Their main goal is to reorient the species mix to meet their budget "needs". Has anyone ever once in the history of that department see an actual staff needs assessment ? Course not, especially as hunting as an activity has been declining year after year for almost a decade. You would think since there is less demand, less staff is needed....especially law enforcement staff which is the bulk of that agency. Check out their budget reports and note the huge hole. Gotta ask, what is the main mission - elk and deer farmers or biological diversity managers...clearly not the latter!

CPW will look everywhere else but inward as far as the deer "problem" goes. The main reason for this is their crony leadership structure run by cops, not biologists (go see for yourself) Their main goal is to sell hunting licenses, and manage high numbers of game animals, not biological diversity. They carefully control these studies to come to a conclusion that fits their mission. You also have to wonder why these decisions are left to the same people whose decades of past leadership led to this problem in the first place.

Toor, go away!! You had your time, now get lost.

huh, dropped from 2nd to 5th. Looks like Boulder Junction (the blight formerly known as Transit Village) is taking its toll.

You should continue to use Folsom. Dont be victimized by the experimenters.

As for safety, whenever more cars and bikes are mixed, more accidents and deaths will occur. Separated bike paths are the only real safe answer.

Yes !

Bikes should be on their own paths. Increasing usage on vehicle roads will only lead to higher numbers of injury and death. From the CDC:

" While only 1% of all trips taken in the U.S. are by bicycle, bicyclists face a higher risk of crash-related injury and deaths than occupants of motor vehicles do. In 2013 in the U.S., over 900 bicyclists were killed and there were an estimated 494,000 emergency department visits due to bicycle-related injuries. Data from 2010 show fatal and non-fatal crash-related injuries to bicyclists resulted in lifetime medical costs and productivity losses of $10 billion."

Furthermore, claiming we are "addicted" to cars is ridiculous. Using the term "addiction" to castigate others for the use of vehicle exposes your hysterically narcissistic view of the world. Because of this, you don't deserve the respect you as for. If you did, you would stick to facts instead of judging others. And the fact is, this experiment is not meeting the stated goals enough to compensate for the negative consequence of more traffic.

As if we all have the leisure time to quintuple our errand time or choose to inconvenience others because you like to ride your bike for fun. Likewise, a million extra pounds of carbon from idling cars (yes, a million - go calculate it) is directly opposite of one of the stated goals of the project - just so you can enjoy your bikeride on a sunny day which you could have done anyway because there already was a bike lane. Besides, Im willing to bet that you are in your car when the weather is bad, or at night, or when you dont have the time to ride, or when you want to go recreate in the mountains, or when you need to buy a ladder etc...etc...etc...

You want bike paths? Great ! Put them somewhere else than next to cars. Certainly not impossible, especially since that open space department has several hundred million dollars burning a hole in our pockets.

A million extra pound per year in carbon is not healthier. Mixing more bikes and cars only leads to more death. Again, not safer. But, keep those blinders on so you can feel good about yourself.

Are people delusional or what? Mixing higher numbers of cars and bikes is never, ever safer than less. Never.

Also, most of my long time biker pals all have some injury or close call story from riding. How is that healthy?

The only increase in safety comes from separated bike paths, not what happened on Folsom.

Dangerous yes, but not lethal-that was due to overreaction against a naked man on drugs. A naked man with a hammer not near anyone isnt really a huge threat. PS LSD-really? If not proven, then its anecdotal and should be noted as such.