Mountain Bike Problem in the Irvine Open Space Preserve Again

I rode Upper Laurel under the 73 Toll Road this afternoon. They say MTBers are disrupting the critters and destroying the fauna. But is OK for a freeway to divide the Wilderness and for that freeway to erode cause significant damage to the fauna. This damage is 100 feet away from a so called unsustainable illegal trail. No wonder to one respects there rules with this level if hypocrisy going on.


Upper Laurel under the 73 Toll Road overpass

 

BINGO! :clap:

mtnbikej... no worries! My comment is not directed at you. Thanks for posting the letter. I'm just curious about it's writer.

 

Dude, I never was

Blaming the messenger in my reply. I was and am blaming the methodology, and the motive. thats all. Peace

 

sorry, but i don't think this is a valid point (although it comes up a lot). the 73, obviously, is bad for the environment, like all the toll roads (the fire 2 years ago started from an arsonist on the 241).

but that means the remaining areas need even more protection. the main goal of these parks is preservation, not recreation. otherwise, everybody--from motos, to hunters, to paintballers, to flame-thrower enthusiasts would want their own piece of the pie.

most s/t trails aren't illegal because they're unsustainable. i'm not an expert, but i know that animal corridors, archaeological sites, and endangered animals/plants are some of the factors. but i think the main one is that the they weren't included in the master plan (because of some of the factors i listed) when the parks were originally created- kinda like messing with the constitution.

i'm sure someone with greater knowledge can give a better explanation--and i'm no fan of the irvine dynasty--but i'm just tired of this particular argument and i think it's a poor rationalization for riding/making illegal trails.

and, as a disclaimer, i'm been known to poach a few trails. i have my own rationalizations.

:cheers:

EDIT: maybe somebody in str who is an archaeologist or wildlife biologist or a park manager could enlighten us about these issues.

 

Except that ALL the trails they've closed were there before it was a park.

 

You're right I take back everything I said. I had forgotten about the flame-throwers.

Besides I always have a hard time reasoning with people that put animals and plants before people.

 

rivet- not even close. i know of at least 6 illegal trails that have built in el moro/lcwp in the last decade.

 

dirtvert, I agree with your point that the presence of a toll road in one location is a poor argument for screwing up land somewhere else. But I don't agree that the main goal of these parks is preservation. In fact, according to their website, the OC Parks' mission is: As a steward of significant natural and cultural resources, Orange County Parks manages and operates a system of regional parks, beaches, harbors, trails and historic sites that are places of recreation and enduring value.

At the Blackstar meeting last week the OC parks speaker said the goals of the open space are to provide access and protect the environment. People kept asking if these were conflicting goals and he kept saying that they were not conflicting goals. (Maybe someone else who was there can say this better.)

 

well, that's kind of the goal of small parks in urban areas, isn't it? there's not much original flora/fauna left in coastal socal. if you didn't have that focus it would all either be paved or look like glamis.

flame on (pun intended).

jeff- preservation is the main goal for the wilderness parks. for the others, i guess you'd have to have to look at their mission statements. but i'm pretty sure "stewardship of the natural and cultural resources", while providing for recreation, doesn't do so at the expense of those resources.

:beer:

 

I had though urban parks where for people but maybe I am wrong.

 

it's a balancing act, right? that's why i help restore native plants and i help lead rides/hikes.

but when the habitat's gone, it's gone forever--along with all the animals that depend on it. san diego is a perfect illustration of this- in one area they kept dividing the open space into smaller and smaller chunks. the remaining parks became too small to support large predators (mainly coyotes), then they eventually lost every native bird.

when you throw unnaturally frequent fires into the equation, it doesn't take much to tip the habitat into collapse. nobody's saying people don't have a right to use the parks, but i think we can all agree on reasonable limitations. would you want motos and off-road vehicles in the local parks? hunting? i'm sure those groups feel like they're being left out, but in the big picture those activities aren't in the best interest of the habitat or the majority of people.

seacrest out.

 

Wrong, just becuase you didn't know about them doesn't mean they weren't there.

 

It often seems like the answer is really "They are not conflicting goals, given the right management." Of course, the person/organization making that statement often makes a case that they are the only ones to provide that management, or they have a financial interest in managing the resource, and that's where things break down. That's not directed at OC Parks, IRC, or anyone else in this current discussion - it's just human nature.

End of comment for now. I have to go clean my flamethrower for the club meeting tonight.

 

wrong back atcha. i know about the "historical" trails that were there before the parks opened (bonus points if you know which one used to be called "spoke cleaner") many more have been put in since they opened.

(sorry about the hijack. we return you now to your regularly scheduled ranting)

:cheers:

 

Really?

Looks more like a Cal Trans or TCA problem :?: are you being critical for the IRC establishing a wildlife corridor as a condition of development?

 

No I am critical of the toll road in the first place and whole area being classified as wilderness, degrades the meaning of true wilderness areas. Parks in urban areas need to be for the peoples recreation not wildlife and fauna protection. Now if they truly want to set aside coastal sage habitat maybe turning all of Camp Pendelton into a protected area for animals and fauna is the better area. Not small parcels surrounded by freeways and houses.

 

Let me start by saying that renewing this thread weeks after the heated debate is astonishing to me. This conflict between land owners and users is timeless; to attempt to join in an arguement after the dust has settled seems to be a mere attempt to get some attention than an actual contribution to the topic at hand.

What purpose is left in even opening this thread? The only new information given by J is disputable, as seen in the previous pages. The people who broke the rules are known, yet not receiving any type of reprimand by the authoritative figures.

What purpose is stating that you know who is guilty of the crime, have evidence against them, but are not seeking justice by the wrong-doers? Am I wrong in thinking that this statement alone will actually increase the amount of illegal activities? You can go and break the rules without any consequence to you, because the only people to suffer will be the rule followers?

 

"Book 'em, Dano."

I agree, either ticket the offenders, or let it go. Personally, I'd recruit them as patrollers.