STR | SocalTrailRiders.org

DDB@OCR · 10-31-2007, 07:50 AM

Hey gang-

I got an e-mail from Troy today.

You all made great strides last night and he is proud of all of you. You really rose to the occasion and made your presense known in a 'logical and mature way'.

I'm really sorry I could not attend. I've been sick as hell the past week and it keeps coming back to haunt me.
Sorry gang- I really wanted to be there with ya's.

I can't thank you all enough for all your support and positive impact. It is reverberating around the community as we speak and we are now on the map.

YOU all made all the difference.

-kevin.

drclark · 10-31-2007, 08:23 AM

It was a long meeting. I suspect the next meeting will be even longer as the discussion will go trail by trail to determine use for the del-cerro area. You can also be sure that the anti-biker crowd will rally in force for the next meeting.

My understanding of the process that remains is that the next meeting will review the del-cerro area use model. Once the entire model for all convervancy land is approved by the committee, it has to be submitted for public comment before it goes before the RPV city council for approval. It is important that we have the kind of presence we had last night at all upcomming stages of the process. Target date for approving the plan for the conservancy to start management (i.e. start posting signage) seems to be Feb-March of 2008 timeframe.

The two major themes I heard last night in support of restricting bikes on trails were:

1. "exponentially" accelerating damage due to thrill seeking bikers. The previous proposal was passed largely due to a very emotional presentation of photos highlighting the damage to the plants and the terrain. We need to work with CORBA and the conservancy to see if there is anything we can do in the short term, like posting some trail closed signs on particularly eroded areas. At the very least, we need to make sure the anti-bikers do not find any more freshly built jumps or shovels. Long term, continuing to push for a designated free-ride area is probably the best solution to contain that type of riding and damage to a geologically/ecologicially insensitive area.

2. There was also an arguement that hikers and equestrians are avoiding trails where bikers are allowed because bikers ruin the experience for others. Unfortunately, this is just good-old-fashioned bigotry. (i.e. "we're not restricting access because you can always walk" was a great quote from the committee member in question) The counter to this has to be management strategy, i.e. trails alternate between biker/hiker access on even/odd days or something. Again, a designated free-ride zone has to be pushed as a way to contain the fast, aggressive riding that makes other trail users feel uncomfortable.

An important thing to keep in mind is that the trail plan that comes out of the committee is supposed to be a "long range" usage plan based on a healthy/un-damaged environment. Even if certain trails are approved as multi-use on the long term plan, the conservancy will have the power to close certain areas for re-vegetation and restoration if necessary. When/if that happens we need to be sure the general mtb community follows the rules.

Another thing that I picked up on is that all the trail plans will be reviewed on an annual basis. Once the area becomes actively managed, signs of continued "abuse" will be used as grounds to take away access rights. It is vitally important that we, as a community, become self policing and continue to be involved with the conservancy in helping to manage and restore the area for the long term.

Next meeting is Wednesday, Nov 7 at 7:00 pm.

See you there,
drc

One last thing, we need to flood the PUMP committee, PV news and other local news papers with emails of thanks for voting to reconsider the del-cerro trail plan. Many times there are only emails or editorials when something displeases people (i.e. complaints). We need to make sure we reward the committee with public praise for doing the right thing as well.

SpunnOne · 10-31-2007, 08:38 AM

Thanks to all those who went last night and put in so much research time. I couldn't make it last night, but I plan on being there on the 7th

spookydave · 10-31-2007, 09:32 AM

The look on a few of their faces when drclark whipped out the letter written to Hermosa Beach was great. dr really had his act together. Not saying anyone else didn't but he was one of the stand outs. I rode DC yesterday and told some people about it. One of the guys showed up and spoke a few times also.

Another thing that kind of shocked me was the support from non bikers. I thought that lady in black was going to be the tree hugger from hell. She hikes and rides a horse but was on our side last night on most things. The other lady in orange was great too. Even the anti bike guy on the committee voted no. He knew that was BS and couldn't let it fly.

I'll be there on the 7th also. You can bet that all groups will be there in full force for that one.

