Mountain Bikers Upset Over Losing their Illegally-Built Trails!



M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
Locked gate now restricts access to land near airport

By Michael Burge
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

November 25, 2006

CARLSBAD – A group of mountain-bike riders who used a clandestine web
of trails for two decades is trying to save them, even as the paths
are being fenced off and bulldozed away.


CRISSY PASCUAL / Union-Tribune
Josh Lenahan (left) and Stefan Rest (right) stopped to talk to Michael
Hansen of San Marcos. The two are trying to save some mountain-bike
trails.
Called Flightline, for their proximity to McClellan-Palomar Airport,
the trails had been fashioned over time by riders who built bridges
and other features on brush-covered hills that, to them, were of
questionable ownership.

That ownership is no longer in question, as 300 acres recently was
transferred by the county to the nonprofit Center for Natural Lands
Management. The Fallbrook-based nonprofit administers the property
east of El Camino Real and north of Palomar Airport Road, preserving
it as natural habitat.

Much of the land was owned by the county, and when developers of the
nearby 195-acre Carlsbad Oaks North business park won approval for
their project in 2002, the land was set aside as permanent open space
with restricted use.

Hearing of the land switch, the mountain bikers began corresponding
with Markus Spiegelberg, the San Diego manager for the land management
center, about preserving the trails. Two weeks ago, the bikers found a
fence and a locked gate at the trailhead.

“This is him working with us,” Josh Lenahan, a trail rider from
Carlsbad, said sarcastically as he stood at the sealed trailhead on
Orion Way near the Carlsbad skate park.

“There have been hundreds of hours (put into) the trails here,” he
said, adding that people who built them tried to respect the natural
environment, and now their work has been obliterated.

Stefan Rest, a mountain biker upset by the trails' demise, has
dedicated a Web site, www.rideflightline.com., to saving them.

His online petition has more than 1,300 names, including some from
Canada and France, and even from Jersey, an island in the English
Channel.

He said there's nothing comparable in the county, even in the
backcountry.

Rest discouraged riders from using the trails while his group worked
with Spiegelberg to retain access, and posted signs warning people
they risked a fine and the loss of their bike if they rode in the
area.

He saw Spiegelberg's fence as a betrayal.

“We're upset that this guy told us to work with (him), get everybody
to stop riding, and all of a sudden we stop getting correspondence and
the chain link went up,” Rest said.

Spiegelberg said 100 acres east of the Carlsbad Safety Center near the
city's skate park is controlled by an agreement, called a conservation
easement, that bars biking, horseback riding and motorcycling.

That's why the fence went up.

Spiegelberg said he found some interesting features when he walked
through the property recently before taking it over.

“One (trail) was pretty intense. It had bridges and switchbacks and
lots of cleared vegetation,” he said, all potential violations of
state or federal law.

“I posted it and said you're on the land illegally, stop, and I got
5,000 e-mails.”

Mountain bikers weren't the only ones taking advantage of the natural
space. Employees of local businesses and business owners hiked, ran or
rode there on a regular basis. Spiegelberg also found encampments of
homeless people.

A wild-west attitude had prevailed that the land was open to anyone to
use.

“You get this history of use,” Spiegelberg said. “Nobody kicks them
off. A motorcycle would go through there, or a mountain biker.”

He said it would have been better if people who used the trails were
involved when the Carlsbad Oaks North project processed its
environmental impact report, so they could have been considered. But
because such people usually aren't organized, they learn about such a
process after decisions are made.

Rest and his group are learning that now.

“The uniqueness of this is it's in the middle of where we all live,”
Rest, a Carlsbad resident, said. “There aren't many places in the
county where you can pay $600,000 for your starter home and learn you
can't ride in your backyard.”

Spiegelberg has engaged the riders in e-mail conversations on their
Web site, calling it “a very friendly back and forth.” But for the
mountain bikers to use the land, they would have to work with the
county to rewrite the property agreement, he said.

“If they're going to come back in here and develop a trail, we'll
develop a trail that's sturdy and safe,” he said.

And he said he hopes everyone can get through this rough patch.

“A lot of people are really mad at us but essentially we're all on the
same page,” he said. “We're trying to find the last pieces of land and
manage it.”

