paging JAMR, park usage question.

[guero]

adam,

since you are pretty much the person on this message board whom is most involved in the aliso/lcwp/el moro parks program (and i believe you work for them) i was wondering if you or the county had an estimate on park users, on a per park basis.

from my observations of riding all 3 parks, it seems that mt. bikers seem to make up a majority of the trail users. have the rangers or parks done a study to get some type of grasp of what user group frequents the parks most often? by user groups i'm referring to:

a) hikers b) mt. bikers c) equestrians

im curious to see the numbers (if they exist). i keep hearing that we as mt. bikers are "privileged" to be riding there, and these parks aren't mt. bike parks (i know they are multi-use). at the collection boxes, when people pay the parking fee, do they tally who is there mt. biking or hiking? or how about on the sign in sheets?

im NOT trying to open any cans of worms, im trying to get a feel of what goes on in the parks, and maybe we can all learn something with your response to my questions.

thanks.

[Chopper]

Originally Posted by guero

adam,

since you are pretty much the person on this message board whom is most involved in the aliso/lcwp/el moro parks program (and i believe you work for them) i was wondering if you or the county had an estimate on park users, on a per park basis.

from my observations of riding all 3 parks, it seems that mt. bikers seem to make up a majority of the trail users. have the rangers or parks done a study to get some type of grasp of what user group frequents the parks most often? by user groups i'm referring to:

a) hikers b) mt. bikers c) equestrians

im curious to see the numbers (if they exist). i keep hearing that we as mt. bikers are "privileged" to be riding there, and these parks aren't mt. bike parks (i know they are multi-use). at the collection boxes, when people pay the parking fee, do they tally who is there mt. biking or hiking? or how about on the sign in sheets?

im NOT trying to open any cans of worms, im trying to get a feel of what goes on in the parks, and maybe we can all learn something with your response to my questions.

thanks.

Just for clarification, when I said that our use of the park trails was a privilige and not a right, I was speaking of all users, not just mountain bikers. To expand on that, the main focus of all those parks is preservation of the habitat. Once the habitat starts be too heavily impacted by human access, then land management has to be stepped up which could include closure of trails, limited access (as they do in some areas) or even temporary closure of parks. The parks you mention are not recreation parks and they are heavily governed by federal regulations pertaining to habitat preservation. As an example of this, the last time SHARE built a new trail in a state park, it took over a year to get all the permits and approvals in order before the work could begin.
I'm sure JamR will explain that more clearly but I wanted it known that I was not just referring to mountain bikers.
BTW - Crystal Cove does count users, but does not break them down into user groups. I don't know about the other parks.

[JamR]

Each area does do some sort of monitoring and tracking, but to what extent I don't know. But each area that is signatory to the NCCP (Natural Communities Conservation Plan) does submit reports to the agencies which include recreation monitoring and impacts.

It's a little easier in the areas I work because with access being led through Docent tours and on monthly access days; we have a precise count of the public participants in the programs by user group; and we also have a fairly accurate indication of non-authorized access through several methods (which also gives a fairly reliable number of the different uses).

When I state that the area is not a bike park, it's not in relation to the number of respective user groups. Just because a specific park may have bikers outnumbering hikers 5 to 1 for example, does not make it a bike park......and likewise, just because a specific park may have more equestrian use, it does not become an equestrian center.

They are considered wilderness parks and have been set aside through various processes....purchases, set aside as mitigation for development, etc... Being set aside like this makes them protected areas that cannot be developed, and the primary purpose is habitat protection that does allow for passive recreation as long as the recreation is not overly detrimental to the habitat being protected.

I know there seems to be a lot of cynicism on some of these areas being set aside because of development, but IMO I could really care less how they came to be. The important part for me is that they are indeed protected and cannot be developed. And even though the South Coast Wilderness area as we know it seems to be just a pocket of space surrounded by development, it's still a viable wilderness habitat for a ton of flora and fauna, and is currently close to 20,000 acres. Even the Google map aerials verify this. Do an aerial search and start from El Moro, then follow the coastline north. It's the first piece of open space south of Malibu.

