Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise,Hikers and Equestrians Cause Mo

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
> >between trail users.
>
> There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
> trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.

How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
bothering you? They're just sitting there. Walk around them.

E.P.

 

[recycled]

"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>>>I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
>>>between trail users.
>
>> There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
>> trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.

> How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
> bothering you? They're just sitting there. Walk around them.

I'm imagining a derivative of the spooky scene from the classic Hitchcock
movie 'The Birds' where the birds are all silently watching the people. In
this case Mikey is sitting in a clearing surrounding by millions of
riderless bikes staring at him.

 

[SMS]

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
> than I would have on foot.

That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
mountain bikers have less impact.

If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
(at least according to all the studies done thus far).

>> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.
>
> I don't create ruts.

The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
as important as responsible hiking.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 6:27 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
> > than I would have on foot.
>
> That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
> bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
> mountain bikers have less impact.
>
> If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
> of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
> areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
> back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
> (at least according to all the studies done thus far).
>
> >> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.
>
> > I don't create ruts.
>
> The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
> different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
> as important as responsible hiking.

I have been riding the same trails locally for about 6 years. For the
most part, these trails are limited to MTBers and hikers. No horses,
no motos.

The company that owns the land has been very generous to allow us to
ride there, and we are happy to be able to do so. I take part in the
trail maintenance program, and I can tell you that the trails most
used by MTBs are in much better shape than the trails in a nearby
state park. The difference? No MTBers allowed on the state park
trails. The state park trails are rutted and have erosion problems.
Same geology, similar amounts of users, at least from observing
trailhead parking and trail occupancy.

The trail maintenance we do amounts to removing blowdowns and
occasionally improving runoff routes to minimize erosion. There are
no ruts. There has been some trail widening at a few switchbacks, but
not too bad, and easily cured by strategic rock and log placement.

Since Mike has never seen these trails, he's just making it up.
Again. I guess, if I were less charitable, I would call that LYING.

But I wouldn't, because I am charitable.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 5:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> \On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:53:22 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >The bottom line is that there's a big incentive for the trail users
> >opposed to mountain bikes on the trail to come up with a study that
> >proves that mountain bikes cause more trail damage than other users.
>
> Nonsense. What's the point in proving the OBVIOUS?

Circular reasoning is not logic. Try again.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 5:43 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:57:46 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >SMS wrote:
> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> indisputable.
>
> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> about trail impact.
>
> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
> >Another article is at
> >"http://web.archive.org/web/20050419115944/http://www.uoguelph.ca/medi..."
> >thanks to the wayback machine.
>
> >"Botanist Richard Reader and graduate student Eden Thurston say hikers
> >have long argued that the deep treads of spinning mountain bike tires
> >tear up more dirt than a simple pair of hiking boots. But their study of
> >trail use found that with average amounts of activity, cycling and
> >hiking have similar effects on the great outdoors."
>
> They lied about their results. Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> >We need to work hard to open more trails to mountain bikers, to expand
> >the use of our parks. Outdoor users of all types need to band together
> >to prevent destruction of valuable park land for development.
>
> That's exactly what we are doing: ...

Again with the "we". Who is this mythical "we" of which you speak?

E.P.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 20, 5:40 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On May 20, 8:53 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
>> >> have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
>> >> don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
>> >> they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
>> >> reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
>> >> you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users.
>>
>> >According to MTB trail etiquette (at least the one I learned), the
>> >person on the MTB *should* dismount and walk past the hiker.
>>
>> >Which makes some sense, considering the different speeds at which the
>> >two would travel at any given time.
>>
>> >I NEVER ride past a hiker.  Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
>> >will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.
>>
>> That does NOTHING to protect the animals and plants that you are
>> killing.
>
>Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
>than I would have on foot.

Since you travel a lot farther than you would on foot, and a lot
faster, you also kill more animals and plants than you would on foot.

>> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.
>
>I don't create ruts.

If you ride a bike, you do. That's what knobby tires do.

>E.P.
--
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]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:27:16 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>> Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
>> than I would have on foot.
>
>That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
>bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
>mountain bikers have less impact.

You are deliberately LYING. Why? You are fooling NO ONE.

>If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
>of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
>areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
>back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
>(at least according to all the studies done thus far).

BS. You deliberately ignored:

Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
K. Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and
B. K. Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004, pp.531-550.

WHY?

>>> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.
>>
>> I don't create ruts.
>
>The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
>different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
>as important as responsible hiking.

There is no such thing as "responsible" mountain biking, any more than
there is "responsible" bulldozer racing.

Hikers can't cause ruts, because they don't erode a continuous line.
One of the papers I reviewed (Chiu and Kriwoken) admitted that bikers
create ruts (search for "groove").
--
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]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 20, 6:27 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
>> > than I would have on foot.
>>
>> That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
>> bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
>> mountain bikers have less impact.
>>
>> If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
>> of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
>> areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
>> back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
>> (at least according to all the studies done thus far).
>>
>> >> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.
>>
>> > I don't create ruts.
>>
>> The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
>> different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
>> as important as responsible hiking.
>
>I have been riding the same trails locally for about 6 years. For the
>most part, these trails are limited to MTBers and hikers. No horses,
>no motos.
>
>The company that owns the land has been very generous to allow us to
>ride there, and we are happy to be able to do so. I take part in the
>trail maintenance program, and I can tell you that the trails most
>used by MTBs are in much better shape than the trails in a nearby
>state park. The difference? No MTBers allowed on the state park
>trails. The state park trails are rutted and have erosion problems.
>Same geology, similar amounts of users, at least from observing
>trailhead parking and trail occupancy.