That didn't help Michael Hansen, who was disappointed when he showed
up to ride last week and encountered that gate.

“I've been coaching for three or four years and riding since '88,”
said Hansen, 39, a semi-pro rider who works for American Airlines.
“That's the reason we moved to this area. Now we're losing this, too.”
Michael Burge: (760) 476-8230; [email protected]
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Thanks for the link - I will pass this on to other mountain bikers to
help the cause for biking...



Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Locked gate now restricts access to land near airport
>
> By Michael Burge
> UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
>
> November 25, 2006
>
> CARLSBAD – A group of mountain-bike riders who used a clandestine web
> of trails for two decades is trying to save them, even as the paths
> are being fenced off and bulldozed away.
>
>
> CRISSY PASCUAL / Union-Tribune
> Josh Lenahan (left) and Stefan Rest (right) stopped to talk to Michael
> Hansen of San Marcos. The two are trying to save some mountain-bike
> trails.
> Called Flightline, for their proximity to McClellan-Palomar Airport,
> the trails had been fashioned over time by riders who built bridges
> and other features on brush-covered hills that, to them, were of
> questionable ownership.
>
> That ownership is no longer in question, as 300 acres recently was
> transferred by the county to the nonprofit Center for Natural Lands
> Management. The Fallbrook-based nonprofit administers the property
> east of El Camino Real and north of Palomar Airport Road, preserving
> it as natural habitat.
>
> Much of the land was owned by the county, and when developers of the
> nearby 195-acre Carlsbad Oaks North business park won approval for
> their project in 2002, the land was set aside as permanent open space
> with restricted use.
>
> Hearing of the land switch, the mountain bikers began corresponding
> with Markus Spiegelberg, the San Diego manager for the land management
> center, about preserving the trails. Two weeks ago, the bikers found a
> fence and a locked gate at the trailhead.
>
> “This is him working with us,” Josh Lenahan, a trail rider from
> Carlsbad, said sarcastically as he stood at the sealed trailhead on
> Orion Way near the Carlsbad skate park.
>
> “There have been hundreds of hours (put into) the trails here,” he
> said, adding that people who built them tried to respect the natural
> environment, and now their work has been obliterated.
>
> Stefan Rest, a mountain biker upset by the trails' demise, has
> dedicated a Web site, www.rideflightline.com., to saving them.
>
> His online petition has more than 1,300 names, including some from
> Canada and France, and even from Jersey, an island in the English
> Channel.
>
> He said there's nothing comparable in the county, even in the
> backcountry.
>
> Rest discouraged riders from using the trails while his group worked
> with Spiegelberg to retain access, and posted signs warning people
> they risked a fine and the loss of their bike if they rode in the
> area.
>
> He saw Spiegelberg's fence as a betrayal.
>
> “We're upset that this guy told us to work with (him), get everybody
> to stop riding, and all of a sudden we stop getting correspondence and
> the chain link went up,” Rest said.
>
> Spiegelberg said 100 acres east of the Carlsbad Safety Center near the
> city's skate park is controlled by an agreement, called a conservation
> easement, that bars biking, horseback riding and motorcycling.
>
> That's why the fence went up.
>
> Spiegelberg said he found some interesting features when he walked
> through the property recently before taking it over.
>
> “One (trail) was pretty intense. It had bridges and switchbacks and
> lots of cleared vegetation,” he said, all potential violations of
> state or federal law.
>
> “I posted it and said you're on the land illegally, stop, and I got
> 5,000 e-mails.”
>
> Mountain bikers weren't the only ones taking advantage of the natural
> space. Employees of local businesses and business owners hiked, ran or
> rode there on a regular basis. Spiegelberg also found encampments of
> homeless people.
>
> A wild-west attitude had prevailed that the land was open to anyone to
> use.
>
> “You get this history of use,” Spiegelberg said. “Nobody kicks them
> off. A motorcycle would go through there, or a mountain biker.”
>
> He said it would have been better if people who used the trails were
> involved when the Carlsbad Oaks North project processed its
> environmental impact report, so they could have been considered. But
> because such people usually aren't organized, they learn about such a
> process after decisions are made.
>
> Rest and his group are learning that now.
>
> “The uniqueness of this is it's in the middle of where we all live,”
> Rest, a Carlsbad resident, said. “There aren't many places in the
> county where you can pay $600,000 for your starter home and learn you
> can't ride in your backyard.”
>
> Spiegelberg has engaged the riders in e-mail conversations on their
> Web site, calling it “a very friendly back and forth.” But for the
> mountain bikers to use the land, they would have to work with the
> county to rewrite the property agreement, he said.
>
> “If they're going to come back in here and develop a trail, we'll
> develop a trail that's sturdy and safe,” he said.
>
> And he said he hopes everyone can get through this rough patch.
>
> “A lot of people are really mad at us but essentially we're all on the
> same page,” he said. “We're trying to find the last pieces of land and
> manage it.”
>
> That didn't help Michael Hansen, who was disappointed when he showed
> up to ride last week and encountered that gate.
>
> “I've been coaching for three or four years and riding since '88,”
> said Hansen, 39, a semi-pro rider who works for American Airlines.
> “That's the reason we moved to this area. Now we're losing this, too.”
> Michael Burge: (760) 476-8230; [email protected]
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Environ wrote:
> Thanks for the link - I will pass this on to other mountain bikers to
> help the cause for biking...