So basically the area is very important biologically, very important since it has been set aside in perpetuity to be protected, and we enjoy the privilege of using it for our recreations, but simply need to use it wisely....otherwise use could be reduced.

[Flat Broke]

The part of this whole, "protected habitat" issue that gets me is that the government will stop development for a freaking mouse (halted building in Lake Elsinore for a long time). But they never seem to understand that PEOPLE need natural habitats to retreat to as well.

I don't want to get into the whole save it for the future vs use it for the now debate as that's not what I'm saying. What I am curious about is how much consideration the need for humans to have open spaces to play in and enjoy is given when land managers, the government etc. make decisions about protected areas. It seems to me, that perhaps we as people should ask for open spaces for our own recreational uses IN ADDITION to the open spaces for habitat preservation. People aren't meant to live in little cubes for 10 hours a day, stay confined in their vehicle for another 2-3 hours, only to get home to their domicile which occupies 90% of their lot's square footage. We need room to breath, a place to decompress, and a place to go and be "wild". All of the, "that's an illegal trail", "that trail's too dangerous so it needs to be groomed", can't ride here, ride slow there, etc. just quells much of the spirit of the sport. I'm not saying it's right or wrong in terms of long term preservation for riding spaces, just saying that it could be better.

Something land managers should look into are the similar problems most cities have faced with regards to urban riding. There is a strong parallel with the current illegal/legal trail issue in So OC. I grew up in the South Bay, and asside from the fun zone up in PV (now covered in homes), there weren't many natural places to ride. Because of this we rode a lot of urban structures that would be considered, "illegal" becauase of them being private property, or posted "no this or that". Today, there are a couple of decent skate parks in the area, and judging by the lack of tiremarks on familliar lips and wall rides, and wax on many of the better grinds in the area, I'd say that the kids are using the the skateparks instead poaching illegal stuff. The city stepped up and set asside areas for people to exercise their desires for excitement and challenge on something more agro than a bike path. There are similar stories in most metropolitan areas, some are world famous like the banks in Oregon, others may just be small skate park adjacent to a school to keep kids from grinding lunch benches etc. The bottom line is that if you give people a readily accesible legal alternative to satisfy their adrenaline pumping desires, they are much less likely to continue using illegal areas.

[JamR]

Originally Posted by Flat Broke

The part of this whole, "protected habitat" issue that gets me is that the government will stop development for a freaking mouse (halted building in Lake Elsinore for a long time). But they never seem to understand that PEOPLE need natural habitats to retreat to as well.

I don't want to get into the whole save it for the future vs use it for the now debate as that's not what I'm saying. What I am curious about is how much consideration the need for humans to have open spaces to play in and enjoy is given when land managers, the government etc. make decisions about protected areas. It seems to me, that perhaps we as people should ask for open spaces for our own recreational uses IN ADDITION to the open spaces for habitat preservation. People aren't meant to live in little cubes for 10 hours a day, stay confined in their vehicle for another 2-3 hours, only to get home to their domicile which occupies 90% of their lot's square footage. We need room to breath, a place to decompress, and a place to go and be "wild". All of the, "that's an illegal trail", "that trail's too dangerous so it needs to be groomed", can't ride here, ride slow there, etc. just quells much of the spirit of the sport. I'm not saying it's right or wrong in terms of long term preservation for riding spaces, just saying that it could be better.

Something land managers should look into are the similar problems most cities have faced with regards to urban riding. There is a strong parallel with the current illegal/legal trail issue in So OC. I grew up in the South Bay, and asside from the fun zone up in PV (now covered in homes), there weren't many natural places to ride. Because of this we rode a lot of urban structures that would be considered, "illegal" becauase of them being private property, or posted "no this or that". Today, there are a couple of decent skate parks in the area, and judging by the lack of tiremarks on familliar lips and wall rides, and wax on many of the better grinds in the area, I'd say that the kids are using the the skateparks instead poaching illegal stuff. The city stepped up and set asside areas for people to exercise their desires for excitement and challenge on something more agro than a bike path. There are similar stories in most metropolitan areas, some are world famous like the banks in Oregon, others may just be small skate park adjacent to a school to keep kids from grinding lunch benches etc. The bottom line is that if you give people a readily accesible legal alternative to satisfy their adrenaline pumping desires, they are much less likely to continue using illegal areas.

