• Griffith Park is an urban nature preserve with popular winding trails that appeal to hikers.
• But two new fences blocking the shortcut sparked heated meetings and a petition to have them removed.
• The fence was meant to be a security measure and protect habitat, but one of the patrons labeled it “obscene.”
Pete Teti, who is almost 101 years old, left me a message on the phone a few weeks ago. I could tell from his tone that he was annoyed about something.
I contacted him and he invited me to go out one morning and hike some of his favorite trails in Griffith Park. He wanted to show me where the city had installed two huge fences, ostensibly to protect habitat and keep hikers from straying from the main trail. But Teti didn’t like how the urban nature reserve was turning into a construction site.
Like many regulars, Teti doesn’t have a warm relationship with Griffith Park. He loves it and loves to see others do it as well. A morning walk with him is as much a journey around the world as it is a celebration of Los Angeles. He is like an ambassador for the park, greeting locals and tourists of all ages and ethnicities.
California is about to experience a wave of aging, and Steve Lopez is riding the wave. His column focuses on the benefits and burdens of aging and how some people are challenging the prejudices against older people.
Just before Thanksgiving, I met Teti and two of his friends, a retiree named Tom McGovern and a former LA Times illustrator and artist named Ramses. We started at the Charlie Turner Trailhead near the Griffith Observatory and followed the Mount Hollywood Trail a few hundred yards until we encountered the first of two fences.
The barrier, about 8 feet tall and perhaps 100 feet long, has long been used as a shortcut to the summit of Mount Hollywood, designated the Tom LaBonge Panorama, named after the longtime Los Angeles City Council member. access was blocked. The person who defended the park.
One sign posted on the fence read, “Trail closed for safety and future habitat restoration.”
So here’s my question. If you’re going to put up a fence to keep people out, why leave a gate open so people can march up a steep, rocky slope? Another question about fences: If people can’t get to the edge? How can I prevent them from walking or circumventing the fence?
Daily hikers Pete Teti (left) and Tom McGovern are among those outraged by the fences erected along the hiking trails in Griffith Park.
(Myung Jeong Chun/Los Angeles Times)
The four of us were confused. Teti says there are dangers everywhere, in cities and parks. Will the level of risk be higher here, and in terms of habitat protection, will hikers create new shortcuts and cause damage to other locations?
After Teti finished chatting with a few dozen triathletes on her morning run, we continued up the trail to a second fence blocking access to another shortcut trail. Like the fence below, the only good thing I can say about this is that it doesn’t have razor wire over the top. It is 60 meters long and has warning signs including fines of up to $1,000 for trespassing and loitering.
I told the crew that I would try to get briefed on the fence and find out how much it would cost. Meanwhile, as of a few days ago, more than 250 people had signed a petition calling for the fence to be removed. The petition praised the goals of habitat protection and risk reduction, but questioned the need for the fence, saying it was ugly and ineffective.
“This fence is a real eyesore!” said one post.
“Yes, hikers get hurt,” said another. “But fences are not the solution!”
“We can’t just close the sidewalk and expect the habitat to recover on its own without further intervention,” said another, questioning the city’s long-term commitment.
A Los Angeles Recreation and Parks spokesperson told me the lower fence gate would soon be locked (it was locked Friday morning). I’m still waiting for statistics on rescues on these trails, but I do know the cost of the two fences.
Two fences along hiking trails in Griffith Park are for safety measures and habitat protection.
(Myung Jeong-cheon/Los Angeles Times)
The bill came to $45,589.
The arguments for and against the fence took shape Thursday night at a Griffith Park Advisory Committee meeting.
“No one likes fences, but fences are temporary,” said Sgt. Sean Kleckner, park ranger. “And at some point the fence will come down. …But it probably won’t last for a while.”
Kleckner said installing the fence was the right decision based on safety and habitat considerations. (Park ecologist Courtney McCammon said native plants such as sagebrush, buckwheat, brickelbush, deergrass and sage shrubs will be planted to restore the area.)
Kleckner said the slopes in question pose a wildfire risk, adding that 12 to 20 lost or injured hikers have been rescued each year in recent years. He said these rescue teams are assisting Stress Rangers and the Los Angeles Fire Department, which sometimes sends helicopters.
One of the speakers said he had witnessed people getting injured on the trail and helped with the rescue efforts. He praised the installation of the fence, but the majority of speakers opposed it.
How much does two fences cost in Griffith Park? $45,589.
(Myung Jeong-cheon/Los Angeles Times)
Yasmin Ross checked with the LAFD and said by her calculations, the majority of park rescues over the past three years did not take place near the new fence.
Justin Zurasa said signs should have been better than fencing, or that the trail in question should have been improved to make it safer.
Teti’s friend McGovern called the fence “obscene” and questioned its necessity. “The number of incidents that have occurred is very small considering the thousands of people who come to the park every year.”
Teti, who also raised his hand to speak, informed the board that he has hiked at Griffith Park every day for 22 years and recently turned 101 years old. After the applause died down, he said he was the only one he had seen during that time. One person falls down. If people want to try a steeper hill, “I know I need to be careful, and that’s usually the case.”
Added Teti, who doesn’t mind hiking several miles on a morning trek across the hilly terrain. “Some people like something a little more challenging, like me. I don’t want that taken away from me.”
Jerry Hance, president of the Friends of Griffith Park, attended the meeting and I later confirmed his views on the fence.
One Griffith Park patron said: “Considering the thousands of people who come to the park every year, the number of incidents that have occurred is very small.”
(Myung Jeong-cheon/Los Angeles Times)
“I knew I had to do something,” Hans said. He witnessed rescues, witnessed habitat destruction, and believes that with 53 miles of main trails, shortcuts should be avoided.
But he added that a “high shiny fence” should have been a “last resort”. He would have liked to start with signage that “respects nature and habitat in parks and urban areas and promotes peer pressure to do the right thing.” He brought such a sign to the meeting, on which it was written: For your safety and to protect habitat, please stay on designated trails. ”
By the way, it was green.
Not chain link gray.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Source link