What do you mean "other mountain bikers"? The dorks who built those
"trails" are a bunch of morons who were a)trespassing b)damaging
private property and c)propagating a negative image for those who
choose to mountain bike. If the property owner asked me to help tear
that **** down, I'd volunteer.

JD
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Locked gate now restricts access to land near airport
>
> By Michael Burge
> UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
>
> November 25, 2006
>
> CARLSBAD - A group of mountain-bike riders who used a clandestine web
> of trails for two decades is trying to save them, even as the paths
> are being fenced off and bulldozed away.


A narrow biking trail is being removed with a bulldozer? Now folks, that's
the government way to do things, and Mike approves of it.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> di wrote:
> > "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Locked gate now restricts access to land near airport
> > >
> > > By Michael Burge
> > > UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
> > >
> > > November 25, 2006
> > >
> > > CARLSBAD - A group of mountain-bike riders who used a clandestine web
> > > of trails for two decades is trying to save them, even as the paths
> > > are being fenced off and bulldozed away.

> >
> > A narrow biking trail is being removed with a bulldozer? Now folks, that's
> > the government way to do things, and Mike approves of it.

>
> Maybe the tunnel vision cause by your severe anti-vandamnan attitude
> kept you from reading the fact that it was PRIVATE PROPERTY, not
> government lands as you have erroneously indicated.


So when the original article said it was County property when the trails
were built, it was an error? Or was it an error when it said the new
management of the land by the trust was controlled by an agreement with
the County?

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
 
It is pretty clear from this article that the land is set aside as
biological mitigation land for an environmental impact to one or more
special status species or sensitive habitats. If that is the case, and
the CNLM is going to be the manager of this land under some sort of
grant arrangement, it is a foregone conclusion that bike riding, and
probably most other activities that are potentially harmful to the
specific species being protected, will be restricted. In other words,
this land is for the use of endangered critters, not for people.

And yes, in the process of environmental restoration, sometimes you use
a bulldozer to get to an improved end product. Won't be the first
time, nor the last.

Bruce Jensen
 
"Bruce Jensen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It is pretty clear from this article that the land is set aside
> as
> biological mitigation land for an environmental impact to one
> or more
> special status species or sensitive habitats. If that is the
> case, and
> the CNLM is going to be the manager of this land under some
> sort of
> grant arrangement, it is a foregone conclusion that bike
> riding, and
> probably most other activities that are potentially harmful to
> the
> specific species being protected, will be restricted. In other
> words,
> this land is for the use of endangered critters, not for
> people.
>
> And yes, in the process of environmental restoration, sometimes
> you use
> a bulldozer to get to an improved end product. Won't be the
> first
> time, nor the last.
>
> Bruce Jensen
>==============

Reminds me of an area just off the runway where I worked. For 30
years the airport burned the area off every spring, and mowed it
3 or 4 times each summer. Then, during some construction
somebody found a 'rare' plant. Now, the plant itself wasn't
endangered, but apparently the butterfly that fed off it was.
So, the state came in, told the airpost they could not mow, and
for sure could not burn the area. It looks to me like the plant
liked the fumes off the runway, the burning and the mowing.
Afterall, it was thriving there for the last 30 years. Now
they're gone. The area looked like **** for years. I think the
only thing that turned the thinking around was that the high
weeds could be a security threat.
Sometimes the 'process' of environmental restoration doesn't
protect what they think it will.
 
