Aliso-Wood and Laguna Coast Wilderness Parks

What kind of injuries are you talking about? People falling off their bicycles? Hikers spraining ankles? Bikes running into hikers?

As for usage, trails in OC Parks are a bit of a zoo these days. Too many people trying to live a healthy lifestyle. I thought we were the FAT America? Why aren't these people on the couch instead of being outside?? Man I hate people!

Maybe we need an "Outdoor School" to teach all users the rules of trail etiquette before they can touch the dirt?

 

Welcome aboard. Open trails are good trails!!!

 

It starts with education. There are rules of the trail. Riders that don’t understand proper etiquette around other trail users.

While we are the biggest user group, we are bottom of the food chain, and honestly, that is fine. However for many, they don’t see it that way. Yes, these are the bad apples, those that are our own worst enemy.

Bells....require them.

But we are not the only cause.

Hikers walking 3+ across the trail, not paying attention to their surroundings. Having their ass jammed so far up their phones....wear buds with music so loud I can hear it when I ride by. You ring your bell behind them, numerous times....they don’t yield, they don’t even acknowledge you. The trail opens up and you go to pass, then they jump in terror. Tell me how this is my fault.

Hikers need education as well. How many times have you ridden up to a group of hikers to have them yield, yet they scatter to the opposite side of the trail. Treat the trail like you would a road, step to your right.

Let’s talk about cutting trails, hikers continue to cut switchbacks....often times within a couple feet from the switchback. What, you couldn’t take 20 more steps and go around the turn and stay on trail?

Hikers with Dogs off leash. No, I don’t care how well you think your dog is trained. Yes, I have been bitten on trail by a dog off leash.

Or even worse, dogs on really long leashes....these are even more dangerous than dogs off leash.

I’ve seen 2 large dogs tethered together then let off the leash from the owner....great, now there is a moving close line running up the trail. Again, how is this my fault as a cyclist.

Horses on trail, no problem....I have no issues. BUT....if your horse isn’t ok being around people or bikes, then maybe you shouldn’t be taking them into the middle of the hornet’s nest. Let the other users know whether it is ok to pass....and again pay attention to your surroundings.


I have no issues sharing the trails with other users. None of us have more a right to the trails than anyone else. But piss poor behavior is piss poor behavior....regardless of the user group.


I hear people talk about 1 way trails....I don’t like it. The way our multi use trails are created, they are usually just as fun in both directions.


Now Ebikes....irregardless of what they say, have motors....they are no longer non-motorized human powered. Thy have never been legal in OC Parks....yet they continue to poach the parks. Can’t say that is helping their cause. Your article on the issue basically put riders and business owners who know the rules, yet continue to ignore them for their own benefit.

Your article indicates that there is confusion....again they have never been legal in the OC Parks, so they is no confusion.

Ebikes were first pushed into the market as a way for the old and disabled to get out on the trail. Yet, once the door was unlocked, the marketing changed 180* and it turned into go farther in less time. This feeds directly into the instant gratification generation. I have heard ebike riders use the excuse that they need one to keep up with their friends that have been riding for a lot of years....yeah, they didn’t become experienced riders overnight. I ran into a rider at the Beeks’ at the top of Blackstar....she said she needed an ebike to make it up there, otherwise she wouldn’t be able to make it up Skyline. Maybe some people should set their goals on more realIstic levels. I’m want to hike the Grand Canyon but I’m not in good enough shape.....I think hey should install an escalator to the bottom.

Many riders are claiming disabilities as their excuse for Ebikes. I hear a lot of them falsely claim ADA. There are websites telling Ebikes how to falsely get around the ban.


Thanks for takin the time hear us out....but we are not the problem child that most wanna make us out to be.

 

They peel themselves off the couch for a daunting half mile “hike” to get those super important Instagram shots. Actually my biggest gripe is people who don’t know basic trail etiquette like walking in groups 5 wide not paying attention but I continue to have almost all positive interactions with a variety of folks on trails.

While I will still ride Oaks on weekends if time permits, I’ve been taking some days off work to ride mid-week and hardly see anyone out there. Early afternoon weekday rides aren’t bad either, I even got to meet a forum member walking their cool horse there last Wednesday afternoon.