Flat Broke · 10-31-2007, 09:59 AM

Doug,

I'd like to thank you again for your presence and informed comments last night. I definitely feel that you turned some heads when you didn't let Anne get the best of you when she tried to goad you into basically stating that "freeriding is acceptable within the preserve". You handled that very tactfully, and I just thought it was worthy of mention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drclark

It was a long meeting. I suspect the next meeting will be even longer as the discussion will go trail by trail to determine use for the del-cerro area. You can also be sure that the anti-biker crowd will rally in force for the next meeting.

I agree 100%. In many ways our attendance may be even more important here because when the public is offerred the ability to respond to any of the proposed trail changes before a committee vote, it is our last chance (with regard to a specific motion) to state our opinions on the current incarnation of the trail map.

I also agree that the equestrian and hiker user groups will be represented in much higher numbers next week, so we need to show that as a community, MTBers are willing to stay the course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drclark

My understanding of the process that remains is that the next meeting will review the del-cerro area use model. Once the entire model for all convervancy land is approved by the committee, it has to be submitted for public comment before it goes before the RPV city council for approval. It is important that we have the kind of presence we had last night at all upcomming stages of the process. Target date for approving the plan for the conservancy to start management (i.e. start posting signage) seems to be Feb-March of 2008 timeframe.

Again I concur, and believe that we will REALLY need to show at the public hearing. This is where the people who have an opinion, but no motivation to become part of the solution will armchair quarterback and state opinions as fact with regard to trail degredation, which user group is evil, etc. We will probably need to have an extra thick layer of skin at that meeting, but we need to stay cool and speak to facts, supported with hard data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drclark

The two major themes I heard last night in support of restricting bikes on trails were:

1. "exponentially" accelerating damage due to thrill seeking bikers. The previous proposal was passed largely due to a very emotional presentation of photos highlighting the damage to the plants and the terrain. We need to work with CORBA and the conservancy to see if there is anything we can do in the short term, like posting some trail closed signs on particularly eroded areas. At the very least, we need to make sure the anti-bikers do not find any more freshly built jumps or shovels. Long term, continuing to push for a designated free-ride area is probably the best solution to contain that type of riding and damage to a geologically/ecologicially insensitive area.

I think one of the problems we are going to have is tying terms like: agressive, technical, freeriding, etc. to MTBing as a whole in Portuguese Bend (or anywhere else on the preserve for that matter). The reason being is that our access is named in the Sub Area Plan (section 6.2.5 to be specific) as "passive" recreation. While that is a debateable nomenclature, it was pretty obvious that a number of the committee drew a distinction between "touring" riding as one member stated, and "hot dogging" as another refered to more technically orriented riding. If their perception is that "technical" riding isn't a "passive" form of recreation, it will further muddy the waters.

For the record, I think it's rediculous that enjoying some tight single track, steeps, etc wouldn't be considered "passive". But we have to be aware of perceptions of the committee members and choose our syntax accordingly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drclark

2. There was also an arguement that hikers and equestrians are avoiding trails where bikers are allowed because bikers ruin the experience for others. Unfortunately, this is just good-old-fashioned bigotry. (i.e. "we're not restricting access because you can always walk" was a great quote from the committee member in question) The counter to this has to be management strategy, i.e. trails alternate between biker/hiker access on even/odd days or something. Again, a designated free-ride zone has to be pushed as a way to contain the fast, aggressive riding that makes other trail users feel uncomfortable.

The best place to start trying to get space dedicated to a "technial riding area" may be in the proposed "active recreation area" cited in section 3.1.3. Though I don't know where this falls on the map, it is stated as outside of the reserve, which should ease any habitat degredation concerns. It also sounded like Troy (if I recall correctly) had some suggestions on geologically undesireable land within the preserve that could be used to host such an area.

With regard to the "you can always walk" argument made by everyone's favorite committee member; I think some statements need to be made not only from the MTB community, but from all user groups regarding choice vs. right. If you give all user groups the right to use a trail, it becomes their choice as to whether or not the trail is appropriate for their skill level, the skittishness of of their horse etc. The fact that a "multiuse" trail gives the right to all user groups is of higher service to the users of the preserve, than if trail use is restricted because a certain group chooses not to utilize a trail they have the right to use.