On 27 Nov 2006 12:15:13 -0800, "JD" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Environ wrote:
>> Thanks for the link - I will pass this on to other mountain bikers to
>> help the cause for biking...

>
>
>What do you mean "other mountain bikers"? The dorks who built those
>"trails" are a bunch of morons who were a)trespassing b)damaging
>private property and c)propagating a negative image for those who
>choose to mountain bike. If the property owner asked me to help tear
>that **** down, I'd volunteer.
>
>JD


Why is it that so few mountain bikers are willing to tell the truth???
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
S Curtiss wrote:
> However, the article does state the trails were used by hikers and runners.
> Illegal or not, singling out the "mountain bikers" as the only culprit in
> this scenerio seems unfair. I can grasp that the article focuses on the
> cyclists and their efforts to get the area re-open, however, the reference
> to other activities in the area leaves it open to a cooperative effort for
> all concerned.



No, it's not unfair to single out these bike doofs because it was the
bike doofs who built that ridiculous ****, not hikers or runners.
Again, it ran in and out of private property and what was ripped out
first and started the crocodile tears was on private property. After
that was exposed and the tears began is when the other land managers
were forced to deal with the liability of this problem. They could no
longer turn their heads and ignore it because the jackasses were
raising a stink and public awareness with that stink.

> It is likely that one of two options will emerge. Either it will remain
> closed until it is surrounded and squeezed by development, or it will become
> homogenized with the remaining trails turned to little more than a greenway.
> The total to be gained is knowledge of working within the system to gain
> legal and designated access and status.



My bet is on a paved greenway, weaving between the squeeze.

> Fortunately, every MV post offers some positive knowledge in this regard as
> in using what is negative to gain knowledge for advancing the positive.
> Stories like this only increase awareness for those that are riding
> correctly.



It's kind of like finding a speck of gold dust in a giant turd. It
doesn't happen very often and when it does, you just happened to see a
glint before flushing.

JD
 
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:03:32 -0700, "TJ" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Now you are advocating more pavement?


Learn to read. I just advocate restricting bikes to pavement, not
CREATING pavement. Can you tell the difference?

You do have a wet noodle for a brain.
>
>Tell the truth Mike. You are not a voice of the hiking community. You
>surely do not speak for me or anyone else that can walk.
>
>TJ

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:35:38 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>

>>However, the article does state the trails were used by hikers and
>>runners.
>>Illegal or not, singling out the "mountain bikers" as the only culprit in
>>this scenerio seems unfair. I can grasp that the article focuses on the
>>cyclists and their efforts to get the area re-open,

>
> You can't "re-open" what was never open.

They were open to the degree of being public land with a "history of use" It
was the change over of ownership of surrounding area (for development) that
created a focus on management.
>
> however, the reference
>>to other activities in the area leaves it open to a cooperative effort for
>>all concerned.
>>It is likely that one of two options will emerge. Either it will remain
>>closed until it is surrounded and squeezed by development, or it will
>>become
>>homogenized with the remaining trails turned to little more than a
>>greenway.
>>The total to be gained is knowledge of working within the system to gain
>>legal and designated access and status.
>>Fortunately, every MV post offers some positive knowledge in this regard
>>as
>>in using what is negative to gain knowledge for advancing the positive.
>>Stories like this only increase awareness for those that are riding
>>correctly.

>
> No mountain biker rides "correctly". They belong on paved roads.
> Period.

Your OPINION. Which is NOT the law and is NOT a filter to determine any
legal status of the activity.
> ===
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:03:32 -0700, "TJ" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Now you are advocating more pavement?

>
> Learn to read. I just advocate restricting bikes to pavement, not
> CREATING pavement. Can you tell the difference?