My son doesn’t even have pedals and has a blast on his rig! He is already asking me for a pedal bike but I am not letting him off that easy just yet! If he ever askes for an e-bike I’ll suggest a moto.

 

Have it be a priority of the county and various cities to add more parks and singletrack!!!

 

Where I've been riding, some trails alternate days between bikes and hikers. Some trails are closed to biking always. The issue is too many users. This is simply what it's come to in areas where use has increased. Different hours of the day, forget that. If doing it, just do days as has proven to work elsewhere.

I don't mind the alternating days and hiker-only trails to siphon off some ped users. Wouldn't you rather ride Aliso Woods with no hikers there? Or have to unexpectedly deal with some clueless texting earbud dog leash clothesliner every other ride. Education will not fix cidiocy and OC entitlement. Better to just get them out of the way.

 

Since my goal is to ALWAYS stay CIVIL my fellow imtbmembers...
Hi David!
There are a lot of other organizations that have solid working models we can learn from.
As @mike stated above, there are areas that have odd even days. Hikers can have Even, Bikers can have Odd. I know a lot of folks will complain about this but if they would stop for just one minute and think about it. If the trails for one day were user specific, as bikers we would not experience the conga lines of hikers and we would have more flow on the trail as we would not be weaving through foot traffic, or fearful of surprising hikers. We hate surprising hikers as much as they hate being surprised. It would cut the traffic on the trails on any given day nearly in half! It also provides hikers with a peaceful day of hiking with their kids and their dogs without fear of fast moving cyclists. I don't believe in multi use trails unless segregated by days. My safety as a mountain biker is important to me as well.

Washington State is building trails like crazy. They are building Mountain Bike specific trails. We could do that in the parks as well. I have watched Sky Park build a number of trails in a very small area. All with great flow.
Why not hire an expert professional trail builder (I happen to know one, he happened to be the company that built Skyline in Big Bear), who could design and build a network of trails. They could even be in the same area as the hiking trails. That way the entire park is available to all and the trails are specific to user.

Just those two SIMPLE ideas could relieve a tremendous amount of tension in the OC Parks.

 

David, In regards to idiots flying out of control...
Have you ever ridden a mountain bike?
Look at the trail conditions of some of the trails in OC Parks. Look at the bikes we build to ride those trails in OC Parks. Ones perception of "idiots" flying out of control, and another's of enjoying their day riding the trails they love can be two completely different perceptions.

And it does not come down to a youth perspective. I don't know how old you are, but I'm 60. I'm fairly confident that your perception of my riding my bike down Car Wreck will be that I'm an idiot. My perception will be I'm having a good time and going for tacos afterwards.

So I think it's time for all the heat of everyone who is frustrated with David Whiting articles just calm down. He is not the voice of mountain bikers.
It might be a great idea to share with him mountain bike perspectives so that it could hopefully help all who enjoy the trails. I can honestly say that OC Parks may not have kept up with the times and the traffic it is over capacitated with. A more defined trail user plan could easily mitigate a lot of the tension.

The one thing that needs to be addressed right off, is ticketing eBikes for violating the law.
Second, parlay (pirate code) incorporating some of the off menu trails, "On Menu" as bike specific trails.
Third, Create Odd/Even days for trail users.

GEE! How much would that help, like TONs!
All very simple.

 

Not sure about injuries, but given the increasing number of users, and the amount of homes being added (where are they getting the water?!), time to start opening up the Irvine spaces that are currently only open for part of one day a month.

The even/odd solution would be great for a place like Marin where hikers are super anti-bike; I am not sure that it's something I even want. While the parks are crowded in the mornings on weekends, I hardly see anyone using the parks weekday afternoons, or even weekend afternoons for that matter. And by and large, there's no tension with the hikers I encounter on the trail. The only time I have had issues is with large, organized hiking groups, and it was obvious they were looking to be offended...

 

Understood Brothah, Not my area so if I am out of line you know I have no problem with correction, but, it does appear there are multi trail use challenges on the weekends. Certainly an education is needed for mountain bikers, eBikers, hikers, and equestrians since everyone has brought up challenges with each user group. Many are not blessed with the opportunity to ride "in week". That being the case, I'm just suggesting that during peak days like Saturdays and Sundays an Odd/Even plan might work well. Maybe also an online rule book for trail etiquette designed to meet the needs of every user group to help mutual understanding of other trail users. I know, you would "think" that common sense would be all you need. But who in this society remembers what common sense is anymore.

