This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020502060000000507010306
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mike,
I don't know why you posted this here if for no other reason
but to get the folks here upset. Your article is full of
lies and assumptions that lump all mountbikers into a group
that you picks the worst examples in an attempt to label us
all as Destroyers of nature. Taken your approach to a
subject. I could say with equal authority that humans are
bad because:
* The kill anything for pleasure
* They Rape, Murder, Steal, lie, cheat
* Love [censored] and anything carnal
* Pollute the planet, Destroy Rain forests
* They are all greedy
* Driver SUV's for pleasure and to intimidate others.
* Get the point.....
It is unfortunate that you are so biased that you didn't
take the time to get your facts strait and publish fair
assessment of moutainbikers. I wish I had the time to point
out all of the silly things you state as absolute fact, but
it would be as waste of my time because people like you will
never look at anything objectively.
-Steve (MTBt at large)
Mike Vandeman said:Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Michael
Vandeman, Ph.D. March 5, 2004
1. Why do people mountain bike?
a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much
farther, in the same amount of time, than they can
by walking. They also maintain constant pressure on
land managers, to open more and more trails to
bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already
open to them, if they choose to walk. They also
frequently claim that closing trails to bikes
"excludes" them from the parks. This could only be
true if they were unable to walk. Of course, they
are able to walk. There's nothing inherently wrong
with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle
to replace automobile use is obviously beneficial.
However, by the same token, replacing hiking with
mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they
can see, rather than the quality of their
experience. While riding a bike, especially over
terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be
constantly paying attention to not crashing. That
make it almost impossible to notice much else. By
contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can
stop instantly, if he/she finds something
interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation. A
biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker,
to get the same stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the
same token, motorcyclists have to travel several
times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user
several times as far as a motorcyclist, since they
are enclosed in a metal box.)
c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a
trail, especially a trail containing many obstacles,
or a trail one is not familiar with, is very
challenging. (But if mountain biking is the high
point of your week, as it seems to be for many
mountain bikers, you must be leading a pretty dull
life, off of the bike!)
d. They are interested in building mountain biking
skills and competing with other mountain bikers. The
thrill of racing drives people to spend more money
on their bike, and ride it harder and more often.
Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a
lot of mountain biking. Of course, it is also
extremely harmful to the parks and natural areas
that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
any other (legal) use of public lands, other than
hunting, that is as harmful as mountain biking.
2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides
the attraction for participants, manufacturers and
retailers of mountain bikes and mountain biking
accessories, as well as "adventure" travel guides, make
a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even
some auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and
sponsor mountain biking, and try to use its popularity
to sell more cars. The tourism industry also promotes
mountain biking, among other attractions.
3. What harm does mountain biking do?
a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby
tires rip into the soil, loosening it and allowing
rain to wash it away. They also create V-shaped
grooves that make walking difficult or even
dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the
gears and ball bearings allow a mountain biker to
travel several times as fast as a hiker. Given their
increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater
horizontal (shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness
the skid marks from stops, starts, and turns.)
According to Newton, every action has an equal and
opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much
stronger than other bikes, so that they could
withstand the greater forces they were subject to on
rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are
being applied to the trails! To give a definite
number, the winner of a 20-mile race here in Briones
Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed limit is 15
MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally
step on small animals and plants on the trail. For a
mountain biker, it is almost impossible to avoid
killing countless animals and plants on and under
the trail. They have to pay attention to controlling
the bike, and can't afford to look carefully at what
is on the trail, especially when travelling fast.
And even if they happen to see, for example, a
snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid
killing it. A hiker, when crossing a creek, will try
to avoid getting wet, by crossing on stepping stones
or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other hand, simply
ride right through the creek bed, crushing any
animals or plants that happen to be there. Mountain
biking magazines are full of photos of mountain
bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through
creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants
as they ride across streams, they ride through
streams stirring up sediment. The sediment in the
water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs.
Young fish, insects, amphibians, and aquatic
microorganisms are extremely sensitive to sediment
in water.
c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as
far as a hiker. This translates into several times
the impacts, both on the trail and on the wildlife
(to say nothing of the other trail users). Existing
parklands are already inadequate to protect the
wildlife that live there. When they are crisscrossed
by mountain bikers and legal or illegal trails,
their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or
more. Have you ever tried to walk that far in a day?