See everyone on Wednesday,
Chris

jonkranked · 11-01-2007, 09:49 AM

hey all, Tuesday night was my first meeting attendance on this subject, and all in all I think it was a great showing of local riders, and importantly non-riders, in support of maintaining cycling access. i have more hope now that I have heard the comments coming from certain members of the board (pompous blowhards excluded). I was simply dumbfounded at a certain board member's continual attempts to pass off speculation as fact. However, it is good that other board members can see right through the BS and are able to address FACTS. Unfortunately, I didn't get to meet all the other cyclists in attendance that night, but it was good we were all there. I was the younger guy in the red and white baseball shirt. Flatbroke, I introduced myself to you at one point and was thrilled to see you came prepared with facts. I plan on attending the next meeting on this topic, and continuing to do so in order to ensure that cyclists keep their riding spot. This is my local spot for practice and training, and I'd hate to lose after having found it such a short time ago. I'm totally down to volunteer for trail maintenance and offer my continuing support. F'real.

Flat Broke · 11-01-2007, 10:02 AM

jonkranked,

If you have riding buds that weren't at Tuesday's meeting, bring em with you on Wednesday. As previously stated, I think there will be a much more vocal pressence from other user groups at the next meeting, and if any of them are friends of our favorite committee member, they may well act in like fashion; presenting opinions and slanderous statements as fact.

Comming out as a community and bringing fourth factual information to support our case is probably the single greatest thing we can do to respond to some of the assertions of the two committee members and their constituents, who seem to pasionately oppose bike usage and use opinion and skewed representation of facts as a means to their ultimate end.

Chris

superstock · 11-01-2007, 11:31 AM

This was the first meeting I could attend in person myself. I have written emails in to Ara, but I can see now that showing up and taking the podium is the best way to get your point across.

Although I was skeptical at first, I think that CORBA PV's 'high road' method is working. It looked like at some point we were going to need stoop to the level of the SUNP to get our points across but in the end, the cooler heads of the committee saw through the emotional attacks and focus on fact. All of Troy's arguments were made with a cool head and a matter of fact tone. Many times, he had to keep the discussion on track citing when the arguments were based on speculation rather than historical facts. Whenever it was stated, "someone is going to get run over", Troy would simply state that this is speculation and that the long history of the area has no reported incidents and nothing indicates that a restriction needs to be made.

More importantly, the committee reeled in their focus to user interests and left decisions regarding habitat to the conservancy who has the knowledge and experise to make appropriate habitat decisions. The committee member in question tried to force habitat decisions through based on unsubstantiated opinion (primarily aesthetic) when in reality, the committee is not chartered to do so. I think some of the older committee members got caught up in the emotional aspects and forgot that their charter was not land management.

The committee member in question was obviously unprepared for this meeting as she did not have her supporters present. They were there in mass at the last 2 meetings but I don't think any of them were there this time. We all know that she will bring as many of her supporters as possible to the next meeting. I think the best way to counteract this is to also have a large showing by the mtb community. Keeping arguments positive, logical and based on fact are going to elevate us above the others.

We accomplished a significant goal at this meeting as the SUNP trail map was not accepted and we are not banned from the area. Thanks to everyone who attended. This next meeting will determine how much much of the area we will be able to ride. I cannot stress how important it is to be there. Seeing first hand how dicey some of these decisions are (we almost got booted from the upper trails in Forrestal), having good representation is essential.

