Aliso-Wood and Laguna Coast Wilderness Parks

Mo's first video was sarcastic and full of digs. His second one was encouraging. I'll talk to him tonight.

I am an eternal optimist who believes in education, communication and diplomacy way before draconian punitive action. Talk of closures, fines, confiscation and intentionally destroying trails makes my skin crawl. Some of you will see that as rainbows and unicorns. I see it as the only hope for civilization.

EDIT: Spoke with Mo for about an hour. Look for rainbows and unicorns in his next video.
 
Last edited:
herzalot said:
Mo's first video was sarcastic and full of digs. His second one was encouraging. I'll talk to him tonight.

I am an eternal optimist who believes in education, communication and diplomacy way before draconian punitive action. Talk of closures, fines, confiscation and intentionally destroying trails makes my skin crawl. Some of you will see that as rainbows and unicorns. I see it as the only hope for civilization.
Click to expand...
Diplomacy keeps the illegal trails intact, if I read you correctly. If so, I protest.
 
herzalot said:
Mo's first video was sarcastic and full of digs. His second one was encouraging. I'll talk to him tonight.

I am an eternal optimist who believes in education, communication and diplomacy way before draconian punitive action. Talk of closures, fines, confiscation and intentionally destroying trails makes my skin crawl. Some of you will see that as rainbows and unicorns. I see it as the only hope for civilization.
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Any high-value resource that is considered a “commons” will be destroyed without regulation, and the higher the value, the more extensive the regulations have to be.

A few years ago I considered moving to a gated community in Colorado that featured private MTB trails. Those were nice trails. But I couldn’t ride them since I was only there as a customer.

Regulate, privatize, or sit back and watch the destruction, those are the choices.
 
shawndoh said:
You guys see that Non Dot will not be able to host races next year?
Click to expand...

I can't bring myself to "Like" this post, but I did see it in an email from them earlier today, and was about to share the same thing. Thanks for sharing! Between the original topic for this thread and the OC Parks decision not to allow mountain bike races, this has been a tough day to catch up on local OC mountain biking news.

The thing that bugs me the most about the OC Parks decision, is that it's all based on the 10mph speed limit in the OC Parks and reducing safety incidents. The 10 mph speed limit has always been there, at least going back to the late 80's from what I remember, but I've never seen it enforced. This could be a dangerous precedent for future decisions by OC Parks.

The rest of the rule they cite in the document makes perfect sense: "Unsafe Operation. No person shall operate a bicycle in any manner that endangers any person or animal or at a speed that is greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for other users and the surface, width, and grade of the road or trail, and in no event in excess of ten (10) miles per hour, unless a greater speed is posted."

As soon as you add the 10mph speed limit to the rule, it's ridiculous. Exceeding 10mph on a mountain bike is not at all dangerous on a multi-use trail. It all depends on the context (sight lines, trail surface, amount of crowds, etc.). They say the purpose of their decision is to "reduce safety incidents", but they hang their hat on races in OC Parks encouraging people to go over 10mph. First of all, I'd like to know how many safety incidents they had due to the races (other than participants crashing and hurting themselves), including people practicing leading up to the race. Second of all, was going over 10mph the cause of the incident?

Teaching my kids to mountain bike on the fireroad thought the bottom of Aliso, they regularly get over 10mph on flat ground, and it didn't cause any trail conflicts. Hikers, runners, and other mountain bikers said "hi" to them as we cruised comfortably through the canyon giving all users plenty of space. I know there's no way it will happen in the current trail use political climate in OC, but that 10mph speed limit is ridiculous and biased against mountain bikes. A hiker, runner, horse, or mountain biker can go at a speed that is unsafe for the trail if the sight lines are bad enough, and cause a trail conflict, but only mountain bikers are really affected by the 10mph limit.