I do understand your points, but the issue that seems to be the hot topic in the South Coast Wilderness is when is enough...enough. There's approximately 20,000 acres and somewhere around 59 trail segments making up close to 80 miles of trails. So when does this all cross the line between at least somewhat of a habitat protected area or just becoming a recreation area.

There are a ton of trails down here and there are plenty of technical options. If the Rangers or land managers were really out to sterilize the trails then, Rock-it, Steps, Five Oaks, Rattlesnake, T&A, or Rabbit Run would not exist, and Car Wreck would not be on the list of trails being considered.

Again.....when is enough...enough. Think about it.......how many trails would you want to see coming down from West Ridge and the top of Laguna down to Wood Canyon? Currently there are 5 legal sections. Would you like to see 10, 15, 20, 25????

This concept that we have no place to ride locally is so overstated. The bottom line is that these areas have been designated as protected areas and are signatory to a State Program with Federal involvement also; who's goal is to simply protect as much of the Coastal Sage habitat as possible. The programs do allow for recreational trails, but there has to be some limits.

Seriously....what do you consider to be the acceptable number/miles of trails in the South Coast Wilderness? 70, 80, 100 trails......100, 200, 300 miles in a 20,000 acre area?

I just see so many people ready to fall on their sword over a group of bikers smoothing out probably 50' of braking bumps, or not being able to ride a few miles of their favorite non-sanctioned trails, while overlooking the close to 80 miles of legal trails.

There has to be a balance between habitat protection and recreation, and no one can say that the recreational needs are not being met locally. I've ridden in many areas that are much larger with much less to offer. We seem to be just a bit spoiled locally.

Orange County boasts 700+ miles of natural surface recreational trails. We are not limited in our experiences. The problem is that too many people simply want everything right in their back yard so places like Aliso, El Moro, and Laguna Coast get over-used, and when people get bored with the same trails they start seeking or making new ones.

So let's hear your suggestions for the local trail system?

What trails would you say get opened or closed? Let's say for humor's sake that you had every one of your desired trails opened. What would you do if people came in and illegally built 10 more? Would we now simply adopt the additional 10 trails? Then maybe 10 more in the next few years?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here...I'm just really curious as to how many trails you think this area can support.

This is a no-win situation for land managers locally. Bikers complain of too few trails, equestrians and hikers complain about too many bikers, and there’s a fairly vocal group that believes that all recreation should be eliminated. So who’s right???

I personally believe that a balance can be achieved but there will need to be give and take on all sides.

As far as biking locally however…..keep in mind that Steps, BVD, and T&A were all previously unauthorized. We have definitely gained trails and there is the potential of additional currently unauthorized trails being adopted into the trail system; so we do not have a bleak picture down here.

No group can simply have everything they want, and we have to be reasonable in our expectations.

Thanks

[Flat Broke]

I guess I was kind of ambiguous on how I worded my post. My main two points were as follows: How about some land be set aside for people as opposed habitat protection? A space without so many of the restrictions that are associated with protected land. I'm not complaining about the trails we DO have, just wondering why people use the protection of certain species as a guise for setting some space aside for future generations. Why can't we just, outright set some open space aside for the sake of people being able to go out into the boonies and building some stunts or whatever? I know someone will dissect this into me proposing anarchical zones that will be devoid of law etc because the hikers will be sabotaging the stunts because a freerider was going too fast; the freeriders will be beat down on the hikers for sabotaging the stunts etc. But that's not what I'm talking about. I just wanted to know why we as people can't or don’t ask our government to set aside some space for us without all the restrictions associated with habitat preserves etc. I can't be the only one that grew up with an awesome place to ride where you could build or dig anything you wanted. A place where the only person telling you not to do something was your conscience or your best friend who knew you'd pack hard if you tried. I'm not talking about a number of trails or whatever, but about some freedom to build/ride fun stuff without someone else deciding if my line is too dangerous. When I say this, I'm not speaking as a MTBer, but as a human being that is saddened by the loss of local open spaces, and the continual development of open areas that were a draw for people who bought homes in a certain place to begin with.