 

I don't know how much he rides now, but he was (is) a biker, @Mikie ... I used to read some of his articles. And sadly, I agree with his assessment of the users in the county parks. They are not the best representatives of our sport. It doesn't take long to spot the behavior that he describes in O'Neill, Whiting, Aliso, etc...

That storm trooper mentality is the reason I prefer the mountain trails over the county parks, even though I can ride to O'Neill from home in under 2 minutes, and I can be in Whiting in 30 ish.

 

I love how your article features a picture of Monica & Craig, with a caption stating eBikes are banned on dirt roads in OC Parks ... but those two constantly ride them on trails where they know they are not allowed. They were riding illegally in Santiago Oaks just yesterday. People who knowingly flaunt the rules are a big (if not the biggest) part of the problem right now between riders and OC Parks.

IMO, part of your article should have mentioned the bike shops responsibility to inform their consumers where they are and are not allowed. I doubt many shops tell their customers "Oh by the way, you can't ride your $10,000 eBike on dirt."

 

Basic issue: OC is full and the ebikes are a new user group at a time when we can’t add any more. So Let us build:
1. Santiago Oaks to Beeks Place—extended XC singletrack to be a northern bookend to San Juan. Add techy side trails along the way.

2. Irvine open space: skills trails down in the flats, and open all week.

3. Open Black Star to ebikes—it’s a dirt road, so whatever.

4. Loma Ridge: open all week, and consider a bike park. (Google Duthie Hill, or I think the one in Alabama is called Coldwater?)

 

I doubt that will ever happen. They have already cut Limestone access days down to about 4 per year. The last time I was on a docent led ride out there, they had a crew of people who were there to count butterflies. They looked exactly like the type of people who would be counting butterflies on a Sunday, and exactly like the type of people who would prefer zero access to those areas.

 

Interesting perspective.

1. Agreeable, although technically much of that area is deed-restricted through development / land-swap agreements where it isn't USFS areas. The plethora of roads in that area are utility easements, and there are two populations of trees that don't exist anywhere else, so it would take several legal hurdles to open up the non-USFS area between the Oaks and North Main Divide. I rode that before the toll road, and it wasn't until after the toll road that the closure was heavily enforced.

2. Irvine Open Space...even the Parks and Recreation Department with the City of Irvine has issues with how often its closed, again due to deed restrictions. Those restrictions call for the preservation of open space. There isn't a mandate that it be turned over to full public use until after development thresholds are met and funding thresholds are fulfilled...which I would describe as "poison-pills" since much of it has been this way going back to the mid 1990's, and is tied into how close Irvine gets to "built-out" on the El Toro Base and surrounding areas. I've been invested in that for 20+ years and opening it up would require the Bren family having an avid mountain biker, kind of like the Waltons in Arkansas.

3. I would say that Black Star is already open to ebikes, since its technically not a trail, its an easement into USFS administered land, and a fire road. OC Parks technically does not have the jurisdiction to close the portion of Blackstar that they administer to eBikes.

4. There are several areas in OC tailor made for a bike park, and if we can ever get through the politics that have required the 1st bike park to occur at Craig (and get shovels in the ground), those are the next step. Loma Ridge, the old Gypsum Canyon Mine (City of Anaheim), a couple of landfill sites that have 8'-10' of soil cap over the top anyway (if Rancho San Joaquin Golf Course can exist on one, then so can a bike park), etc. Again, unless someone (or business entity) goes out on a limb and sees a way to make enough money at it to offset the risk, then we're reliant on local government. If not OC Parks, then at the City Level.

That being said, distributed use can have a lower overall impact than concentrated use. The Aliso/Laguna area is pretty impacted as it is, so one of the best ideas is to provide alternatives within 30-minutes of driving, since most people drive to use those areas anyway.

 

Agreed. There really is no reason in not to allow something at the closed landfill...and I can't remember exactly where Saddleback Park - the off-road motorcycle area - was, but I seem to recall it being somewhere near the landfill. Tons of opportunities, little common sense.