Aside from my rant about OC Parks' decision, I'm really going to miss the Non Dot Races in the OC Parks. They said they're looking at a few new ideas for cycling events (so at least Non Dot lives on), but the chance to race in our local OC parks is what got me back into racing after over 15 years away from it. I grew up here and drove up to Big Bear to race when I was in high school. Those were the closest races back then. After some years away from the sport, and even more years away from racing, it was a flyer for the Aliso race back in 2013 that really got me back into it. I didn't want to miss the chance to race on my local trails. On the bright side, I've enjoyed racing on my home trails for the last 5 years through good seasons and through tough seasons that just gave me a little nudge to push myself a little harder. It's sad to see that come to an end, but at least the trails are still open to ride. Now we have to make sure it stays that way.
 
Hello all,

I have been asked by a few riders to log on and post up for this thread. I have been absent from these sites for a number of years. Unfortunately, this issue has many different fronts, and it would take a long and exhaustive post to get all the information out. Management of these parks - State, County, & City has very complicated layers that all users should have the background on.

I don’t have information on what the original poster related to. However, I do know that impacts of our sport have raised concern from various agencies from the top down. Mountain biking has changed dynamically over the past thirty years and there are impacts that are drawing attention.

I have been riding these areas since 1987, and helping to manage some substantial acreage within them for the past thirteen years; so I do have a unique perspective.

One thing that has never benefited any user group when issues like these rise to the surface, is non-factual information and anecdotal information coming from social media sites. It’s true that there are many landowners, land managers, and oversight agencies that view many user sites. It’s also accurate that most realize the number of posters represent a small portion of the user group. However, it does give them an insight into the attitudes, likes, dislikes, and expectations of the various groups.

Again, there is no way to hit on everything people have broached in this thread at one time. But it is important for everyone to know how these areas are managed in South Orange County. Most of the parks in Orange County that these posts represent are signatory to one or more habitat plans that oversee the habitat and govern the uses. Crystal Cove, Laguna Coast, Laguna Coast, the City of Irvine, and most of the northern most areas.. Black Star, Fremont, Limestone Canyon, etc… are under a habitat protection/development plan called the NCCP/HCP. (County of Orange, Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP to be specific). I will put the link to the documents at the end of this post.

But the short story is, that prior to the signing of the plan; developers and environmental groups were at odds, and it was difficult for developers to build on land they owned; and likewise difficult for environmental groups to protect declining habitat values. So in the mid-1990’s they coordinated the drafting of the NCCP (Natural Communities Conservation Plan). Basically it set aside all the lands that would be developed, and all the lands that would be protected in perpetuity as protected open space.

That’s the best starting block for understating these areas, as the plan itself is very clear on what and how the land is protected, and what uses are acceptable and allowed. Also, what steps should be taken if habitat values decline.

So I think moving this thread forward, it would be good to focus on the overlying documents that oversee all these areas, as this is the document that most parts of the resource plans are based on. This can be a good thread to get information out to the group.

I would be happy to post more specific details when I get more time, but I don’t want to get too lengthy.

People can contact me anytime for more information.

Here is the link to the NCCP if it helps.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal

Thanks,
 
JamR said:
Hello all,

I have been asked by a few riders to log on and post up for this thread. I have been absent from these sites for a number of years. Unfortunately, this issue has many different fronts, and it would take a long and exhaustive post to get all the information out. Management of these parks - State, County, & City has very complicated layers that all users should have the background on.

I don’t have information on what the original poster related to. However, I do know that impacts of our sport have raised concern from various agencies from the top down. Mountain biking has changed dynamically over the past thirty years and there are impacts that are drawing attention.

I have been riding these areas since 1987, and helping to manage some substantial acreage within them for the past thirteen years; so I do have a unique perspective.

One thing that has never benefited any user group when issues like these rise to the surface, is non-factual information and anecdotal information coming from social media sites. It’s true that there are many landowners, land managers, and oversight agencies that view many user sites. It’s also accurate that most realize the number of posters represent a small portion of the user group. However, it does give them an insight into the attitudes, likes, dislikes, and expectations of the various groups.

Again, there is no way to hit on everything people have broached in this thread at one time. But it is important for everyone to know how these areas are managed in South Orange County. Most of the parks in Orange County that these posts represent are signatory to one or more habitat plans that oversee the habitat and govern the uses. Crystal Cove, Laguna Coast, Laguna Coast, the City of Irvine, and most of the northern most areas.. Black Star, Fremont, Limestone Canyon, etc… are under a habitat protection/development plan called the NCCP/HCP. (County of Orange, Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP to be specific). I will put the link to the documents at the end of this post.