The second part of my post was actually aimed more at the underlying problem behind the San Juan ladder issue than anything else; but the same thing applies to the problem SHARE, Land Managers, Municipalities, and MTBers are having with the legal/illegal issue. If the people who have a say so on what happens with the land would set aside some med-gnar to full kill trails and stunts, you'd see fewer people hitting the illegal stuff. Take T*****ics for instance. If there was a trail that like that which was legal, there wouldn't be much justification for people to poach. Notice I'm not saying legalize that trail, but rather, set aside some space for the "hooligans" to have some fun. No different than terrain parks at winter resorts. The ski folk who were sick of seeing all the "lowlifes" on the slopes complained. Terrain parks were then used to herd the boarders to certain portions of the resort, thus freeing the remainder of the hill from the evil scourge. It didn't matter to me as I liked to ride the whole hill, but it certainly was effective at containing a certain element in a very specific area.

As an aside but somewhat related; perhaps something that the land managers or activist groups ought to think about is the use of ladders as an effective way to run trails over spots of terrain where erosion concerns would otherwise make routing a trail impossible. The use of a ladder here or there to let the trail run with the fall line without channeling runoff water can overcome multiple obstacles at once. This technique could ultimately allow more challenging options to be included in existing trails. The multiple benefits of this idea aren't hard to see or justify: easier erosion control/repair, inability for offshoot lines to be ridden/created, and satiating the desire for some technical stuff that might lure certain riders away from illegal trails. I'm not saying I want to re-create every stunt line from the shore down here, but the techniques used up there were first employed because of the dynamics of the local environment. Though we're not trying to keep lines rideable through torrential downpours, we still may have use for the practices employed.

I'll be the first to admit that I ride a lot less than some of the people on here, and haven't put in any hours on trail maintenance outside of picking up the trash of others when I'm out riding, but the issues impact me just the same regardless of how often I ride, what crew I hang with, etc. Again, I applaud those to can and do put in the time on the trail maintenance and probably more importantly, the political process that keeps existing trails open and works to add new ones. But outside perspective can be good and sometimes shine new light on a subject often handled by groups of like minded individuals.

Chris
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]

[dstepper]

From their website.

The Forest Service mission is captured by the phrase "Caring for the Land and Serving People." Our mission, as set forth by law, is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people".

IMO: Like many issues in modern life...we have lost our way. I feel that public lands should be set aside for the recreation and enjoyment for people. Especially in a high density urban area.

Dean

[Chopper]

"I just wanted to know why we as people can't or don’t ask our government to set aside some space for us without all the restrictions associated with habitat preserves etc."

This is a great question. Have you asked? Have you written any letters or attended any meetings? Seriously, you won't get anything unless you ask.

"As an aside but somewhat related; perhaps something that the land managers or activist groups ought to think about is the use of ladders as an effective way to run trails over spots of terrain where erosion concerns would otherwise make routing a trail impossible."

This is a good idea and is being considered in some areas where there are unsustainable sections that cannot be rerouted. Last week I mentioned it to a free rider that I was riding with and was surprised at his response. He asked " Will it be built so those who want to can go around it?"
Regardless, it really is a good idea and I think it will provide a soloution to some serious problem spots that otherwise could lead to trail closures.

[JamR]

Did not use the "Quote" feature because the posts are getting long, and this one will be long.

I think finding places for technical parks are a great idea and I’m 100% in favor of it; but unfortunately I don't see this as a reality in these areas that have been set aside into the NCCP as protected areas.

Many acres were definitely set aside as mitigation for development, other acres were procured by non-profits, some were won-over by concerted public efforts, and some was simply donated by land owners.

But the reality is that these acres that are the hot topics in our backyard (ie.....Aliso, Laguna Coast, El Moro, Whiting, Santiago Oaks, Fremont, Weir, Limestone, Loma, etc).....have been set aside to protect a specific habitat (Coastal Sage), and now that the boundaries have been set; any alteration to these boundaries is extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible (which includes adding some currently unauthorized trails).