Certainly seems that you are all too happy to have the area squeezed by
building rather than allow some cyclists to ride. If you were at all
interested in protecting green space, you would be against the development.
But no, you are so caught up in your opinions that you can't see the trees
for the concrete.

>
> You do have a wet noodle for a brain.
>>
>>Tell the truth Mike. You are not a voice of the hiking community. You
>>surely do not speak for me or anyone else that can walk.
>>
>>TJ

> ===
 
"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> S Curtiss wrote:
>> However, the article does state the trails were used by hikers and
>> runners.
>> Illegal or not, singling out the "mountain bikers" as the only culprit in
>> this scenerio seems unfair. I can grasp that the article focuses on the
>> cyclists and their efforts to get the area re-open, however, the
>> reference
>> to other activities in the area leaves it open to a cooperative effort
>> for
>> all concerned.

>
>
> No, it's not unfair to single out these bike doofs because it was the
> bike doofs who built that ridiculous ****, not hikers or runners.
> Again, it ran in and out of private property and what was ripped out
> first and started the crocodile tears was on private property. After
> that was exposed and the tears began is when the other land managers
> were forced to deal with the liability of this problem. They could no
> longer turn their heads and ignore it because the jackasses were
> raising a stink and public awareness with that stink.


It is also unreasonable to assume all of these cyclists are "bike doofs". It
is probable more were just riding on what was there. What a few renegades
may have constructed for added thrill should not be associated with everyone
who rides a bike.
>
>> It is likely that one of two options will emerge. Either it will remain
>> closed until it is surrounded and squeezed by development, or it will
>> become
>> homogenized with the remaining trails turned to little more than a
>> greenway.
>> The total to be gained is knowledge of working within the system to gain
>> legal and designated access and status.

>
>
> My bet is on a paved greenway, weaving between the squeeze.


Fantastic. Another stroke in the column for mediocrity, bureaucracy and
progress for "our own good" by suits who wouldn't know an oak from a
dandelion.
>
>> Fortunately, every MV post offers some positive knowledge in this regard
>> as
>> in using what is negative to gain knowledge for advancing the positive.
>> Stories like this only increase awareness for those that are riding
>> correctly.

>
> It's kind of like finding a speck of gold dust in a giant turd. It
> doesn't happen very often and when it does, you just happened to see a
> glint before flushing.
>

Well... That actually made me laugh. Especially the comparison of MV's
writings to a giant turd...

> JD
>
 
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:23:25 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> S Curtiss wrote:
>>> However, the article does state the trails were used by hikers and
>>> runners.
>>> Illegal or not, singling out the "mountain bikers" as the only culprit in
>>> this scenerio seems unfair. I can grasp that the article focuses on the
>>> cyclists and their efforts to get the area re-open, however, the
>>> reference
>>> to other activities in the area leaves it open to a cooperative effort
>>> for
>>> all concerned.

>>
>>
>> No, it's not unfair to single out these bike doofs because it was the
>> bike doofs who built that ridiculous ****, not hikers or runners.
>> Again, it ran in and out of private property and what was ripped out
>> first and started the crocodile tears was on private property. After
>> that was exposed and the tears began is when the other land managers
>> were forced to deal with the liability of this problem. They could no
>> longer turn their heads and ignore it because the jackasses were
>> raising a stink and public awareness with that stink.

>
>It is also unreasonable to assume all of these cyclists are "bike doofs". It
>is probable more were just riding on what was there.


You KNOW that's a LIE. They BUILT those trails themselves --
ILLEGALLY.

What a few renegades
>may have constructed for added thrill should not be associated with everyone
>who rides a bike.
>>
>>> It is likely that one of two options will emerge. Either it will remain
>>> closed until it is surrounded and squeezed by development, or it will
>>> become
>>> homogenized with the remaining trails turned to little more than a
>>> greenway.
>>> The total to be gained is knowledge of working within the system to gain
>>> legal and designated access and status.

>>
>>
>> My bet is on a paved greenway, weaving between the squeeze.

