The comparison of a nonmotorized trail to a housing or commcercial development is ludicrous. A 6-year-old could tell you the difference.
I told Sorenson this when he interviewed me, yet he chose to put it right up front in his story. He also misrepresented who was responsible for determining the route in the park. The route was first laid out by park representatives (the park is run by a group that has a lease with the county), and we made tweaks to ensure sustainability. But since Sorenson apparently has an axe to grind with the county he ignored that fact.
He also ignored the fact that the county had multiple biological reviews. I told him how careful we were to transplant cactus -- even mammillaria, and that most of the agaves were transplanted. A few, that were part of clumps, were removed. We also detoured the trail to go around many agave.
He insults the volunteers who have put in more than 12,000 hours on this trail in the past three years.
As a former newspaper reporter I know bias, and this story was slanted. Dan Sorenson is clearly biased, in what he wrote, what he left out and where he buried information that disagrees with his theory that the county was irresponsible. That's not journalism. It's advocating a specific point of view instead of presenting both sides fairly. He has lost all credibility with me, and he will never get the chance to blindside me again.