But the short story is, that prior to the signing of the plan; developers and environmental groups were at odds, and it was difficult for developers to build on land they owned; and likewise difficult for environmental groups to protect declining habitat values. So in the mid-1990’s they coordinated the drafting of the NCCP (Natural Communities Conservation Plan). Basically it set aside all the lands that would be developed, and all the lands that would be protected in perpetuity as protected open space.

That’s the best starting block for understating these areas, as the plan itself is very clear on what and how the land is protected, and what uses are acceptable and allowed. Also, what steps should be taken if habitat values decline.

So I think moving this thread forward, it would be good to focus on the overlying documents that oversee all these areas, as this is the document that most parts of the resource plans are based on. This can be a good thread to get information out to the group.

I would be happy to post more specific details when I get more time, but I don’t want to get too lengthy.

People can contact me anytime for more information.

Here is the link to the NCCP if it helps.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal

Thanks,
Click to expand...

Thanks for chiming in. The plan is OBE.
 
JamR said:
Hello all,

I have been asked by a few riders to log on and post up for this thread. I have been absent from these sites for a number of years. Unfortunately, this issue has many different fronts, and it would take a long and exhaustive post to get all the information out. Management of these parks - State, County, & City has very complicated layers that all users should have the background on.

I don’t have information on what the original poster related to. However, I do know that impacts of our sport have raised concern from various agencies from the top down. Mountain biking has changed dynamically over the past thirty years and there are impacts that are drawing attention.

I have been riding these areas since 1987, and helping to manage some substantial acreage within them for the past thirteen years; so I do have a unique perspective.

One thing that has never benefited any user group when issues like these rise to the surface, is non-factual information and anecdotal information coming from social media sites. It’s true that there are many landowners, land managers, and oversight agencies that view many user sites. It’s also accurate that most realize the number of posters represent a small portion of the user group. However, it does give them an insight into the attitudes, likes, dislikes, and expectations of the various groups.

Again, there is no way to hit on everything people have broached in this thread at one time. But it is important for everyone to know how these areas are managed in South Orange County. Most of the parks in Orange County that these posts represent are signatory to one or more habitat plans that oversee the habitat and govern the uses. Crystal Cove, Laguna Coast, Laguna Coast, the City of Irvine, and most of the northern most areas.. Black Star, Fremont, Limestone Canyon, etc… are under a habitat protection/development plan called the NCCP/HCP. (County of Orange, Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP to be specific). I will put the link to the documents at the end of this post.

But the short story is, that prior to the signing of the plan; developers and environmental groups were at odds, and it was difficult for developers to build on land they owned; and likewise difficult for environmental groups to protect declining habitat values. So in the mid-1990’s they coordinated the drafting of the NCCP (Natural Communities Conservation Plan). Basically it set aside all the lands that would be developed, and all the lands that would be protected in perpetuity as protected open space.

That’s the best starting block for understating these areas, as the plan itself is very clear on what and how the land is protected, and what uses are acceptable and allowed. Also, what steps should be taken if habitat values decline.

So I think moving this thread forward, it would be good to focus on the overlying documents that oversee all these areas, as this is the document that most parts of the resource plans are based on. This can be a good thread to get information out to the group.

I would be happy to post more specific details when I get more time, but I don’t want to get too lengthy.

People can contact me anytime for more information.

Here is the link to the NCCP if it helps.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal

Thanks,
Click to expand...
JamR you’ve got to help me here, Yo no intiendo.

So, what’s new, if anything, in trail access news? Is there any? Or am I to understand that the perceived decline in the quality of habitat may precipitate the obligation to remediate the degradation through the judicious application of mitigation and reparation?
 
Last edited:
JamR said:
Hello all,

I have been asked by a few riders to log on and post up for this thread. I have been absent from these sites for a number of years. Unfortunately, this issue has many different fronts, and it would take a long and exhaustive post to get all the information out. Management of these parks - State, County, & City has very complicated layers that all users should have the background on.