 

That doesn't make sense to me, Dan. It's my understanding the Forest Service only wants motorized vehicles on certain roads within the Forest boundary. Black Star Canyon Road is not one of them. If motorized bikes were allowed, they'd open the gate and let people drive their cars up. Maple Springs is cool, though, as long as the gate is open. Main Divide as well, but not past locked gates or in the fire closure area.

 

Oooofff. While there are plenty of idiots on bikes, there are also plenty of idiots of other trail user groups. I think this is apparent to any park user that's spent a few mornings or afternoons in the park. It doesn't matter which user group you identify with, it's not hard to see that idiocy isn't just limited to bikes. So before we go calling names, let's take a step back and evaluate the symptom vs problem paradigm and not jump to a conclusion without data or proof. You write for a publication that does not profess objective journalism and by extension, you're not required to be objective. That being said, you're a journalist, which comes with a burden to at least check your bias at the door and report the problem as it stands. I must say that similarly to how you flew into this thread loaded up on one side of the argument, I see that same bias in your articles.

I guess I would ask that you please use your position of reporting the current issues and human interest pieces of the local communities, with as little bias as possible. I think we're all for having an open discussion about our collective user group and the best practices... it's just hard to do when the conversation starts out with name calling and declarative statement like "you know I'm right, right?" That is simply not an effective way to motivate effective communication between human beings, and especially surprising coming from a journalist.

Before I/You/We move forward with the suggestions of how to solve this problem... I want to address a part of your comment regarding increased usage and injuries. Can you please provide the statistical fact that this statement is being generated from. Typically I wouldn't ask this question of some one one having a conversation on a forum. In this case however, since you are a journalist, I feel it's a fair question. You know what they say about a certain percentage of statistics being generated on the spot and all.

The reason I'm clarifying the above is that I'm trying to figure out what problem you are trying to solve. Right now, it seems like you have identified a problem and are trying to back into a narrative that tells the story you want. Typically, you'd identify the narrative, and then determine how that impacts the lives of your user base.

I feel like the way this reporting is being done and presented, is doing nothing but fueling the symptoms and not trying to dig down into what the causes are and then what potential solutions are. I get it, we all want to yell into echo chambers... but if you're really here to review the issues and move forward, we need to do more then that.

Regarding the current issues that the park is facing... Every side needs to find a way to have constructive conversations and build a plan for how this land is going to be managed and accessed in the future. The reality is the people that this land will really matter to, aren't riding bikes, hiking or riding horses yet. Most of those people aren't even born.

We owe it to ourselves and the future inhabitants of southern california to have constructive discussions where the user groups can lay out the Wants/Needs of each user group and how we can find access solutions that work for all user groups.

 

I stand corrected. E-bikes are only permitted where vehicles are permitted and the gates are open. An assumption based on seeing many of them (as well as the odd Moto) that gets onto North Main Divide and descends Skyline when the gates allow it.
https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-conte...cBikesAndTrailManagement_final-Fed-2016-1.pdf

 

Thanks Dan! Cool link, I hadn't seen that before.

 

On the Irvine open spaces, the real opportunity still lies with 1) the area around Irvine lake and west of it (a former dump) and 2) the area near Coal Canyon. Both were gifted and wont be houses (as they were supposed to be in original plans).

Santiago Oaks clearly shows you actually dont need that much acreage to buils good trails and a nice network of them. And then one can keep areas like Limestone and Fremont wild and unspoilt and open for just selective access. Nothing wrong with that. Preservation is good.

The issue with e bikes is just a matter of breaking the law. Tickets needs to be handed out, alongside warnings, just like they should be handed ou, with warnings, for riding unauthorized trails.

I am happy the e bikes exist, but there are several OC Class 1 bikeways that are perfectly fine for them.

 

Mr whiting is a columnist, not a reporter. A column doesn’t have to reflect a real analysis of the issues so long as we all look at it. “All that matters is that more people are getting outside” doesn’t count as serious analysis. But we all read it, so he wins.

 

This memo is 2 years old and has yet to be enforced. Give them time, they’re getting around to it.

 

None of this is easy, or we’d be riding these places already. An all-singletrack route from Yorba Linda to San Clemente would take a generation to complete. And it would be worth the wait.

 

I am very proud of everyone on this thread, including @DavidWhiting. Why? Well, there is, for the most part, positive discourse. People are calling each other out over statements that seem more convenience than truth, yet no-one is off-the-rails angry.