And one of the very hot topics with the environmental agencies is the large number of duplicity in trails, and the impact of recreation on habitat in these areas.

I know many disagree with this, but it is a reality that will not change locally.

But with that being said, the land managers that I have worked with for years do understand the desire for technical access and it shows in the technical nature of trails that do exist legally.

The problem with stunts on public property locally is potential litigation. Natural surface is natural surface, and land managers/land owners are somewhat protected under blanket statutes covering natural trails.

However, once a stunt gets installed; the blanket protection of natural features disappears. Example....if the stunt was allowed to remain on the SJT with the blessing of the Forest Service, and a deck screw or nail worked itself loose, snagged a tire and someone tanked it and broke their neck…..who get's sued? More than likely the Forest Service since the feature was not natural and the injury was caused by an artificial structure.

Places like Mammoth can do this because we all sign a waiver with our lift tickets and day passes. Maybe if there was a system to where you signed a waiver when you purchased a forest past and you were required to carry it with you; possibly built-in features might be acceptable. Unfortunately this would be a very large battle that would need to be taken on nationally by large groups with tons of legal fees involved.

If someone could find a piece of property locally that could accommodate this, I think that would be fantastic. I would love to have regular access to these types of trails and stunts without having to rely on trips to Mammoth, but I just don't see it happening on our local areas. Because 50,000 acres if the 93,000 acre Irvine Ranch areas which included most of the County and State Wilderness parks have been set aside a areas protected permanently from development. Much of those 50,000 acres are included in the NCCP and are listed as protected habitat areas (also including much of the wilderness parks). To top it off, 37,000 acres has been designated as a National Natural Landmark (not a National Park), but still now has national recognition for its high habitat value and unique regional and cultural history.

So the days of simply building and riding where we want are long gone, and you will soon begin to see stepped up efforts in pretty much all these areas of trail closures and monitoring of the non-inventoried trails, stepped up education, followed by stepped up enforcement. These are unfortunately the next logical steps to prevent potential loss of use of these areas because they are not being protected.

I know sometimes a lot of frustration comes out in my posts, but it comes from years of staying involved and trying to work through the system on trail issues, and there are many here also who have dedicated decades of similar work. But unfortunately the actual number of people who get involved is very small compared to the number of riders using the trails.

Also, we simply seem to have no sense of community as a group compared to other user group sites I frequent. Sure we have fun and camaraderie on the easy stuff….ride reports, photos, group rides, parties and beer runs; but get very petty on other issues like DH vs Cross County, fighting over who has the most rights on trails like SJT, and unfortunately slamming the riders and groups who simply step up to work with land managers and advocate trail use and biking; and of course the illegal trail issues.

I was really shocked at the heat SHARE and the mountain bikers took for simply knocking down some braking bumps on Lynx, and the divisiveness on the P-lines on Rock-it. It’s ironic to me that we squabble over our desire for single track but become the primary cause for trails like Rock-it to become wide as roads. Many of you may not have been on the trails as long as some; but the rock garden on Rock-it truly used to be almost a single-track; and when I started riding all you had was rocks and bushes.

It’s especially frustrating being in the middle between bikers who want it all, user groups who want bikers out of the parks, and groups who want these areas closed to all recreation, and utilities that want landing strips instead of roads. With all this, we then have to contend with in-fighting amongst ourselves, and have to contend with the reality of our less-than-desirable reputation and, and the fact that the sport that holds my passion may end up being the cause for ultimate loss of access locally and nation-wide.

It’s also frustrating simply be out on the trails enjoying a ride and have some knuckle-head ride by and call me a “Trail Nazi” or “Eco Terrorist” while I’m simply standing there talking with friend. (has happened too many times over the years)

It’s frustrating to see riders who have worked for years for trail access get labeled as “Trail Sanitizers” by people who won’t get involved.

I personally have optimism locally, and can see that the over-all trail system locally is IMO one of the best I’ve ever seen with the diverse number and nature of trails. 700 miles is nothing to sneeze at.