I don’t have information on what the original poster related to. However, I do know that impacts of our sport have raised concern from various agencies from the top down. Mountain biking has changed dynamically over the past thirty years and there are impacts that are drawing attention.

I have been riding these areas since 1987, and helping to manage some substantial acreage within them for the past thirteen years; so I do have a unique perspective.

One thing that has never benefited any user group when issues like these rise to the surface, is non-factual information and anecdotal information coming from social media sites. It’s true that there are many landowners, land managers, and oversight agencies that view many user sites. It’s also accurate that most realize the number of posters represent a small portion of the user group. However, it does give them an insight into the attitudes, likes, dislikes, and expectations of the various groups.

Again, there is no way to hit on everything people have broached in this thread at one time. But it is important for everyone to know how these areas are managed in South Orange County. Most of the parks in Orange County that these posts represent are signatory to one or more habitat plans that oversee the habitat and govern the uses. Crystal Cove, Laguna Coast, Laguna Coast, the City of Irvine, and most of the northern most areas.. Black Star, Fremont, Limestone Canyon, etc… are under a habitat protection/development plan called the NCCP/HCP. (County of Orange, Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP to be specific). I will put the link to the documents at the end of this post.

But the short story is, that prior to the signing of the plan; developers and environmental groups were at odds, and it was difficult for developers to build on land they owned; and likewise difficult for environmental groups to protect declining habitat values. So in the mid-1990’s they coordinated the drafting of the NCCP (Natural Communities Conservation Plan). Basically it set aside all the lands that would be developed, and all the lands that would be protected in perpetuity as protected open space.

That’s the best starting block for understating these areas, as the plan itself is very clear on what and how the land is protected, and what uses are acceptable and allowed. Also, what steps should be taken if habitat values decline.

So I think moving this thread forward, it would be good to focus on the overlying documents that oversee all these areas, as this is the document that most parts of the resource plans are based on. This can be a good thread to get information out to the group.

I would be happy to post more specific details when I get more time, but I don’t want to get too lengthy.

People can contact me anytime for more information.

Here is the link to the NCCP if it helps.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal

Thanks,
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
herzalot said:
I am an eternal optimist who believes in education, communication and diplomacy way before draconian punitive action. Talk of closures, fines, confiscation and intentionally destroying trails makes my skin crawl. Some of you will see that as rainbows and unicorns. I see it as the only hope for civilization.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your contributions to this thread. However, In light of your previous post, not sure what you mean here. Why do you want the illegal trails to not be enforced, closed and removed, if youre so against the poaching? We cant have it both ways. Either we work with the park and each other to completely end or at least drastically reduce poaching and keep overall access; or we dont. I think at this point the only way we can maintain continued legal access is if mountain bikers commit to stop poaching (and reckless riding) and encourage others to do the same; and illegal trails are either legalized into the trail system (which dildomacy can work towards, hopefully), or enforced, closed, and removed. There are just too many riders, and poachers. I certainly believe in education and communication but I am also a realist. Good luck educating someone not to poach is if there is no personal immediate consequence for doing so. Besides, the only logical result of the end of poaching is that those trails that remain illegal to bikes as well as all other users will be removed anyway, as they serve no other purpose and the park will reclaim the habitat.
 
Last edited:
sir crashalot said:
Thank you for your contributions to this thread. However, In light of your previous post, not sure what you mean here. Charm our way into what, exactly? Why do you want the illegal trails to not be enforced, closed and removed, if youre so against the poaching? We cant have it both ways. Either we work with the park to completely end or at least drastically reduce poaching and keep overall access; or we dont. I think at this point the only way we can maintain continued legal access is if we commit to stop poaching and encourage others to do the same; and illegal trails are either legalized into the trail system (which dildomacy can work towards, hopefully), or enforced, closed, and removed. There are just too many riders, and poachers. I certainly believe in education and communication but I am also a realist. Good luck educating someone not to poach is if there is no personal immediate consequence for doing so. Besides, the only logical result of the end of poaching is that those trails that remain illegal to bikes as well as all other users will be removed anyway, as they serve no other purpose and the park will reclaim the habitat.
Click to expand...
I do not want any trails destroyed or removed. I would love to see a few more of them adopted in - perhaps even as MtB only (gasp)! Never actually said I was against "poaching" per se, just against brash, arrogant and hyper-public use and abuse of unauthorized trails. Given the number of times I've ridden Telonics, I would be a hypocrite to claim otherwise.

