PV: The axe is falling.....

ok i can downhill on straight up trails i dont need wooden ramps, and the ones at dc were hardly anyhting. i can multi-use til the day i day. anyone xc or dh rider can hit the same trails, its not like theyre rated and u cant walk around stunts. idk what kinda of presentation that would have to them.

 

It gets worse ...

Now the PV newspaper has an editorial out where they agree with the temporary ban on bikes and even propose a permanent ban:

http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2007/10/25/opinion/opinion1.txt


We need to fight back on this one, the hikers are going to voice their support of this editorial in groves. I would hate the paper to come back and say, "the public overwhelmingly agrees with our position ..."

Send letters to [email protected]
300 words maximum

The sooner the better.

 

More bad 'news'......

P.V. News filed an editorial on mtn bikers:

Temporary ban needed
Like the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, the Peninsula News consistently has favored the inclusion of mountain bikes on local trails in places like Forrestal Canyon. That is, as long as those riding the bikes stay on designated pathways and respect the natural habitat around them. However, it appears that at least a handful of mountain bikers are destroying vital habitat in the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve. Rather than sticking to the trails, these thrill seekers are creating jumps and riding roughshod over native plants that are vital to the sur*vival of species like the threatened California gnatcatcher.

It’s important to note that many, if not most, mountain bikers respect the natural habitat, stick to the trails and often help with trail mainte*nance. They deserve our respect and support. Unfortunately, all it takes is a few people to wreak havoc on precious habitat that is part of this Peninsula’s heritage. That’s why the Land Conservancy wants to close all the biker-made trails that have built up in the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve. Further, the Public Use Master Plan, or PUMP, Committee charged with determining which uses be permitted on the pre*serve on Oct. 17 voted to recom*mend suspending bicycle riding temporarily in the most highly used part of the area, according to com*mittee member John Wessel. A tem*porary closure would "allow clear marking of approved trails and heal*ing of the scars in the habitat caused by the blazing of multiple new trails’ Wessel said in a letter to the News.

The News supports the commit*tee’s recommendation to close trails to mountain bikers while officials mark the trails and repair the dam*age to habitat. There are clear signs of destruction. "Rock formations of ancient strata have been destroyed; wooden structures have been built into the canyon bottoms and into the rock strata above," John Nieto, vice president of the Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, told the PUMP Committee Oct. 3. "In many places, the native habitat has been compromised so severely that it will take years to repair (WTF???)

Clearly, the preserve needs time to recover. The News urges officials to take action as soon as possible to maintain this beautiful area.

***

More hate driven propaganda from kookville:

Hi all,
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW. Please pick up a copy of today's edition of the PV News. Note 4 items on the mountain bikes in the Preserve:
***1) Cartoon featuring 2 snakes in the PBNP, one of which has bike tracks over it's back, saying "Stupid bicyclists!"
2) John Wessel's letter to the Editor explaining important steps taken by the PUMP Committee on October 17.
3) Editorial by the PV News supporting the Committee's recommendation to close trails to give the Preserve time to heal and urging officials to take action ASAP.
4) Request by the PV News to the public to submit responses and comments to the question "Do you agree with the News that a temporary ban on bikes is necessary while the habitat heals, or do you favor an all-out ban?"
We can assume that CORBA will have its members out in force responding to this solicitation for opinions. Please voice your opinion right away (and ask friends to do the same) in order to show the wide support for preserving the nature of the place.
Thank you--each of you--for doing what you can, individually, to achieve our collective goals.

***

*** 1) I'm calling for a retraction. And a public appology to CORBA and all riders.

This is f*ing b/s.

Send these clowns some heat if ya like, rest assured, the kooks and haters are sending them praise and rallying the troops as we speak.

Wanna respond to this BS?

[email protected]
300 words maximum

Edit- sorry Superstock....missed yer post.

 

I've been fighting land wars on the moto side for years and seen this pattern repeat itself many times. Seems pretty clear that the actions of a few bad apples (defined as inappropriate for this riding area, not per se) are creating problems for all MTB riders and putting yet another riding area at risk of closure. Sure, there are many MTB opponents that are totally out to lunch and will never be reasonable. But my experience is that you can beat the nut cases. However, when you've got people cutting illegal trails and doing DH/FR stuff in proximity to hikers and horses and other riders, you make enemies fast out of even reasonable people. It only takes a few to tip the balance.

IMHO, any proposal to officials needs to acknowledge that fact and have a credible means of stopping the abuse.

I've never ridden this area and wish those who do the best of luck. Many thanks to CORBA and others for their work here and elsewhere.

Rob

 

In a nut shell and to sorta clarify on this area's issues:

PUMP is a committee who was assigned the task of looking at issues of use and submitting proposals for balancing users needs v/s habitat requirements and helping set a long range vision, and, reporting same back to the City Council.

