Ranch public/private???

At the risk of blowing this thing wide open I’m presenting a hot topic on the central california coast… the Hollister Ranch is being eyed by the state and federal govt. as possibly being opened up to the public as a “national seashore” or “conservancy.” On Surfermag.com it was written up and seems to be a subject of much debate. I know this is a design forum so if Mike doesn’t think it belongs, yank it. I for one am supporting the concept (that’s all it is at this point) but opposed to development (parking lots, etc.) One group is suggesting a hike/bike only trail from Gaviota to Jalama as a first step…

I think it would be good if it were a conservancy or preserve. The trail thing sounds like a decent idea. But you’ve got to remember that you’re talking about the ownership of LAND, not the possession of waves. It’s an entirely different monster when you’re dealing officially with access to private property, as opposed to just having an underground force of “Local Police.” So still, opening the land doesn’t mean the surf spots would be free-for-all. The Peak Patrol would still be in force for some time. Think Lunada Bay. The door may be opened, but that won’t mean you’re welcome, at least for a while. If it opens, and crowds flock there, I think we’ll be hearing some pretty ugly stories of conflicts until the issue cools off. Ideally, however, opening it up may possibly help create a purge vent to relieve some populations in overcrowded spots. You’d obviously be opening up a nice chunk of surfable CA coastline, so other spots could possibly become less crowded, because more people that don’t have boats would travel to the Ranch, for instance, rather than traveling to Malibu. Maybe?

Leave the Ranch alone!!! Don’t get me started, please.

At the risk of blowing this thing wide open I’m presenting a hot topic on > the central california coast… the Hollister Ranch is being eyed by the > state and federal govt. as possibly being opened up to the public as a > “national seashore” or “conservancy.” On Surfermag.com > it was written up and seems to be a subject of much debate. I know this is > a design forum so if Mike doesn’t think it belongs, yank it. I for one am > supporting the concept (that’s all it is at this point) but opposed to > development (parking lots, etc.) One group is suggesting a hike/bike only > trail from Gaviota to Jalama as a first step… John and all, Yes, this is a hot topic worthy of discussion… and I can think of few who are better informed, or more passionately dedicated to dissecting and understanding this complex subject, than Mr. Bob Duncan, longtime Santa Barbara owner/operator of Wilderness Surfboards, still holding forth with 30+ years of interpreting George Greenoughs ideas into surfboard foam. He worked hard for, and currently owns ranch property, lives with his family and surfs there... it is his home. He is not a wealthy land baron, either. His situation reminds one of the Biblical David and Goliath... hes worth listening to, learning from, and whether you agree with him or not, admired for his steadfast courage. He can be reached by phone or email through his Wilderness Surfboards website. Dale

Leave the Ranch alone!!! Don’t get me > started, please. then I’ll start. I’ll start by saying that Texas isn’t perfect, but we’ve done some things right. In Texas, all shoreline is beach. Texas has an “open beaches” law and tradition of all-public beaches. The courts have enterpreted this law as including reasonable public beach access. Land owners must allow beach access. I really like the concept. The law would have to be changed to adapt to California’s rocky shoreline. California could public-ize all land within, say 200 yards (a barrier line) of the mean high water line. Now about confiscating somebody’s land behind the barrier line. The land owners bought that land because of its desireable location. The idea that the public should own that land because of its desireable location is… tyranny! Why is this land confiscation right? Supposedly, "It’s right because ‘the people’ want it’. B.S. If California wants that land, they should have bought it when it was for sale. If Californians could access the shoreline at the ranch, chances are that Californians would leave the land behind the shoreline to the landowners, like we do in Texas.

Fuck Texas. This ain’t Texas. Go away and leave us alone!!!

Don’t answer questions you know nothing about. Swaylock: end this thread, please. Your board is above this type of subject matter. It has potential to get ugly.

Don’t answer questions you know nothing about.>>> Swaylock: end this thread, please. Your board is above this type of > subject matter. It has potential to get ugly. wow…this really must be a HOT topic out there…i’m not usually one for censorship or killing threads, but this thread definitely “SWELL.COM” material. maybe the californians kind find a place to hash this out, out of public view. un-armed of course!

Fuck Texas. This ain’t Texas. Go away and leave us alone!!! Carlos…don,t get your panties in a wad…If the state made a hiking trail into the ranch I don,t think the ranch would be that much more crowed. Most guys would not walk a half mile with a board let alone all the way into the ranch. As an ex-californian who has walked in I’am telling you its a long hike. But, what do I think? Leave it alone. Guys who want to surf the ranch will find a way.

Dale, Do you have the URL for Wilderness Surfboards?

Dale,>>> Do you have the URL for Wilderness Surfboards? Ross, Bob Duncan`s URL is: www.wildernesssurfboards.com Once there, you will also find his email address and phone number. Dale