Jean Ebbert and other riders tackle a trail at Saguaro National Park East, which also sees substantial use by hikers and cyclists. Park officials propose closing some trails, which they say are redundant or poorly designed.

Related articles:

Trail users irked by park plan

Other articles by Tim Ellis:

Surfing on the Wi-Fi wave Biz licenses, permit fees going up Sahuarita's wish: more spots to shop Sahuarita's wish: more shopping Senior homes could face legal action Making Sahuarita homes affordable Sahuarita's crime-fighting windfall Sahuarita councilman seeks to launch affordable-housing programCarroll: State, feds tie locals' hands on water Town wants role in water efforts

Dental
Apache Dental
Porcelain Techs Health Care
Carondelet Foothills Surgery
Pre-Op Nurse Retail
TOTAL WINE & MORE
WINE TEAM MEMBERS, CASHIER & STOCK MEMEBERS General
Prestige Maintenance USA
Area Manager General
GROUNDS CONTROL
LANDCAPE FOREMAN & LABORERS Technical
Yavapai College
Analyst Banner Programmer Health Care
Freedom Manor
Caregivers

Hikers, mountain bikers and especially equestrians are riled up over a proposal to close portions of some popular trails in Saguaro National Park East.

Each group of trail users has its own set of concerns about the closures proposed in the park's comprehensive trails plan. But all seem to agree on one point: It's foolish to reduce the number of trails in a park that's next door to a rapidly growing city.

"It bothers us that the park is wanting to reduce its trails, rather than take care of what they already have," said Nancy Osgood-West, a longtime park volunteer and equestrian. "It doesn't make any sense with a growing population. All of us are frustrated, to say the least."

Mark Flint, a member of the Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists, said every trail-user-group representative he's talked with has problems with the closures outlined in two plans presented by park officials earlier this month in three well-attended and reportedly contentious meetings.

"It's impossible to please everyone," said Flint, who has been working with park officials to develop the plan. "But I don't think you'll find anyone who supports these alternatives."

Sarah Craighead, park superintendent, said park officials want to close portions of trails that are poorly designed, unsafe, overused or duplicated by trails that go to the same destination.

The closures proposed in versions of the plan would result in a relatively small "net loss" of trails in the park, she said. Alternative A would close 4.1 miles of the park's 211-mile trail system, and Alternative B would close 6.7 miles.

"This plan doesn't change that mileage significantly," Craighead said, adding that it improves access to many of the trails with new trailheads and expanded parking areas.

She said the closures are necessary because the park has limited trail-maintenance funds. And officials are required to protect the park's natural resources while making it and its trails as accessible as possible, she added.

Bob Love, a park spokesman, said park officials want to focus on maintaining popular attractions, like the Douglas Springs Trail, while reducing spending on poorly designed or redundant trails.

"We have to look at what's really sustainable in terms of long-term maintenance and upkeep," he said. "It just doesn't make much sense to us to have trails that are, in some cases, within 50 feet of each other."

"Many of these trails were never designed — they started out as cattle trails or wildlife trails or whatnot."

Bonnie Slaten, another equestrian who's frustrated with the trails plan, said she's glad the plan proposes improved access and parking. And she agrees that some trails should be closed but disagrees on which ones, including several around the Cactus Forest.

And Slaten doesn't buy the budget-limitation rationale. The park could maintain the trails by returning to a previous policy of relying on volunteers to build and maintain trails, she said.

But park officials have alienated the 50-some volunteers from equestrian groups and other trail-user organizations, said Slaten, who contributed more than 6,000 hours of work at the park over the past 17 years.

"We used to be welcomed," she said, until last summer, "when it was announced that we'd all be on 'stand down.' That basically means, 'You're fired.' "

Twelve volunteers were reinstated last fall, she said.

Love said park officials appreciate volunteers' efforts.

But, he said, some trails — especially those in ecologically sensitive areas — require trained trail builders.

"As much as we do use volunteers, we can't expect them to manage all of our trails," Love said.

Opponents of the plan say the numbers are bogus because the plan includes washes as trails to offset the amount of trail that would be closed.

Slaten said many horse riders think that's dishonest.

"Those are places where we've been riding for years," said Slaten, a chairwoman of Saguaro Concerned Trail Users, which has drafted its own plan — "Alternative C."

Craighead said Friday she hadn't read the proposal, but she said it seems similar to the concept that park officials hope will ultimately be adopted — a combination of proposals made in alternatives A and B.

She agrees that including some washes as trails can be confusing, but it is intended to allow use of some washes that are popular among equestrians, hikers and runners while protecting some sensitive washes, which are important wildlife habitat.

Flint, the mountain biker, said he still believes a deal can be reached.

But he's puzzled by some of the proposals in the park's alternatives, which he said fail to grasp many issues of concern to trail users. Those include, importantly, "connectivity" — the concept of connecting trail systems in an area, including trails administered by different jurisdictions.

For that reason, Flint said he suspects the trails plan is being orchestrated by higher levels within the National Park Service.

"It really looks like with some of this, decisions were made outside of the local office," he said.

Slaten shares that belief.

"We need to make it clear to the park service that they can't manage this like they do the Grand Canyon," she said.

"The users of this park are not people who come to it once a lifetime. We go to Saguaro National Park four or five times a week. It's a park that's within 15 minutes of a million people."