I am not interested in "charming" anyone, but I hope that we can educate our new crop of trail users and abusers to behave better and more respectfully, and hope to open up dialogue between rangers and mt. bikers.

That is pretty much it.

No harm in some idealism counterbalancing all you "realists" and "pragmatists" right?

As of now, we are in existentialist limbo - it is what it is.

Or is it?
 
Last edited:
herzalot said:
I do not want any trails destroyed or removed. I would love to see a few more of them adopted in - perhaps even as MtB only (gasp)!
Click to expand...
Of course, I would love to see that as well! However, as you know there is a large number of illegal trails in the parks. There is no way the park is going to incorporate all of them into the legal trail system. If poaching is to stop, at least the majority of them have to be effectively enforced and/or destroyed. Like you said, they are very visible now and will never revert back to the narrow, hard to find, infrequently ridden and discreetly, state of the past. Again ,not my wishes per se, just being a realist. If any are going to become legal, the park probabaly already has a few in mind , and would leave those to remain closed but existent for now until theyre adopted in. theres my bit of idealism!
 
Last edited:
As the Forum owner and moderator, I would just like to encourage everyone that MANY eyes observe our site now. Far more than I realized.

I’m not suggesting writing in code, or not saying what you mean, but on volatile subjects such as this, I strongly suggest focusing on proactive and helpful suggestions that lead towards positive growth and change and leave the course jesting, and potentially misunderstood statements and humor to other threads of less importance.

I’m not making light of anyone’s posts and positions. I am however setting very clear guidelines that everyone needs to treat this part of mountain biking as business. Very important business. Therefore, and I rarely do this but I will not hesitate to pull posts that do not reflect positive constructive intentions, and have private discussions with the poster. You all are always fantastic when it needs to be serious. So let’s mellow and find out all the facts and be good stewards on the trails and on the Trail Advocacy Forum as imtbtrails hooligans have always lived up to!

Be business owners and do this right.
:inlove: Thanks brothers and sisters...

Mikie
 
Last edited:
herzalot said:
Never actually said I was against "poaching" per se, just against brash, arrogant and hyper-public use and abuse of unauthorized trails..
Click to expand...
I agree, those types of poachers accelerated the situation to this point. However, from this point forwardnow, we either stop poaching or we dont, its not a matter of degree anymore. At this point any poaching. "discreet" or not, in the park's eyes is brash hyper-public abuse of unauthorized trails. if we want to maintain general access I think all poaching needs to end or at least greatly reduced.
 
Last edited:
Obsidian said:
I figured the recent eBike crackdown was too good to be true ... just a prelude to potentially banning us all. This thread was too long for me to actually read through, but I blame eBikes.
Click to expand...
I came acrosss an ebiker in aliso today. I mentioned that ebikes were illegal in teh park. He said, "yeah, i know, i remember you saying that a year ago. ive lost a bunch of weight, Im thinking about getting a real bike". I then remembered our convo back then, he had no idea it was illegal in the park, bike shop certainly didnt tell him.
I told him banning of all bikes in the park was on the table, because of people both riding ebikes, and unauthorized trails, excessively. I think I got him thinking. it was a pleasant conversation, at least.
 
herzalot said:
I do not want any trails destroyed or removed. I would love to see a few more of them adopted in - perhaps even as MtB only (gasp)! Never actually said I was against "poaching" per se, just against brash, arrogant and hyper-public use and abuse of unauthorized trails. Given the number of times I've ridden Telonics, I would be a hypocrite to claim otherwise.

I am not interested in "charming" anyone, but I hope that we can educate our new crop of trail users and abusers to behave better and more respectfully, and hope to open up dialogue between rangers and mt. bikers.

That is pretty much it.

No harm in some idealism counterbalancing all you "realists" and "pragmatists" right?

As of now, we are in existentialist limbo - it is what it is.

