Start with a dirt trail

As Carin Baker noted in last week's Nugget, building the proposed "paved trail" (which sounds more like a road to me) would be a terribly unwise thing to do to the forest, and I concur. Also there is the concern that beginning the project with a wide paved surface is itself impractical and wasteful. My feeling is that if some people really want a trail there, then start small, like a three-foot-wide dirt track. I might support that. Then, if, after two years or so, the trail proves to be popular, then widen it to four or five feet with a nice surface of bark dust or pea gravel.

If after another two years, it becomes obvious that the trail is being used a lot, then, and only then would there be an argument for paving it. In another words, the common sense approach would be to start small, and demonstrate a need for improvement. Historically, this is the process almost every road you drive on has gone through.

Otherwise, it evokes the analogy of the young couple in their twenties who think they need a McMansion for their first house, or the 16-year-old who wants a brand-new SUV for his/her first vehicle (with their parents' money). If there is no demonstrated use for this trail, which we would only be able to assess years after there is a simple dirt track there, then paving it all at once in the beginning could be a boondoggle, like the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. Fortunately in that case people came to their senses before millions of dollars were wasted.

The latter is an example of a bureaucratic/egocentric idea (like back-in parking) where there is no real need, no demand, just someone's bright idea.

As I said, the only way to practically demonstrate a demand is to put a simple dirt trail there and see how much use it gets. Then you would have an argument to improve it.

Another issue is that most people I know who hike (or ride mountain bikes) in the forest would prefer to stay away from pavement.

The only paved trails I know of in rural areas are the ones in state, county or National Parks that go from a parking lot to a scenic attraction, hardly ever more than a half-mile long.

The primary reason they're paved is because they get so much use they had to be upgraded.

Of course there are many paved trails in urban areas, like on campuses, institutions and parks, but please, our forest is not a theme park and this is not Central Park West or Golden Gate Park North.

From my viewpoint, public land - and especially National Forests - are treasures to tread lightly upon and leave no trace.

Unfragmented forests are becoming increasingly rare.

Finally, there is the idea of solitude in the forest vs. walking near someone's property. Like many other long-time Sisters residents, I have spent hours every week for over 20 years walking in the forest, and on trails all around Sisters Country. Walking near someone's property is sometimes necessary for short distances, but in general it is something I avoid if possible. For that reason I would probably never walk or ride on that proposed trail/road. What with barking dogs, people who like their privacy, etc. it is a relief to get way out into the woods where I won't be making any property owner/renter uneasy for whatever reason.

Think about it. Do you really want to walk or ride on a trail where you know some people don't want you to be there? I mean, come on, we have tens of thousands of acres of national forest, just across the road to the south and farther to the west. Why would any local person want to create antagonism and bad feeling along with their walk or ride in the woods? Doesn't make sense. I think the Forest Service made the right decision by withdrawing their support for this project. Let it be.