You are comparing apples & oranges. The trails & number of users are
obviously different. Do some SCIENCE, and maybe someone would listen.

>The trail maintenance we do amounts to removing blowdowns and
>occasionally improving runoff routes to minimize erosion. There are
>no ruts. There has been some trail widening at a few switchbacks, but
>not too bad, and easily cured by strategic rock and log placement.
>
>Since Mike has never seen these trails, he's just making it up.
>Again. I guess, if I were less charitable, I would call that LYING.
>
>But I wouldn't, because I am charitable.
>
>E.P.
--
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]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>> >I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
>> >between trail users.
>>
>> There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
>> trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.
>
>How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
>bothering you?

Because they are destroying the environment and aren't natural. I go
to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.

> They're just sitting there. Walk around them.
>
>E.P.
--
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]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 20, 5:43 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:57:46 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >SMS wrote:
>> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> indisputable.
>>
>> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> about trail impact.
>>
>> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>>
>> >Another article is at
>> >"http://web.archive.org/web/20050419115944/http://www.uoguelph.ca/medi..."
>> >thanks to the wayback machine.
>>
>> >"Botanist Richard Reader and graduate student Eden Thurston say hikers
>> >have long argued that the deep treads of spinning mountain bike tires
>> >tear up more dirt than a simple pair of hiking boots. But their study of
>> >trail use found that with average amounts of activity, cycling and
>> >hiking have similar effects on the great outdoors."
>>
>> They lied about their results. Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> >We need to work hard to open more trails to mountain bikers, to expand
>> >the use of our parks. Outdoor users of all types need to band together
>> >to prevent destruction of valuable park land for development.
>>
>> That's exactly what we are doing: ...
>
>Again with the "we". Who is this mythical "we" of which you speak?

The people who care about nature, which doesn't include you or other
mountain bikers.

>E.P.
--
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

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
> >> >between trail users.
>
> >> There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
> >> trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.
>
> >How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
> >bothering you?
>
> Because they are destroying the environment...

No more than hikers, according to most real research.

> ... and aren't natural.

Neither are your shoes. Yet you wear them on the trails, right?

> I go
> to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.

Your preferences are unimportant.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 8:40 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
> >I have been riding the same trails locally for about 6 years. For the
> >most part, these trails are limited to MTBers and hikers. No horses,
> >no motos.
>
> >The company that owns the land has been very generous to allow us to
> >ride there, and we are happy to be able to do so. I take part in the
> >trail maintenance program, and I can tell you that the trails most
> >used by MTBs are in much better shape than the trails in a nearby
> >state park. The difference? No MTBers allowed on the state park
> >trails. The state park trails are rutted and have erosion problems.
> >Same geology, similar amounts of users, at least from observing
> >trailhead parking and trail occupancy.
>
> You are comparing apples & oranges. The trails & number of users are
> obviously different.

So, you've been there, and actually compared them? No? Didn't think
so.

> Do some SCIENCE, and maybe someone would listen.

As someone with a degree and career in hard science, "doing science"
comes naturally. Let's just say that in any sort of comparison
between your complete lack of knowledge of the trails of which I
speak, and my first-hand knowledge over the course of years, I'll take
my chances in the court of public opinion.

Come back when you have some real comparison *data*, rather than mere
pulled-out-of-your-ass conjecture.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 8:31 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 20, 5:40 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On May 20, 8:53 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
> >> >> have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
> >> >> don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
> >> >> they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
> >> >> reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
> >> >> you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users.
>
> >> >According to MTB trail etiquette (at least the one I learned), the
> >> >person on the MTB *should* dismount and walk past the hiker.
>
> >> >Which makes some sense, considering the different speeds at which the
> >> >two would travel at any given time.
>
> >> >I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
> >> >will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.
>
> >> That does NOTHING to protect the animals and plants that you are
> >> killing.
>
> >Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
> >than I would have on foot.
>
> Since you travel a lot farther than you would on foot, and a lot
> faster, you also kill more animals and plants than you would on foot.
>
> >> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.
>
> >I don't create ruts.
>
> If you ride a bike, you do.

As usual, you are wrong.

> That's what knobby tires do.

Circular reasoning is not logic. Try again.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 8:43 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 20, 5:43 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> That's exactly what we are doing: ...
>
> >Again with the "we". Who is this mythical "we" of which you speak?
>
> The people who care about nature, which doesn't include you or other
> mountain bikers.

You may wish to define terms to your liking to suit your argument, but
that doesn't mean you've demonstrated logic.

Circular reasoning is not a demonstration of logic. Try again.

E.P.