Some members are anti-bike. Some are not. Meetings have turned into a vent-fest.

PUMP was also instrcuted not to interact with the press on this and remain unbiased.

PUMP left the tracks of their charter a while back and ha s yet to get back on the rails of thier mission statement, at least in my opinion.

The land 'magnagement' issues are up to the LC and City Council. Not PUMP.

They'll be reminded of this by me on the 30th.

Is it a Preserve? Yes.
Is it a Public Use area? Yes.
Is banning bike's predjudiced, based on some user-group's private agenda and un-founded? Yes.

I'm in an ongoing e-mail right now with the Editor of the paper. And am demanding a retraction and public (he already apolgised to me) apology to CORBA-PV and all cyclists.

 

i think just throwin it out stray. you would have seen many pics of me hittin that if it was pv

 

Well, it is for sure a Del Cerro weekend for me....going to hit it up Sunday morning...:bang:

 

just to clarify, if the wood structures are being built on dirt tracks that are already cleared of plant life, how does that damage the habitat?

 

Meeting address

I was looking for an address for the meeting. I believe this is correct?

This Tues. 10-30-07 at 7 pm .
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall , Community Room
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

See ya there.
We'll be riding the Cizzle (Del Cerro) this week not sure which afternoon yet. I very much enjoy riding the trails there as always will be courteous to hikers and respectful of the area. A quick story I took a friend once his first time there a bit new to trail riding. He went ripping by some hikers and I spoke to him about why we don't do that and the importance of showing fellow trail users respect. After that he went out of his way to slow and even chat with the hikers. Sometimes it's just that bikers aren't aware of how it affects hikers so take a second to explain to them.

 

I'm planning on attending, and would actually like to site some reference material to mount a counter attack against the hikers argument that bikes are worse for the environment than hikers. I know there were a couple of studies that were referenced here or on the Monkey that showed how the longer dwell time of a hiker (because they travel at a slower pace) in an area is more disruptive to wildlife than bike use. The study went on to site that hikers actually were more likely to expand trail networks and stray from the main trail. Assuming I can find this information again and the actual study, what would be the prefered method of disseminating this information at the meeting on Tuesday? Printed copies for the council members? Verbal reference to the actual study including author, date, etc so it can be entered into the minutes? or another method I'm missing? Basically, I want to act within the established decorum for the meeting, but clearly illustrate that there are many different ways to look at who/what can be causing some of the problems the hikers have painted as hallmark mountain bike problems. And as such some of the assumptions regarding trail use and mountain bikes may be largely inaccurate.

BTW, if any of the LBC peeps (well up to 2) want to carpool, I'll be leaving around 6-6:15.

One other thought, is wearing our cycling gear the best way to present ourselves, or should I clean up a bit?

Thanks in advance,
Chris

 

I rode there this morning, and from bikers and hikers alike, everyone was all smiles and "good-mornings". I'm not sure where this hiker/biker hate stigma started, but I only see it at hearings. The only group that didn't shoot a smile back at me all morning, were a group of 3 equestrians ( who, by the way, say that we are the rude ones). We really just gotta get out there together and show them that we're there for the same reason they are, to enjoy the trails.

 

After reading the editorial posted in the PV News, I felt compelled to address the issue directly. Below you will find my correspondence to the PV News requesting a retraction, or at the very least, the opportunity for the MTB community to provide a rebuttal statement to the original editorial. I'll be digging up the research studies I had mentioned in a previous post, and would still like some input from the CORBA folks on the best way to present that information tomorrow evening.


To Whom It May Concern:

I’m writing to formally request a retraction and printed apology for the editorial printed on October 25th 2007 in the PV News indicating that bicycles should lose access to the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve. My request is based upon the fact that The News’ decision to support a ban on mountain biking in the preserve appears to be largely based upon citing conjecture from biased parties with a overt political agenda and asserting it as fact. Not only does the support of a closure that singles out a single a group of people with a wide range of backgrounds and interest in the preserve reek of discriminatory practices; it also demonstrates how lightly The News takes it’s obligation to research the content of it’s printed material. Many of the statements that were printed are unsubstantiated, and at the very least not quoted in their native context.

As printed in the editorial:
John Nieto, vice president of the Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, told the PUMP Committee Oct. 3. “In many places, the native habitat has been compromised so severely that it will take years to repair.”
This statement infers that mountain bikers are the sole responsible parties for any environmental impact in the preserve. It would have been nice if you would have at least quoted his entire statement so your readership would know if Mr. Nieto was actually speaking directly to issues with mountain bikers. Additionally, citing this statement is akin to taking advice from a machinist on how to paint a house. Being an expert in aviary creatures bears little merit in discussions regarding geological issues. One can only infer that his quote was used in absence of a supporting statement from a qualified authority.