S

PVt · 11-01-2007, 11:47 AM

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I want to thank everyone who got behind this effort. It’s been a long struggle, more like a four-year war. We’ve won some and lost some and won them back. The constant attacks can be overwhelming at times but thank goodness we have CORBA PV’s steering committee and a bunch of mountain bikers who are committed to save the trails we love.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I see Tuesday night as a turning point. When members of this forum showed up, it was like the cavalry coming over the hill. Not only did you make the big effort, you understand what’s going on here. Our hallowed ground is going to change in ways we don’t like. Our goal is to recognize what is possible and not let anyone take it away from us. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]As you saw, there are people whose mission is to get rid of bikes not matter what it takes. Unfortunately, unmanaged mountain biking has provided them with justification for their cause. We need to assure decision makers that every issue can be reduced to acceptable levels. For that, we must show unity of purpose and overwhelming commitment from the cycling community. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I assure you there will be a surge from the anti-bike group at next Wednesday’s meeting, including two committee members who were absent. Please keep in mind that it is not over yet. There will be three more meetings, everyone as critical as last Tuesday’s, which need your presence. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]* Wednesday November 7 will likely decide our fate at Portuguese Bend.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]* Saturday November 17 will be a public review of the plan.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]* January (date to be announced) city council will take public comments and make a final decision. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Email [/SIZE][SIZE=3]info@mtbpv.org[/SIZE][SIZE=3] or check the web site for updates and information so we can coordinate our efforts.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Troy[/SIZE][/FONT]

Flat Broke · 11-01-2007, 01:39 PM

[FONT=Verdana]Troy[/FONT][FONT=Verdana],

Thank you for coming over here to keep us in the loop and share your thoughts. I think all of us that attended on Tuesday can honestly say that if we had known of the issue earlier, you would have seen the "cavalry" come in smaller waves much earlier on.

STR isn't my website, but it's one of two MTB related message boards that I check, and my MTB related home on the web. As a user, I welcome you and encourage you to use this site as a resource to share information with us, request our involvement not only for support at meetings, but also for trail work etc. once "ownership" of the trails has been turned over to the PVPLC. You may find many people here who aren't CORBA members, and may never become one, yet would be more than happy to donate their time to trail work at Del Cerro.

On a separate note, can you give us some information on the formal responsibilities of the members of the PUMP committee; specifically with any obligation/duty to base their decisions and recommendations upon facts as opposed to conjecture and agenda driven opinions. The reason I ask is because it seems that they have the insight of Kurt Loheit at their disposal, yet a few members out and out said that they don't agree with his assessment of the habitat. Furthermore, another member essentially disrespected Becky's (sorry I don't know her last name) statements with regard to many of the exotic/foreign plant species needing to be removed anyhow, and that much of the "destruction" that is perceived is merely leaf litter and debris from failing non-native plants. Don't the members of the committee have a responsibility to listen to experts in the absence of personal knowledge/experience of a higher level of expertise?

The reason I ask this is because I came prepared with studies that concluded that there is no evidence to support MTB use on a trail system is any more damaging than pedestrian use. I was going to submit these, but upon seeing that Kurt was in attendance, I assumed this information has already been presented. The studies I found are all linked on the IMBA website, so I figured they would have been disseminated to the committee at a much earlier date considering Kurt's involvement with IMBA.

If those studies have not been presented to the committee for the purpose of educating members to the fact that mountain bike traffic is not the bane of a trail or habitat's existence, I would be happy to email them to Ara ASAP. This would allow him to disseminate them to the other committee members as suggested reading, in preparation for an intelligent discussion of proposed trail uses at Del Cerro/Canyons on Wednesday. If it is CORBA's position, or Kurt's recommendation that those studies not be put in front of the committee for one reason or another, I can understand that as well, and will abide by that decision.

For reference the studies are linked below:
http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_al_study.pdf

From the abstract of David White's study, the specific conclusion about MTB and hiker use being equal in terms of degradation to the trail isn't as pronounced as in Marion's report, but there is also some good information about trail/slope alignment and erosion that occurs at different intersection rates.

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...nps_report.pdf

For Marion's NPS report, really only pages 3-6 would need to be disseminated. However, if the committee members are interested in the actual structure of the study, the publication should be read in its entirety.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I would much rather the trail routes and usages proposed on Wednesday be based upon scientific findings, not the whimsical and delusional ramblings of an uninformed committee member.

Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated; as you've been fighting this battle for much longer than most of us, you know the nuances of your fellow committee members, and the charter by which you are bound.

Chris[/FONT]

EMrider · 11-01-2007, 02:22 PM

Congrats to those who prepared for and attending the meeting. It is sure nice to see some progress made when facts, reason and balance are introduced into the picture.
R

roadkillross · 11-01-2007, 03:25 PM

THANK YOU ALL, that attended and represented us in this struggle. Just know that you're doing all cyclists a great service. there is always a dedicated group of individuals taking charge on the front line, and for that reason i thank you. If there are any meetings when im home, i will be there, but seeing the schedule im probably gonna miss them. You guys got tons of support even thougt it may not seem like it.