Or is it?
Click to expand...
I hate to say this Chris but if closure of the area is already a consideration in this case, adopting illegal trails is not the answer because their existence is part of what caused the situation in the first place, if I am understanding what is going on here.
 
SnakeCharmer said:
I hate to say this Chris but if closure of the area is already a consideration in this case, adopting illegal trails is not the answer because their existence is part of what caused the situation in the first place, if I am understanding what is going on here.
Click to expand...
Hey Mike!:)
I think the short and narrow of it is, that in all honesty, in the past, there was a truce amongst law enforcement and a smaller group of covert poachers to let things lay as it was. That would be considered a "gift" and a "privilege" from our law enforcement. But there is a new generation of mountain bikers who are openly and publicly promoting these off menu trails via YouTube channels and STRAVA (for example) that has postured the off menu trails as now high traffic areas. Because of this significant increase in illegal trail use activity, law enforcement is trying to reign it back in. I think the big word here and what Chris is trying to stress is "IF" they can not successfully reduce the blatant mass use of these said trails and the publicity they are receiving from advertisers, there is the "Potential" of a bike ban across the board for these OC Parks.

So,
In effort to not have that happen, as mountain bikers, we have to get our Sh!t together, and the responsible mountain bikers need to show genuine interest and cooperate with law enforcement. A big part of that probably could be:
  1. Align ourselves with guys like Tommy and Mo and help them to understand the long term consequences of their current path. For them this is a current revenue stream, so I understand their motive. But like all revenue streams, capitalizing on off menu trails with video will dry up so let's simply focus on other opportunities and remove off menu from the lime light.
  2. Organize ourselves, maybe even build a coalition or join a reputable existing organization with a fancy name and everything that stands for responsible mountain biking and align ourselves with the wary public and frustrated law enforcement and show we can organize and be responsible to be part of the solution.
  3. There may even be a compromise to legalize some of those off menu trails, and maybe even designate them as mountain bike specific. That's where reasonable compromise comes in to play!
We should already realize this is what has to happen. So let's just do it. Be proactive. Be nice. Be professional, and be organized.
Nobody is EVER going to give up on us when we have a positive attitude. It means we are coachable and teachable and always willing to grow through our trial and failures.

Anyone?
Does this pretty much sum it up?
 
Mikie said:
Hey Mike!:)
I think the short and narrow of it is, that in all honesty, in the past, there was a truce amongst law enforcement and a smaller group of covert poachers to let things lay as it was. That would be considered a "gift" and a "privilege" from our law enforcement. But there is a new generation of mountain bikers who are openly and publicly promoting these off menu trails via YouTube channels and STRAVA (for example) that has postured the off menu trails as now high traffic areas. Because of this significant increase in illegal trail use activity, law enforcement is trying to reign it back in. I think the big word here and what Chris is trying to stress is "IF" they can not successfully reduce the blatant mass use of these said trails and the publicity they are receiving from advertisers, there is the "Potential" of a bike ban across the board for these OC Parks.

So,
In effort to not have that happen, as mountain bikers, we have to get our Sh!t together, and the responsible mountain bikers need to show genuine interest and cooperate with law enforcement. A big part of that probably could be:
  1. Align ourselves with guys like Tommy and Mo and help them to understand the long term consequences of their current path. For them this is a current revenue stream, so I understand their motive. But like all revenue streams, capitalizing on off menu trails with video will dry up so let's simply focus on other opportunities and remove off menu from the lime light.
  2. Organize ourselves, maybe even build a coalition or join a reputable existing organization with a fancy name and everything that stands for responsible mountain biking and align ourselves with the wary public and frustrated law enforcement and show we can organize and be responsible to be part of the solution.
  3. There may even be a compromise to legalize some of those off menu trails, and maybe even designate them as mountain bike specific. That's where reasonable compromise comes in to play!
We should already realize this is what has to happen. So let's just do it. Be proactive. Be nice. Be professional, and be organized.
Nobody is EVER going to give up on us when we have a positive attitude. It means we are coachable and teachable and always willing to grow through our trial and failures.

Anyone?
Does this pretty much sum it up?
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top