City of San Jose's Foresight In Management of San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail

I have been craving nature lately, something that is an annual malady for me.  You see, in November according to Daylight Savings Time changes and the shortness of the days, it is no longer feasible for us to continue hiking in the late afternoon – it’s just not safe in the dark.  This continues until Mid-February, when finally time and light are on our side again.  Driving to and from work, I long to embrace the big trees I see, crunch leaves, look for gall balls, and touch the soft new growth of a bud, new leaves, or moss.  I get giddy just thinking about it – that’s how much of a nature nut, I am.  (And just for perspective, I also get giddy thinking about my husband, seeing my kids after a business trip, and seeing Duran Duran.)

As many of us do when we are eager for something, I’ve been planning.  Where will I go?  What will I do?  I was talking to my friend, Carrie, about venturing out to Henry Coe for some grassy hill exposure and Portola Redwoods for some misty green calm.  I was saddened to hear that both had made the list for parks to be closed in the height of summer this year, due to budget problems.  That list is crazy long.  70 of 278 parks long.  (And that’s just state park closures.)  You can see the list here: http://parks.ca.gov/pages/712/files/2011ParkClosures_attachments20110513.pdf , but it is sure to be revised, some for good, and some for bad.  Happily, I have recently learned that a private donation is keeping Henry Coe off this list, so at least part of it will be open for use.

The idea is that since different agencies cannot fund rangers or other staff members to man kiosks, patrol the open spaces, and maintain facilities, the parks will be closed.  There will be signs up asking people not to use them.  There will inevitably be more hazards if they are used, like with trash, inhabitants, and mistreated trails.  And with all of that, there will be an unwritten warning not to use the parks – due to anxiety about what could happen, and not being able to get help.

Stroller Hikes was founded in 2006 precisely to address the anxiety of hiking alone with infants.  I took to the trail hundreds of times in that first year, trying to catalogue trails at StrollerHikes.com to reduce anxiety, and make such an experience safer through information.  Since that first year, hundreds of you have helped in that endeavor, as well.  We’ve hiked in well-populated parks like Rancho San Antonio, as well as relatively vacant spaces with no ranger presence.  I’ve spoken with a ranger only a handful of times in all of these years, and seen a ranger only once for every 20 hikes or so.

So does the idea of closing a park or open space really make sense?  Particularly in this age of technology and heightened communication, where we can efficiently police ourselves and a trail, to tell the world what we’ve seen and experienced, and ask for help?  Melanie sent me a link to a great article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/sports/as-climbers-go-text-it-on-the-mountain-reaction-is-divided.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) about social media’s positive and negative influences on our perception of things that are not inherently social, or at least not so publicly social as they are made through Twitter or Facebook.  It was a great reminder of how “Wait, I have to grab my camera!” or “Wait, I have to buy my pass and fill out my wildlands use paperwork” might feel necessary in one instant, but can ultimately detract from an experience, while “Wait, let me check the weather and look for warnings” can be a life-saver for an outdoor event.  But with so much information at our fingertips, do we really need a regular on-site presence at a park?

Parks certainly are not open to make money, although some income is generated when a park charges for parking or asks for a use fee.  Even more income is generated through scare tactics about having receipts for paying or being towed or fined, even when no ranger is in attendance (subtract the fee to keep the ranger in attendance, and my statement makes even more sense).  But money should be far from the mind of land users, when it comes to parks, I think.  At the forefront should be increasing access to the public, through physical trails, safety, and education about opportunities (like people to hike with or learning about the natural area).  To me that means, ranger or not, I’ll be heading to trailheads for some fun, inviting others to join in, and being sure to voice any safety hazards I find at that space – over the phone, through e-mail, or on Facebook (and I’ve done this already, by the way).  Maybe the parks organizations need to embrace this sort of change – welcoming citizens to use their open spaces, and setting up ways for them to volunteer to police the areas, communicate problems, and celebrate the beauty of parks, while also promoting group use that removes the anxiety imposed by a “Closed” sign or empty kiosk.  Stroller Hikes’ partnership with Santa Clara County has enabled this in several places – several Stroller Hikes leaders are also Santa Clara County Parks docents, and support their wonderful Healthy Trails program.

Melissa and I will be writing to local agencies this next two weeks to remind them that Stroller Hikes is a large presence in the Bay Area, all about responsible, healthy use of its outdoor resources for fitness, education, and entertainment, and by providing outdoor information, advice for parents, and events, we are ambassadors of responsible park use and healthy perceptions about exercise and the outdoors.  I’m hoping we can tempt the local agencies to change their tone about what hangs on a sign when no ranger is present… because if a park sits neglected and unused for recreation, what next land management use is in line for it, and what will our kids begin to think about nature?  Hopefully that it is more than the park down the street or the grass in their backyards.  (Because it is oh so much more.)

Debbie (President and Founder), Max, and Holly