Sharky · 11-01-2007, 07:22 PM

I copied this from MTBR:
"PV multiuse trails are under threat with a surprise possibly (probably?) anti-biking usage meeting:
Here's what I heard:
This meeting is scheduled to be held on Saturday November 10th at 9:30am at the Pointe Vicente Interpretive Center (31501 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5369 310-377-5370) and could be a few hours long . . . This meeting was announced last night, but there is no announcement on their website yet."

Anyone heard anything about this meeting?

PVt · 11-01-2007, 08:35 PM

[FONT=Helvetica]The November 10th meeting is for the [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica]Visioning Plan[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica]. This is the third in a series. It will not be about trail uses but more about a general plan for trail heads, facilities, and projects by the [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica]Annenberg Foundation[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica] sponsor. [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica]Some may want to attend to learn more about the overall plan in Rancho Palos Verdes but there will no discussion about trail uses.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica]Troy[/FONT]

Stray_Bullit · 11-02-2007, 04:55 PM

I actually can go this Wednesday! How do I show my support for the riders? Do I show up in my full face helmet? (J/K) Seriously though, how do I (for a lack of a better word) represent?

Flat Broke · 11-02-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stray_Bullit

I actually can go this Wednesday! How do I show my support for the riders? Do I show up in my full face helmet? (J/K) Seriously though, how do I (for a lack of a better word) represent?

I don't think what you're wearing will be as important as what you have to say. If as a group we can stick to facts and keep from bashing other user groups, we should do just fine. As far as statements to the committee, there was everything from heart felt requests from parents to keep trails open so their kids could ride, to Doug Clark's concise and factually based statements addressing a number of pertinent issues.

I'll let Troy pop in with the other pointers, but one thing I noticed is the overwhelming urge to commend fellow community members with applause after they made their statement. Do the clapping on and cheering on the inside or with a smile and a nod, as opposed to verbal outbursts etc. Conducting ourselves in a respectful manner shows well, and will probably help keep the meeting on track which is in our best interests.

One more thing that might be important to mention; I'd suggest getting there early if you want a seat. If the pedestrian contingent shows with half the force of the MTB contingent did last week, there will be little room. Additionally, you might want to get your dinner before the meeting as Tuesday's meeting went past midnight.

Chris

10-31-2007, 07:50 AM	#101 (permalink)
DDB@OCR has-been onna hardtail	Hey gang- I got an e-mail from Troy today. You all made great strides last night and he is proud of all of you. You really rose to the occasion and made your presense known in a 'logical and mature way'. I'm really sorry I could not attend. I've been sick as hell the past week and it keeps coming back to haunt me. Sorry gang- I really wanted to be there with ya's. I can't thank you all enough for all your support and positive impact. It is reverberating around the community as we speak and we are now on the map. *YOU* all made all the difference. -kevin. __________________ Viva the Hill. - http://mtbpv.org/ H.L.M.B.A (founding member)

11-01-2007, 11:47 AM	#109 (permalink)
PVt Junior Member	Thanks [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I want to thank everyone who got behind this effort. It’s been a long struggle, more like a four-year war. We’ve won some and lost some and won them back. The constant attacks can be overwhelming at times but thank goodness we have CORBA PV’s steering committee and a bunch of mountain bikers who are committed to save the trails we love.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I see Tuesday night as a turning point. When members of this forum showed up, it was like the cavalry coming over the hill. Not only did you make the big effort, you understand what’s going on here. Our hallowed ground is going to change in ways we don’t like. Our goal is to recognize what is possible and not let anyone take it away from us. [/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]As you saw, there are people whose mission is to get rid of bikes not matter what it takes. Unfortunately, unmanaged mountain biking has provided them with justification for their cause. We need to assure decision makers that every issue can be reduced to acceptable levels. For that, we must show unity of purpose and overwhelming commitment from the cycling community. [/FONT][/SIZE] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I assure you there will be a surge from the anti-bike group at next Wednesday’s meeting, including two committee members who were absent. Please keep in mind that it is not over yet. There will be three more meetings, everyone as critical as last Tuesday’s, which need your presence. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]* Wednesday November 7 will likely decide our fate at Portuguese Bend.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]* Saturday November 17 will be a public review of the plan.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]* January (date to be announced) city council will take public comments and make a final decision. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Email [/SIZE][SIZE=3]info@mtbpv.org[/SIZE][SIZE=3] or check the web site for updates and information so we can coordinate our efforts.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Troy[/SIZE][/FONT]