But all I can say in closing is that our abuses may cost us access in the long-run, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves for future losses, and we need to wake up as a group and get involved constructively. We also have to be willing to deal in reality and deal with the situations and limitations we are faced with locally.

Sorry to be so long winded again, but I think these are important issues.

JamR signing off……….see ya on the trails

[guero]

Originally Posted by dstepper

From their website.

The Forest Service mission is captured by the phrase "Caring for the Land and Serving People." Our mission, as set forth by law, is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people".

IMO: Like many issues in modern life...we have lost our way. I feel that public lands should be set aside for the recreation and enjoyment for people. Especially in a high density urban area.

Dean

and dont forget about having to buy an EXTORSION PASS to enjoy nature, or face getting a ticket...theres nothing quite like returning from a great hike or ride to see that the man has stuck it to ya.

[Flat Broke]

Ya know, the Adventure Pass does rub me the wrong way as it is a form of taxation on the use of the spaces our forefathers set asside specifically for such use; but I gladly pay the couple of bucks to help keep the litter out from passers by and add a little coin to the coffers so long as it's being spent on the area where it was generated. In an ideal world, I agree that we shouldn't have to pay. But when a good majority of us can spend more on beer in one night than the adventure pass costs for a year (especially if you purchase with your buds), it's hard to argue it as a hardship.

Besides, if you're going to argue the cost of the adventure pass, you don't have much of a leg to stand on if you say you would pay to use a local freeride park

Chris

[RidetheRAAM4]

Originally Posted by Flat Broke

Ya know, the Adventure Pass does rub me the wrong way as it is a form of taxation on the use of the spaces our forefathers set asside specifically for such use; but I gladly pay the couple of bucks to help keep the litter out from passers by and add a little coin to the coffers so long as it's being spent on the area where it was generated. In an ideal world, I agree that we shouldn't have to pay. But when a good majority of us can spend more on beer in one night than the adventure pass costs for a year (especially if you purchase with your buds), it's hard to argue it as a hardship.

Besides, if you're going to argue the cost of the adventure pass, you don't have much of a leg to stand on if you say you would pay to use a local freeride park

Chris

Well, over here, they have some trash bins and a little port-o-potty building thing whatever you want to call it and they have signs up saying that the adventure passes help to pay to keep these things out at the trailhead maintained and everything. I was up there one time and had an unexpected and unwanted friend show up on my back door and let me tell you, I was glad they had the bathroom out there. So I gladly pay for the adventure pass. Also if they have more money I am sure they will use it to help keep trash out of the outdoors. I hate seeing trash all along the side of trails. Hey, if they gave me some snacks so I didn't have to bring my own food I would walk the trails and go pick up all the trash I saw.

[OMR]

There's nothing like beginning to see both sides of the issue ... again we're lucky to have a forum where ideas can be peacefully exchanged. You can see from the posts above that we have many divergent opinions ... the "Rights vs Privilages" debate has gone on for many years in many different arenas... yet many sides of the argument have been well thought out and brought to the table... is there any clear cut answer to this? Probably not. Will we solve these problems or issues here?... probably not... but I believe that each side now somewhat understands the frustrations and impatience of the other. Like a family (which we are), we have many different opinions, yet we love, respect and help each other... just as a family should.

As pointed out, other groups have organized and been successful in getting their agendas addressed. Think horses! Unfortunately, the nature of our beloved sport does not lend itself to conformity (and yet it does... seen anybody riding with the pink shorts of 15 years ago lately?). There will always be a small minority that does the volunteer work that the majority enjoys .. that seems to be the way our society works, both politically and economically.

What I am encouraged by is that we continue to have an exchange of ideas, to find the common ground, to work through our problems together (sound like a family?). Will these answers satisfy everyone? Errr, that's a big NOT! But we need to remember that through all this, it becomes apparent that although we differ in philosophies and actions, there is this underlying tie that binds us all together. We need to continually emphasize this, respect each other while addressing our shortcomings and remember that the bottom line here is: "The Ride". That's what we're all about.

OMR.... out!