>
>Fantastic. Another stroke in the column for mediocrity, bureaucracy and
>progress for "our own good" by suits who wouldn't know an oak from a
>dandelion.
>>
>>> Fortunately, every MV post offers some positive knowledge in this regard
>>> as
>>> in using what is negative to gain knowledge for advancing the positive.
>>> Stories like this only increase awareness for those that are riding
>>> correctly.

>>
>> It's kind of like finding a speck of gold dust in a giant turd. It
>> doesn't happen very often and when it does, you just happened to see a
>> glint before flushing.
>>

>Well... That actually made me laugh. Especially the comparison of MV's
>writings to a giant turd...
>
>> JD
>>

>

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:23:25 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> S Curtiss wrote:
>>>> However, the article does state the trails were used by hikers and
>>>> runners.
>>>> Illegal or not, singling out the "mountain bikers" as the only culprit
>>>> in
>>>> this scenerio seems unfair. I can grasp that the article focuses on the
>>>> cyclists and their efforts to get the area re-open, however, the
>>>> reference
>>>> to other activities in the area leaves it open to a cooperative effort
>>>> for
>>>> all concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not unfair to single out these bike doofs because it was the
>>> bike doofs who built that ridiculous ****, not hikers or runners.
>>> Again, it ran in and out of private property and what was ripped out
>>> first and started the crocodile tears was on private property. After
>>> that was exposed and the tears began is when the other land managers
>>> were forced to deal with the liability of this problem. They could no
>>> longer turn their heads and ignore it because the jackasses were
>>> raising a stink and public awareness with that stink.

>>
>>It is also unreasonable to assume all of these cyclists are "bike doofs".
>>It
>>is probable more were just riding on what was there.

>
> You KNOW that's a LIE. They BUILT those trails themselves --
> ILLEGALLY.

NO - You can NOT say that ALL the people riding in that area were involved
in building anything. You can not assign your OPINION to everyone.
And yet again, your weak minded pathetic excuse for making a point is lost
as you IGNORE the complete context as stated below!
>
> What a few renegades
>>may have constructed for added thrill should not be associated with
>>everyone
>>who rides a bike.
>>>

You can't make a statement in full context because you KNOW it would show
your lack of balance in stating OPINION over FACT. Just as your "research"
lacks balance of opinion over fact.
 
S Curtiss wrote:
> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > S Curtiss wrote:
> >> However, the article does state the trails were used by hikers and
> >> runners.
> >> Illegal or not, singling out the "mountain bikers" as the only culprit in
> >> this scenerio seems unfair. I can grasp that the article focuses on the
> >> cyclists and their efforts to get the area re-open, however, the
> >> reference
> >> to other activities in the area leaves it open to a cooperative effort
> >> for
> >> all concerned.

> >
> >
> > No, it's not unfair to single out these bike doofs because it was the
> > bike doofs who built that ridiculous ****, not hikers or runners.
> > Again, it ran in and out of private property and what was ripped out
> > first and started the crocodile tears was on private property. After
> > that was exposed and the tears began is when the other land managers
> > were forced to deal with the liability of this problem. They could no
> > longer turn their heads and ignore it because the jackasses were
> > raising a stink and public awareness with that stink.

>
> It is also unreasonable to assume all of these cyclists are "bike doofs". It
> is probable more were just riding on what was there. What a few renegades
> may have constructed for added thrill should not be associated with everyone
> who rides a bike.



No, it'[s not unreasonable to know they are doofs because if they rode
those trails, they were trespassing, plain and simple. Ignorance is no
excuse and if any of those landowners lobbied enough to have a cop in
the bushes writing citations, not a one of those doofs would have been
exempt. As far as the retards who built that ****, where the hell are
they when it comes time for legitimate trail work? Check out a few mtb
message boards for the SoCal area and see how huge the responses aren't
when it comes to legitimate trail work days. It's friggin' sad.

> >> It is likely that one of two options will emerge. Either it will remain
> >> closed until it is surrounded and squeezed by development, or it will
> >> become
> >> homogenized with the remaining trails turned to little more than a
> >> greenway.
> >> The total to be gained is knowledge of working within the system to gain
> >> legal and designated access and status.

> >
> >
> > My bet is on a paved greenway, weaving between the squeeze.

