STR | SocalTrailRiders.org

Originally Posted by CPATCRASH

Can someone clean this up so we can all read it!

Originally Posted by Elisheva

Received today from Dave at IRC re Santiago Oaks SORP 10 Trail:

Hello Irvine Ranch Conservancy staff and volunteers,

There has been some information circulating via e-mail that the Irvine Ranch Conservancy is responsible for the recommended closure of SORP 10 trail in Santiago Oaks. The individual that is circulating the information did call me and discussed the trail closure with me. However, this individual chose to only hear what she wanted to hear and has subsequently started spreading incorrect information.

I would like to openly and in writing give all of you the Irvine Ranch Conservancy’s position on SORP 10 trail.

We did:
Openly back the County’s recommendation to close the trail

The reasons include the following:
The County considers SORP 10 an illegal trail
The trail was determined unsafe and unsustainable by an outside trail building contractor (hired by the County)
It is a duplicate trail causing habitat fragmentation
More than 95% of the existing trails were to be adopted in Santiago Oaks
The trail is the entry point for numerous non-sanctioned trails and unmanaged access into Weir (this became very apparent after the windy ridge fire when the trails became exposed and the fence was repeatedly cut even after repairs)

We did not:
Become involved until the County asked us if we agreed with their closure recommendation.
Recommended prior to our involvement
Ask the County to close the trail
SORP 10 is a County trail in a County facility and the decision for open/closure of it is 100% a County decision. If the County recommends closure, the Irvine Ranch Conservancy supports that decision 100%. We did not seek that recommendation nor were we involved in it. We simply agreed with their recommendation.

Thank you.

Dave Raetz
Director, Public Programs
Irvine Ranch Conservancy

P.S. If any of you have received the e-mail chain with the incorrect information feel free to forward this e-mail to the recipients so they may also get the correct information.

Originally Posted by CPATCRASH

What trail is it???

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

We use to call it Widow Maker...it is a steeper trail off the top that connects you to the back Weir Canyon Loop...most of us are asking for it to be reestablished.

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

MAYBE THE IRC SHOULD DO SOME RESEARCH....IT WAS and IS NOT AN ILLEGAL TRAIL...IT WAS PART OF THE BARHAM RANCH AQUISITION. ROGER BELL MADE NOTE THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL BUT THE COUNTY NEVER SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL.

FYI: THE IRC FENCE LINE STRETCHES ALONG MOST OF THE TRAILS IN SANTIAGO OAKS....THERE ARE SEVERAL SPOTS THAT COULD ALLOW TRESPASSERS ONTO THEIR PROPERTY....MAYBE THEY NEED TO PATROL TO CUT DOWN ON THAT HAPPENING...HAND OUT A FEW SPENDY TICKETS AND I BET THOSE FEW THAT REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE RULES WILL THINK TWICE?

Originally Posted by Elisheva

Hi Sherry,

As a volunteer with IRC, I'm merely passing on their position and clarification re this trail.

I suggest you communicate your comments to Dave.

Originally Posted by JamR

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I think it’s time to chip in and correct some miss-information. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The post is miss-leading and for some reason people seem to have the impression that the IRC drove the recommendation for the trail closure. This is not correct.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The IRC simply answered a question posed by the county as to if they would be in support of the permanent closure of SORP 10 if that was the county’s final decision. Their support of the county’s decision may not be to the liking of some users, but it’s no reason for anger.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The county already had four reasons, and the IRC simply commented on a fifth reason; that the trail was a jump-off point for a number of detrimental non-sanctioned trails that traversed directly into the highly protected and recovering burn area of Weir, and a continual source of vandalism of fence-lines and signage.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]People need to be aware that the acquisition of Barham Ranch by the county did not automatically guarantee the inclusion of every existing trail in the area. Just like Aliso-Woods, Laguna Coast, the City of Irvine Area……and now Santiago Oaks; whenever previously privately held property gets incorporated into public lands…..(especially if the area has been signed into the NCCP or similar habitat protection process); the existing trails are surveyed and determinations are made as to the final inventory of legitimate trails that are compatible with the area. This is all that is taking place at SORP….nothing more…..nothing less.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Long before Roger Bell was hired to survey the trails for the SORP, the county had already placed “closed” signs on that particular trail, so it appears that it was already deemed to be off the inventory by the county. The IRC simply supports that position and decision of the county.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I think the user groups really need to take a look at all of the successes in the various areas and realize that the vast majority of previously non-inventoried trails have been adopted into these areas…..and to expect 100% of the trails to be compatible with the area and to be adopted is unrealistic.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]We need to simply look at more factual information and not resort to anecdotal comments. The SORP 10 trail had never been formally listed as an authorized trail and the county probably has several sound reasons for taking it off the proposed trail list. It does receive a lot of unauthorized use (even with the county “closed” signs, and even though with the short annual growth it does not appear to get much use……….look at the SC Single-Tracks for example), and people have vandalized the county “closed” sign in the past.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]There are way too many positive things happening in all of the parks and wildlands that make this type of anger puzzling to me.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]In the recent past:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Stairsteps was legalized[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Laguna Ridge was legalized[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Emerald Falls was legalized[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Car Wreck is being considered[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Corridor is being considered[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Lizards is being considered[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Stagecoach South from the Nix Center was added[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Stagecoach South connector to Willow is in the process[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Stagecoach North and the seven day connector to Serrano Ridge will soon be opened[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Five out of the Six existing single-track in the City of Irvine Space were adopted (Rabbit Run, Fox Run, Cattle Crest, Ridge Route, and Shady Oaks)[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The Quail Trail connector to Serrano Ridge was added[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Probably 95% or more of the SORP trails will be adopted, and it appears that the technical alignments will be maintained.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The negativity puzzles me over one out of the dozen or so trails in SORP.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Everyone should clearly speak their mind at the afforded meetings, but just please be factual, leave the anger outside, and be reasonable if things don’t go according to your liking. No one will ever be 100% satisfied in these situations.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]There are quite a few trails in O.C. that I would love to see opened, but since the county has deemed them to be not included in the trail inventory; I simply accept it and realize that the vast majority of trails have been approved, and more are being considered for the future; so I look at the positive and not the negative.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Just some thoughts[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Thanks![/SIZE][/FONT]

Originally Posted by Marshall Willanholly

Wow that's hard to read.