If you are genuinely concerned about trail sustainability and the ecological impact of hikers, bikers, and equestrians, you should do some research into the studies done by Jeffery Marion who happens to work for the USGS, and has an extensive background in researching land use and environmental impact of various recreational activities. Pages 4-7 of one of his studies found at http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_nps_report.pdf gives some good insight into the impact of various trail users. You can Google many research studies relating to the hiker/biker/equestrian trail degradation issue, and if you read all of the studies, you’ll even see supporting evidence that hikers may actually be more intrusive to native environments than bikers. Their longer dwell times in an area (because they move slower) are thought to be more disruptive to wildlife activity as they interact with the environment more than bikers, linger in areas to look at things, and in the process further increase the odds of disrupting normal activities of native wildlife. If you continue to read many of the published studies, you’ll find evidence to suggest that hikers are also more likely to be responsible for trail widening and creation of “offshoot” trails as they like to walk side by side, and often go exploring off the trail.

As a fellow journalist, I take my responsibility to research my content seriously. While some of my articles will be opinion based, I never cross the line of stating opinion as fact; be it my opinion, or the opinion of a cited reference. Because the editorial posted on October 25th 2007 asserts opinions as fact, openly discriminates against a group of people that are responsible for a large percentage of the sanctioned trail work done in the preserve, and supports a political agenda that strips usage rights from concerned outdoor enthusiasts; I’m requesting that the editorial be removed and a formal retraction with apology be printed. If for whatever reason you cannot abide that request, I would like to request the opportunity to publish a rebuttal statement from the mountain biking community on the same page of the PV News website where the original editorial resides. As a public news source, you have the obligation to represent a story in a factual manner, and simply put, the current editorial piece on the subject doesn’t fulfill that obligation.

I look forward to your response on the issue.

Best regards,
Christopher O. Lloyd

 

not only that, but how much habitat was destroyed by the trump national golf course? ooooh wait a sec, its a golf course so its okay because they put in artificial ponds and artificial rockscapes and waterfalls...and most importantly, its donald trump...

 

LB- kinda mirrored my sentiments in some repsects.

All- Sharky has the correct addy.

Please note- consessions and compromises will have to be made.
'Freeriding': i.e.: all of those super-steep and hucking trails will prolly be out. There's just too much stuff that's visual from normal paths etc., from what I hear anyways .....not a knock, just a fact.
We are lobbying for a 'zone' for freeriders to do their thing in conneciton with giving up some other stuff (XC/FR).
We are also losing some XC stuff so....

Everyone is going to loose something. It's a Preserve. Them's the breaks. If we don't give up something, we won't get anything. This is per a counter proposal to the ban-all-bikes motion- or so I've been told.

Also- I heard we should keep the 'I heard about riding in PV on the internet' on the down low. One of those hatin' kooks is claiming the interweb is causing an influx of outside riders (whatever the hell that means) to come from all corners and increase the impact etc. There's no end to their ammo.

Contact mtbpv.org for more info etc.
Again- I'm not the final authority here, just relaying info to you all. Ok? If soemthing is amiss or inacurate, I apologise.




I drive an F-250, black, regular cab, 'outer circle racing' on the bumper. I'll be there tomorrow around 6:30.

 

was checking back in... i'm still committed to attend tomorrow. will be leaving lb around 6ish, work @City Hall, so would like to depart from the downtown or Belmont Heights area. I drive a Honda Civic and can carry 3 others. Lemmie know if you want to carpool. PM me if you want to communicate via cell phone.

 

I was going to leave around the same time from California Heights/Bixby Knolls. I can take 2 others, but don't know about driving to downtown to have to fight back up to the 405. I was planing on taking the 405 into Torrance, then heading towards PCH via Van Ness before cutting over to Hawthorne and up to the Civic Center. I'm pretty familiar with traffic going this way and know I'll have plenty of time.

If I were to take Anaheim through the ghetto, to PV drive N, accross to Hawthorne, and then down to the civic center; how bad will the traffic be? Either way, I'll be at the meeting.

Out of curiosity, how are folks dressing for this? I know the CORBA folks said to wear your shirt (don't have one) or biking gear so you're easily distinguishable, but that seems counter-intuitive to me for something like this.

Chris

 

I was just going to wear my STR t-shirt ??? to distinguish myself as in support of the bikers.



*Seriously hope we get a positive outcome from tomorrow night.*

 

ok I'm 99% there. But seeing as it is a long drive for me well, I'd like to hit up the Cizzel before. Anyone else want to??

 

I wish I could but my wife would get mad if I left my two little ones at home alone while I went riding! Sounds tempting though... I want to go (to the meeting) but I have two kids, a 3 year old and 22 months. If I bring them, it may just be for a moment. They can be quite a distraction!

 

chaps, im down. lets talk tomorrow. i'll wear my lycra...