>
> Fantastic. Another stroke in the column for mediocrity, bureaucracy and
> progress for "our own good" by suits who wouldn't know an oak from a
> dandelion.



You wouldn't take that bet, would you? I grew up in SoCal and have
watched it happen over and over again.

JD
 
"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> S Curtiss wrote:
>> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > S Curtiss wrote:
>> >> However, the article does state the trails were used by hikers and
>> >> runners.
>> >> Illegal or not, singling out the "mountain bikers" as the only culprit
>> >> in
>> >> this scenerio seems unfair. I can grasp that the article focuses on
>> >> the
>> >> cyclists and their efforts to get the area re-open, however, the
>> >> reference
>> >> to other activities in the area leaves it open to a cooperative effort
>> >> for
>> >> all concerned.
>> >
>> >
>> > No, it's not unfair to single out these bike doofs because it was the
>> > bike doofs who built that ridiculous ****, not hikers or runners.
>> > Again, it ran in and out of private property and what was ripped out
>> > first and started the crocodile tears was on private property. After
>> > that was exposed and the tears began is when the other land managers
>> > were forced to deal with the liability of this problem. They could no
>> > longer turn their heads and ignore it because the jackasses were
>> > raising a stink and public awareness with that stink.

>>
>> It is also unreasonable to assume all of these cyclists are "bike doofs".
>> It
>> is probable more were just riding on what was there. What a few renegades
>> may have constructed for added thrill should not be associated with
>> everyone
>> who rides a bike.

>
>
> No, it'[s not unreasonable to know they are doofs because if they rode
> those trails, they were trespassing, plain and simple. Ignorance is no
> excuse and if any of those landowners lobbied enough to have a cop in
> the bushes writing citations, not a one of those doofs would have been
> exempt. As far as the retards who built that ****, where the hell are
> they when it comes time for legitimate trail work? Check out a few mtb
> message boards for the SoCal area and see how huge the responses aren't
> when it comes to legitimate trail work days. It's friggin' sad.

I'm not an MTB-r.... anymore. That was my teen years when we pioneered the
whole deal on Schwinn Stingrays. However, we also had parents that would
kick our asses if we were busted trespassing or damaging other's property.
We had permission to ride where we did and if we got hurt, we cried and went
home.

Today - nobody is responsible except the lawyers ready to grab a fee for a
negligence suit and parents don't want to disclipline their kids because
then they would have to actually watch them instead of climbing their social
ladder.

Its a small wonder there is any civilization at all. On the trail or in the
street. When more people know who Bam is than their own Senator, its time to
back it down a notch.
That being said....
In this instance, however, there seems to be a very fuzzy line between what
has been going on for a long time (accepted or otherwise seen with a "blind
eye" by authorities) to suddenly being gated with enforcement. Yeah - a
little attention to civics and due process on the part of the cyclists would
have probably been beneficial to everyone. Now they find themselves behind
the gate. Maybe they will learn something.

But I do not think every cyclist is "guilty" simply because they pedaled
through an area that was vaguely marked (if marked at all) that had a long
history of being known as a place to ride.
>
>> >> It is likely that one of two options will emerge. Either it will
>> >> remain
>> >> closed until it is surrounded and squeezed by development, or it will
>> >> become
>> >> homogenized with the remaining trails turned to little more than a
>> >> greenway.
>> >> The total to be gained is knowledge of working within the system to
>> >> gain
>> >> legal and designated access and status.
>> >
>> >
>> > My bet is on a paved greenway, weaving between the squeeze.

>>
>> Fantastic. Another stroke in the column for mediocrity, bureaucracy and
>> progress for "our own good" by suits who wouldn't know an oak from a
>> dandelion.

>
>
> You wouldn't take that bet, would you? I grew up in SoCal and have
> watched it happen over and over again.
>

No - I wouldn't. It happens here "back east" too. We also don't seem to have
the same type of problems. We have areas that are "no bikes" and
whatdoyaknow... No cyclists go there. I can't think of anyone who would even
think of taking a bicycle on the Appalachian Trail or other "no bike" zones.
We have loads of trails and, for the most part, we get along.
I wonder why that is....?
We also sent most of our hippies out west. But thats probably a non-issue...
:)