and NEMBA are both decent groups of people who are at cross purposes over differences of opinion on trail use.

The website www.fellsbiker.com, in a manner not entirely unfamiliar to people here, posted some fairly decent trailmaps of the Fells online for cyclists, and provided a forum for those who would want greater access to trails.

Friends of the Fells noticed increased use and erosion issues which they attributed to mountain bikers. They maintained that bikes belonged only on the designated Mountain biking trail. Enforcement of this was minimal at best.

This document does seem to show a balanced approach that may upset and please both camps. Though I do not mountain bike, several of the trails which will be declared 'off limits' and enforced by rangers include sections of trail I would pay money NOT to have to ride a bike over. At the same time, I can imagine the Reservoir loop being a pleasant off-road ride.

I say, as usual - hike your own hike, ride your own ride, and _____ your own ______ - just leave the Fells in as good or better shape than you found it for the next person.

Speaking of which...

As for Steve's question regarding lewdness - this is loosely addressed in the section on closing the 'Spider Web of trails near Dark Hollow Pond', a collection of herd paths traditionally serving the hopeless romantics of our communities. The prospect of charging a fee at the Sheepfold lot may effectively migrate them to the parking by Bear Hill, increasing the herd path networks north of there.

Planting lush vegetation near the herd path entries could disperse the sexually- and navigationally-challenged throughout the park; while providing bushwhacking lovers a greater expectation of privacy and therefore lower legal risk.

It's difficult to guess how this will play out, but I'll bet some geocachers and orienteering meets will get to see more wildlife than they expected.

 

[TCD]

I guess lewdness should be expected when leashes, sheep, and the Dark Hollow are involved...

Seriously, this is a classic example of a bunch of user groups where at least some of them want an area to be "all mine." Happens all the time; sadly, it seems to be human nature. There does not seem to be any difference between hikers, bikers, climbers, boaters, rich private land owners, and mining companies.

This is why we have governments; in theory, government can bring the parties together and forge a utilitarian agreement. But even when that's done, you often have one or more groups still trying to "grab" more than their share, and again, that goes for all. Too bad.

 

[griffin]

Quick update:

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/melrose/2011/01/new_dog-walking_biking_rules_a.html

"Dogs off-leash are now allowed at the Sheepfold, and mountain bikers are barred from using the park during the "mud season" in the month of March or when conditions worsen, but they will be allowed to traverse trails during the winter. Enforcement efforts will be ramped up as well, including stricter adherence to the ban on off-trail use without a permit."

You can read the letter here:

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/news/public...rails/midfellscommissionersletter2011-jan.pdf

 

[audrey]

However, they will "enforce" the leashing of dogs in other Fells areas, though I wonder where their policing budget will come from.

NEMBA is very unhappy and we're going to hear much more...

http://www.gbnemba.org/entry/statement-on-dcrs-decision-to-do-an-rmp-for-the-fells

 

[averagejoe]

Hey all,

This issue hits close for me. As a Mountain Biker, Hiker, Climber I have to say. These are not big changes. This is the same old song and dance the MDC/DCR and a small group of users have been dancing to for 20+ years.

I find it interesting that about 2500 comments were made by over 2000 individuals. Of those, over 2000 comments were made in favor of increased Mountain Bike opportunities.

My going rock climbing & exploring the large areas where there are no trails. The bird watcher going to that secret spot in the pond. These are both "off-trail" uses, but are they really wrong or damaging to the ecosystem. Like a boot, a bike tire can cause damage to any trail when mis-used. I try not to scuff/drag my feet or lose my footing on a steep trail, for the same reason I try to never lock up my bikes brakes. They both cause terrible damage to the trails

For the record, when I ride, I ride by the rules that are in place. Not because I agree with them but so I have some credibility when I make inflammatory statements. Though I will try not to make any of those here. I will tell anyone, I don't know any Mountain Bikers who ride "off-trail". Like falling down skiing and going into the woods, or slipping hiking a steep trail, sometimes you get deflected off a rock and go into the woods. All you get is sticks and leafs stuck in your bike parts, then things break, and thats bad.

Like Hiking & Climbing, Mountain Biking gets you to places and lets you see things you wouldn't see otherwise.

So whats the real issue here. When we all pay the same taxes, who deserves greater access to our parks trail systems.

Joe.

 

[Becca M]

Hey all,

This issue hits close for me. As a Mountain Biker, Hiker, Climber I have to say. These are not big changes. This is the same old song and dance the MDC/DCR and a small group of users have been dancing to for 20+ years.

...

My going rock climbing & exploring the large areas where there are no trails. The bird watcher going to that secret spot in the pond. These are both "off-trail" uses, but are they really wrong or damaging to the ecosystem. Like a boot, a bike tire can cause damage to any trail when mis-used. I try not to scuff/drag my feet or lose my footing on a steep trail, for the same reason I try to never lock up my bikes brakes. They both cause terrible damage to the trails

For the record, when I ride, I ride by the rules that are in place. Not because I agree with them but so I have some credibility when I make inflammatory statements. Though I will try not to make any of those here. I will tell anyone, I don't know any Mountain Bikers who ride "off-trail". Like falling down skiing and going into the woods, or slipping hiking a steep trail, sometimes you get deflected off a rock and go into the woods. All you get is sticks and leafs stuck in your bike parts, then things break, and thats bad.

Like Hiking & Climbing, Mountain Biking gets you to places and lets you see things you wouldn't see otherwise.

So whats the real issue here. When we all pay the same taxes, who deserves greater access to our parks trail systems.

Joe.

Good points!!! "off-trail" - do they mean some kind of bushwhacking with a mtn bike???? I'd LOVE To see that!!! Trail maintenance (blowdown removal, for example) is even more critical if you want to mountain bike somewhere. When I visited a year or so ago (hiking), I think there were a lot of signs restricting mountain bikes from certain trails. BUT APPARENTLY shady characters are allowed to roam wild!!! !!!!

(I'm a NEMBA member).

 

[griffin]

I'm not a NEMBA member, or a mountain biker - and my dog hates bikes, so I try to avoid popular bike trails (legal and otherwise) when we're in the Fells.

But I agree the the bike community got shafted. It makes sense to me to keep some trails off-limits, for safety reasons, to reduce user conflicts and/or provide opportunities for a quieter experience in some areas. However, not budging at all on opening trails seems unreasonable and unfair to me.

(and if we're thinking of the same "shady characters" - it's less about "allowing" wild roaming than not having resources to discourage it. Or, not realizing that they DO have the resources: increasing non-shady activities in those areas - say, allowing mountain biking in the Dark Hollow area - would definitely put a damper on the wild roaming)

 

[brianW]

As a hiker and mt biker I never understood the negativity bikes get on the trail. Trail ethics according to IMBA is for bikes to yield to both hikers and equestrians and stay off the trails when wet/muddy.

Are there places were bikes shouldn't be? Yes, but many places that they are not allowed is not for environmental reasons. An example of this would be the Smokies, horses are allowed, and cause a lot of trail damage, but bikes are not. I have read that bikes have the same impact as hikers. (sorry forgot the source, but it was from a hiking site)

I live in the Augusta, GA area now and the local mt bike club sorba-csra maintains over 150 miles of trails. Half of these trails would of disappeared if it was not for mt bikers. About 50 miles were built with mt bikers in mind and are now being used by both hikers and trail runners.

Remember there are a$$%^&8s is every group. Education is the key to change that.