Aliso's problem is pretty much relegated to weekend mornings between 7:30 and 11:00 am. After that, the crowds thin out. Ride at 3pm and it's all yours. So any regulation should be focused purely on that time-slot, in my opinion.

E-bikes are not discernible from regular bikes to the non-riding public, so a hiker's anger at being "startled" will be directed towards all bikes. We know this to be true.

E-bikes increase danger for both the e-bike rider (for reasons David and others have mentioned) and for everyone else. Consider the dangerous closing speed of an uphill e-biker v downhill real biker. However, if two e-bikes collide, I don't care. I hope their bikes explode, (but not causing a wildfire).

That said, there are plenty of asshats riding real mt. bikes too. I have hope that we can educate and rein in most of them.

I have no solution, as e-bikes have been pushed unethically at best and illegally at worst. They are not allowed on local trails, yet the bike shops are not about to tell their customers that little fact. Keep e-bikes off the singletrack trails, and let's work on reasonable limits for the rest of us during the most crowded times at Aliso, LCWP, Santi Oaks and Whiting.

 

Absolutely.

 

I find myself again compelled by others to weigh in on a few things. There are far too many fronts on this topic to hit them all. However, items that keep rising to the surface for people within the industry are ones of lack of education, misconceptions, and lack of acceptance of realities by users. As with any topic or any debate, some will be satisfied, some will be vehemently opposed, and some will be complacent.

But there are realities contained in the areas where most of these issues are being discussed, that it would be beneficial for users to understand:

A few of the concepts tossed around:
Turning some current areas into recreation areas: Pretty much a solution that cannot happen, at least not until the habitat plan that set these areas aside as habitat, daylights in 2073. Even at that time, it is doubtful that the habitat protections would be abandoned. These areas are set aside first and foremost for the protection and preservation of the habitat. Passive recreation is an allowable use, but is not the primary purpose of the protection plan.

Just adopt the unauthorized trails: Not as easy to accomplish as it is to suggest. Resource plans for most areas have already been formalized, existing conditions documented, trails to be opened and trails to be closed & restored have been set. Wholesale adoption is just not a simple task.

Mountain bikers are the largest user group: Not by a landslide. We may appear to be the largest group during the busiest periods, but much of the concept may be anecdotal simply due to how much ground we can cover in a small park like Aliso on the busy weekends. The actual data is dramatically different with many consistent surveys locally and across the country. This, coupled with years of camera data paints a different picture. The KH Consulting survey prepared for the strategic plan for OC, has the following recreation results. Sorry I don't have the data graph image, but the results of the recreation survey are as follows:

• Walking 71%
• Hiking/Trail Running 63%
• Relaxing/Family Time 53%
• Bird Watching 34%
• Mountain biking was 10th on the list of 19 surveys and came in at 15%

Remarkably consistent with the above results was the Colorado Statewide Outdoor Recreation Survey, as well as others across the country. It's numbers were very close to the above. It's difficult to weigh comparative anecdotal observations against legitimate analytical based surveys.

The fact is that mountain biking has grown dramatically, and the technology has evolved. However, certain areas (especially ones with listed protective deeds) have a carrying capacity, and the impacts cannot be denied. Just because our sport has grown, does not mean certain areas can handle the numbers. When I started riding in the 80's, riding was calm, people on the trails were scarce, and we pretty much had to stay within the lines on single-tracks. Coming into a corner too hot and migrating off-trail even slightly, usually resulted in flats. That's no longer an issue with current tire technology. The current depth of suspension travel and bike geometry makes trails that used to be very technical, now extremely tame. The numbers, the technology, and even some current attitudes in riding styles are having dramatic impacts on the overall width of trails that only 10 years ago were tiny ribbons. Yes, all user groups have impacts, but ours is a more aggressive use, and we need to accept that and work within limitations.

Not recognizing our impacts on scheduled trails, not acknowledging the proliferation of non-sanctioned trails, and even not acknowledging some current negative riding trends is not going to help further the sport.

In both my past and present professional careers, and my personal life; I have found that the first step to any growth is accepting and acknowledging one's shortcomings, and accepting realities of the situation. After that, processes move forward much more productively.

I hope this helps, and please don't shoot the messenger!

JamR