11-01-2007, 01:39 PM	#110 (permalink)
Flat Broke Bikes don't kill bunnies	[FONT=Verdana]Troy[/FONT][FONT=Verdana], Thank you for coming over here to keep us in the loop and share your thoughts. I think all of us that attended on Tuesday can honestly say that if we had known of the issue earlier, you would have seen the "cavalry" come in smaller waves much earlier on. STR isn't my website, but it's one of two MTB related message boards that I check, and my MTB related home on the web. As a user, I welcome you and encourage you to use this site as a resource to share information with us, request our involvement not only for support at meetings, but also for trail work etc. once "ownership" of the trails has been turned over to the PVPLC. You may find many people here who aren't CORBA members, and may never become one, yet would be more than happy to donate their time to trail work at Del Cerro. On a separate note, can you give us some information on the formal responsibilities of the members of the PUMP committee; specifically with any obligation/duty to base their decisions and recommendations upon facts as opposed to conjecture and agenda driven opinions. The reason I ask is because it seems that they have the insight of Kurt Loheit at their disposal, yet a few members out and out said that they don't agree with his assessment of the habitat. Furthermore, another member essentially disrespected Becky's (sorry I don't know her last name) statements with regard to many of the exotic/foreign plant species needing to be removed anyhow, and that much of the "destruction" that is perceived is merely leaf litter and debris from failing non-native plants. Don't the members of the committee have a responsibility to listen to experts in the absence of personal knowledge/experience of a higher level of expertise? The reason I ask this is because I came prepared with studies that concluded that there is no evidence to support MTB use on a trail system is any more damaging than pedestrian use. I was going to submit these, but upon seeing that Kurt was in attendance, I assumed this information has already been presented. The studies I found are all linked on the IMBA website, so I figured they would have been disseminated to the committee at a much earlier date considering Kurt's involvement with IMBA. If those studies have not been presented to the committee for the purpose of educating members to the fact that mountain bike traffic is not the bane of a trail or habitat's existence, I would be happy to email them to Ara ASAP. This would allow him to disseminate them to the other committee members as suggested reading, in preparation for an intelligent discussion of proposed trail uses at Del Cerro/Canyons on Wednesday. If it is CORBA's position, or Kurt's recommendation that those studies not be put in front of the committee for one reason or another, I can understand that as well, and will abide by that decision. For reference the studies are linked below: http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_al_study.pdf From the abstract of David White's study, the specific conclusion about MTB and hiker use being equal in terms of degradation to the trail isn't as pronounced as in Marion's report, but there is also some good information about trail/slope alignment and erosion that occurs at different intersection rates. http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...nps_report.pdf For Marion's NPS report, really only pages 3-6 would need to be disseminated. However, if the committee members are interested in the actual structure of the study, the publication should be read in its entirety. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I would much rather the trail routes and usages proposed on Wednesday be based upon scientific findings, not the whimsical and delusional ramblings of an uninformed committee member. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated; as you've been fighting this battle for much longer than most of us, you know the nuances of your fellow committee members, and the charter by which you are bound. Chris[/FONT] Last edited by Flat Broke; 11-01-2007 at 02:41 PM. Reason: typo

11-01-2007, 03:25 PM	#112 (permalink)
roadkillross Throw some Dee's on it	THANK YOU ALL, that attended and represented us in this struggle. Just know that you're doing all cyclists a great service. there is always a dedicated group of individuals taking charge on the front line, and for that reason i thank you. If there are any meetings when im home, i will be there, but seeing the schedule im probably gonna miss them. You guys got tons of support even thougt it may not seem like it. __________________ Offroadie-"I ride a fixed gear, but I'm no hipster." dirttorpedo- "i like the runs..........:

11-01-2007, 07:22 PM	#113 (permalink)
Sharky Dirt Hippie	I copied this from MTBR: "PV multiuse trails are under threat with a surprise possibly (probably?) anti-biking usage meeting: Here's what I heard: This meeting is scheduled to be held on Saturday November 10th at 9:30am at the Pointe Vicente Interpretive Center (31501 Palos Verdes Drive West, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5369 310-377-5370) and could be a few hours long . . . This meeting was announced last night, but there is no announcement on their website yet." Anyone heard anything about this meeting? __________________ Division 26

10-31-2007, 08:23 AM	#102 (permalink)
drclark I aim to misbehave	It was a long meeting. I suspect the next meeting will be even longer as the discussion will go trail by trail to determine use for the del-cerro area. You can also be sure that the anti-biker crowd will rally in force for the next meeting. My understanding of the process that remains is that the next meeting will review the del-cerro area use model. Once the entire model for all convervancy land is approved by the committee, it has to be submitted for public comment before it goes before the RPV city council for approval. It is important that we have the kind of presence we had last night at all upcomming stages of the process. Target date for approving the plan for the conservancy to start management (i.e. start posting signage) seems to be Feb-March of 2008 timeframe. The two major themes I heard last night in support of restricting bikes on trails were: 1. "exponentially" accelerating damage due to thrill seeking bikers. The previous proposal was passed largely due to a very emotional presentation of photos highlighting the damage to the plants and the terrain. We need to work with CORBA and the conservancy to see if there is anything we can do in the short term, like posting some trail closed signs on particularly eroded areas. At the very least, we need to make sure the anti-bikers do not find any more freshly built jumps or shovels. Long term, continuing to push for a designated free-ride area is probably the best solution to contain that type of riding and damage to a geologically/ecologicially insensitive area. 2. There was also an arguement that hikers and equestrians are avoiding trails where bikers are allowed because bikers ruin the experience for others. Unfortunately, this is just good-old-fashioned bigotry. (i.e. "we're not restricting access because you can always walk" was a great quote from the committee member in question) The counter to this has to be management strategy, i.e. trails alternate between biker/hiker access on even/odd days or something. Again, a designated free-ride zone has to be pushed as a way to contain the fast, aggressive riding that makes other trail users feel uncomfortable. An important thing to keep in mind is that the trail plan that comes out of the committee is supposed to be a "long range" usage plan based on a healthy/un-damaged environment. Even if certain trails are approved as multi-use on the long term plan, the conservancy will have the power to close certain areas for re-vegetation and restoration if necessary. When/if that happens we need to be sure the general mtb community follows the rules. Another thing that I picked up on is that all the trail plans will be reviewed on an annual basis. Once the area becomes actively managed, signs of continued "abuse" will be used as grounds to take away access rights. It is vitally important that we, as a community, become self policing and continue to be involved with the conservancy in helping to manage and restore the area for the long term. Next meeting is Wednesday, Nov 7 at 7:00 pm. See you there, drc One last thing, we need to flood the PUMP committee, PV news and other local news papers with emails of thanks for voting to reconsider the del-cerro trail plan. Many times there are only emails or editorials when something displeases people (i.e. complaints). We need to make sure we reward the committee with public praise for doing the right thing as well.

10-31-2007, 08:38 AM	#103 (permalink)
SpunnOne Last Man Up...	Thanks to all those who went last night and put in so much research time. I couldn't make it last night, but I plan on being there on the 7th

11-01-2007, 09:49 AM	#106 (permalink)
jonkranked Member	hey all, Tuesday night was my first meeting attendance on this subject, and all in all I think it was a great showing of local riders, and importantly non-riders, in support of maintaining cycling access. i have more hope now that I have heard the comments coming from certain members of the board (pompous blowhards excluded). I was simply dumbfounded at a certain board member's continual attempts to pass off speculation as fact. However, it is good that other board members can see right through the BS and are able to address FACTS. Unfortunately, I didn't get to meet all the other cyclists in attendance that night, but it was good we were all there. I was the younger guy in the red and white baseball shirt. Flatbroke, I introduced myself to you at one point and was thrilled to see you came prepared with facts. I plan on attending the next meeting on this topic, and continuing to do so in order to ensure that cyclists keep their riding spot. This is my local spot for practice and training, and I'd hate to lose after having found it such a short time ago. I'm totally down to volunteer for trail maintenance and offer my continuing support. F'real.