 

[Siskuwihane]

On May 20, 11:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
> >> >between trail users.
>
> >> There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
> >> trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.
>
> >How did the bikes get out there without any riders?  And why are they
> >bothering you?
>
> Because they are destroying the environment and aren't natural. I go
> to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.

I view the heavens to see clouds and birds, not selfish
enviromentalists flying overhead aboard commercial airlines. You know,
the type you took to Australia and Canterbury, England just to name a
few.

Commercial jets are not natural in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[SMS]

Ed Pirrero wrote:

>> I go
>> to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.
>
> Your preferences are unimportant.

Most users are guilty of bringing machinery into nature. Backpackers
bring camp stoves, GPS systems, bear proof containers, high tech packs,
titanium walking sticks, etc. Mountain bikers of course bring their
bicycles. Horses are not native to most of these areas and do a
tremendous amount of damage to the trail and to wildlife. The very
existence of a trail is not natural, as the trail was formed with
machines, either human powered or powered by fossil fuels.

What really matters is the effect each user has on the wilderness area,
not that some users would prefer that the other users not be there so
they can have it all for themselves. Sure, a lot of backpackers would
like to have the trails all to themselves, but that's not going to
happen, as mountain biking expands in popularity, while backpacking
continues to decline.

The one thing no one can legitimately claim is that mountain biking
damages the trails or wildlife any more than backpacking and hiking.
There have been numerous studies and they all have reached the same
conclusion that biking is no more damaging than hiking. There has never
been a peer-reviewed study that shows mountain biking to have any more
impact than hiking.

The real threat to the natural areas at this time is not from mountain
bikes, it's from general lack of use. National Park attendance is way
down, and in California many state parks are closing due to budget cuts,
with the justification being that these parks are not being used anyway.
Mountain biking could be the savior of the natural areas, if trails are
added and restrictions removed.

What needs to be done is to make visiting the parks more appealing to
young people, and young people aren't all that interested in hiking and
backpacking. Mountain biking would really attract more users. A lot of
trails in national parks could be opened to mountain bikers, not in the
heavy tourist areas like Yosemite Valley, but out in the back country.
There are pilot programs to open national park trails to biking, though
not yet in Yosemite.

Sooner or later, developers will get their hands on unused park land.
It'll be a desperate move by national, state or local governments to
raise money by selling land, with the justification being no one uses
the parks anyway.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 21, 11:43 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
> > different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
> > as important as responsible hiking.
>
> I have done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking.  When
> mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster.  That
> is simply empirical evidence.

No, it's anecdotal. And not universal.

It may be that in some places, the additional traffic is not good for
the trails as-built. But that does not imply that all areas are this
way, or that the trails that exist cannot be reworked to eliminate the
problem.

E.P.

 

[SMS]

the Moderator wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
>> different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
>> as important as responsible hiking.
>
> I have done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. When
> mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. That
> is simply empirical evidence.

It's true, but not because of bikes versus boots. When mountain biking
is introduced to an area, usage goes way up.

Some areas are now doing alternate use, allowing bicycles and hikers on
different days, to reduce usage on popular trails. OTOH, many areas have
almost no usage at all from hikers, yet mountain biking is banned. This
leads to more mountain bikes using fewer trails, increasing impact. What
needs to be done is to distribute the users, both hikers and bikers,
over more trails, to lessen the impact on individual areas.

People like Vandeman, if they had any influence, would do tremendous
harm to the environment by reducing the available mountain biking areas.
What needs to be done is a massive expansion of trails for mountain
bikers. This would have several benefits:

1) Reduce the impact on trails by distributing the impact over a much
larger number of trails.

2) Create a constituency for preserving parkland and open space.

3) Create a huge new pool of volunteers for trail and park maintenance.

The problem with people like Vandeman is that they never learned to take
a scientific, "big picture" view of anything. They get tunnel vision,
and only think about themselves.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 20, 8:40 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>> >I have been riding the same trails locally for about 6 years. For the
>> >most part, these trails are limited to MTBers and hikers. No horses,
>> >no motos.
>>
>> >The company that owns the land has been very generous to allow us to
>> >ride there, and we are happy to be able to do so. I take part in the
>> >trail maintenance program, and I can tell you that the trails most
>> >used by MTBs are in much better shape than the trails in a nearby
>> >state park. The difference? No MTBers allowed on the state park
>> >trails. The state park trails are rutted and have erosion problems.
>> >Same geology, similar amounts of users, at least from observing
>> >trailhead parking and trail occupancy.
>>
>> You are comparing apples & oranges. The trails & number of users are
>> obviously different.

You just told us they are different trails. DUH! The latter is
obvious.

>So, you've been there, and actually compared them? No? Didn't think
>so.
>
>> Do some SCIENCE, and maybe someone would listen.
>
>As someone with a degree and career in hard science, "doing science"
>comes naturally. Let's just say that in any sort of comparison
>between your complete lack of knowledge of the trails of which I
>speak, and my first-hand knowledge over the course of years, I'll take
>my chances in the court of public opinion.
>
>Come back when you have some real comparison *data*, rather than mere
>pulled-out-of-your-ass conjecture.
>
>E.P.

You are the one making an assertion. PROVE it.
--
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