11-01-2007, 10:02 AM	#107 (permalink)
Flat Broke Bikes don't kill bunnies	jonkranked, If you have riding buds that weren't at Tuesday's meeting, bring em with you on Wednesday. As previously stated, I think there will be a much more vocal pressence from other user groups at the next meeting, and if any of them are friends of our favorite committee member, they may well act in like fashion; presenting opinions and slanderous statements as fact. Comming out as a community and bringing fourth factual information to support our case is probably the single greatest thing we can do to respond to some of the assertions of the two committee members and their constituents, who seem to pasionately oppose bike usage and use opinion and skewed representation of facts as a means to their ultimate end. Chris

11-01-2007, 11:31 AM	#108 (permalink)
superstock Junior Member	This was the first meeting I could attend in person myself. I have written emails in to Ara, but I can see now that showing up and taking the podium is the best way to get your point across. Although I was skeptical at first, I think that CORBA PV's 'high road' method is working. It looked like at some point we were going to need stoop to the level of the SUNP to get our points across but in the end, the cooler heads of the committee saw through the emotional attacks and focus on fact. All of Troy's arguments were made with a cool head and a matter of fact tone. Many times, he had to keep the discussion on track citing when the arguments were based on speculation rather than historical facts. Whenever it was stated, "someone is going to get run over", Troy would simply state that this is speculation and that the long history of the area has no reported incidents and nothing indicates that a restriction needs to be made. More importantly, the committee reeled in their focus to user interests and left decisions regarding habitat to the conservancy who has the knowledge and experise to make appropriate habitat decisions. The committee member in question tried to force habitat decisions through based on unsubstantiated opinion (primarily aesthetic) when in reality, the committee is not chartered to do so. I think some of the older committee members got caught up in the emotional aspects and forgot that their charter was not land management. The committee member in question was obviously unprepared for this meeting as she did not have her supporters present. They were there in mass at the last 2 meetings but I don't think any of them were there this time. We all know that she will bring as many of her supporters as possible to the next meeting. I think the best way to counteract this is to also have a large showing by the mtb community. Keeping arguments positive, logical and based on fact are going to elevate us above the others. We accomplished a significant goal at this meeting as the SUNP trail map was not accepted and we are not banned from the area. Thanks to everyone who attended. This next meeting will determine how much much of the area we will be able to ride. I cannot stress how important it is to be there. Seeing first hand how dicey some of these decisions are (we almost got booted from the upper trails in Forrestal), having good representation is essential. S

11-01-2007, 02:22 PM	#111 (permalink)
EMrider Senior Member	Congrats to those who prepared for and attending the meeting. It is sure nice to see some progress made when facts, reason and balance are introduced into the picture. R

11-01-2007, 08:35 PM	#114 (permalink)
PVt Junior Member	November 10th meeting [FONT=Helvetica]The November 10th meeting is for the [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica]Visioning Plan[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica]. This is the third in a series. It will not be about trail uses but more about a general plan for trail heads, facilities, and projects by the [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica]Annenberg Foundation[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica] sponsor. [/FONT] [FONT=Helvetica]Some may want to attend to learn more about the overall plan in Rancho Palos Verdes but there will no discussion about trail uses.[/FONT] [FONT=Helvetica]Troy[/FONT]

11-02-2007, 04:55 PM	#115 (permalink)
Stray_Bullit STR Veteran	I actually can go this Wednesday! How do I show my support for the riders? Do I show up in my full face helmet? (J/K) Seriously though, how do I (for a lack of a better word) represent?

STR | SocalTrailRiders.org

Your Southern CaliforniaMountain Biking Community

Your Southern California
Mountain Biking Community