In other words, allowing bikes in a park greatly
increases human presence in that park and drives
wildlife further from the resources that they need
to survive, including water, food, and mates.
d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely
pass each other on narrow trails. Therefore,
policies that permit mountain biking also result in
more habitat destruction, as trails are widened by
bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of
their way).
e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying
mud, and consequently exotic plants, fungi, and
other organisms from place to place, resulting in
the spread of exotic invasive species, such as weeds
and Sudden Oak Death.
f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old
off of the trails and hence out of the parks. Even
able-bodied hikers and equestrians fear for their
safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails with
bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they are
simply being selfish and "unwilling to share", but
actually they have no problem sharing trails with
mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that are a
problem!)
g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go
anywhere, teach children and anyone else who sees
them that the rough treatment of nature is
acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect
on people's treatment of nature.
h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park
managers have been resorting to extreme measures --
even in some cases putting a plastic matrix or other
exotic material under the trail (e.g. in Pleasanton
Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton,
California)! It's hard to imagine that this will
have a beneficial effect on the park and its
wildlife....
4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater
environmental impact than hiking. Is that true? If you
read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that
they don't really compare the impacts of hiking and
mountain biking, but only the impacts per foot. If, for
a moment, we assume that the studies are correct in
their having equivalent impacts per foot, it would
still follow that mountain biking has far greater
impact per person, since mountain bikers typically
travel so much farther than hikers. Besides overlooking
distances travelled, those "studies" almost all ignore
impacts on wildlife. And they don't study mountain
biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow
speed. Actually, the comparison with hiking is
irrelevant. It would only be relevant if we planned to
allow only one of the two, and were considering which
of the two is more harmful. In fact, no one is
considering banning hiking. We are only considering
adding mountain biking. Therefore, the only relevant
question is, "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course,
it is!) There is only one truly scientific study that I
know of that compares the impacts of hiking and
mountain biking. It found that mountain biking has a
greater impact on elk than hiking (Wisdom, M. J., H. K.
Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of
Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions
of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource
Conference 69: in press. Wisdom et al. 2).
5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role
models for wildlife protection are Yosemite National
Park and East Bay Municipal Utility District (in
Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California). They
both restrict bicycles to paved roads, where they can't
do much harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed to enjoy
their sport for over a hundred years, without riding
off-road.
6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes,
unless marked open. Signs that say "No Bikes" are
quickly and repeatedly ripped out of the ground by
mountain bikers.
7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians
on trails, but not mountain bikers? Mountain bikers
love to say this, apparently because they think it will
gain them some sympathy. The truth is that mountain
bikers have exactly the same access to trails that
everyone else has! It is only their bikes that are
banned. If mountain bikers were really being
discriminated against, they could easily go to court to
gain access. However ... they already have access to
every trail in the world!
8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public
lands? I am a taxpayer! The public has the right,
through its elected representatives, to restrict how
land is used. A federal court has already ruled that
there is no right to mountain bike. It is a privilege,
and any land manager who gives a good reason (such as
safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes
off of trails (see
home.pacbell.netmtb10.htmOpen ↗).
9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail
construction and trail maintenance? Trail construction
destroys wildlife habitat both directly (by killing
plants and animals) and indirectly (by reducing the
size of the intervening "islands" of habitat).
Moreover, mountain bikers favor trails that are
"twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and full of obstacles that
provide thrills for mountain bikers. Such designs
increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the trail)
and make the trails less useful for hikers and
equestrians. Trail maintenance sounds good, until you
realize that it would hardly be necessary, if bikes
weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the main
reason why trail maintenance is necessary! Trails used
only by hikers require hardly any maintenance.
Therefore, admitting bicycles to a park greatly
increases its cost of maintenance. Nothing is really
"free", including trail construction and maintenance.
(How does the saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing
gifts"?)
10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by
being able to quickly summon help in the event of an
emergency? I would rather trust in a cell phone, than a
speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural areas are
already one of the safest places you can be. In over 50
years of hiking and backpacking, I have never witnessed
any situation requiring emergency aid. Most people go
to natural areas partly for solitude. If we wanted to
be around large, fast-moving pieces of machinery, we
would stay in the city!
===
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.)
home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗
--------------020502060000000507010306 Content-Type:
text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-
Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title> </head> <body text="#000000"
bgcolor="#ffffff"> Mike,<br> <br> I don't know why you
posted this here if for no other reason but to get the folks
here upset.<br> Your article is full of lies and assumptions
that lump all mountbikers into a group that you <br>
picks the worst examples in an attempt to label us all
as Destroyers of nature. Taken your<br> approach
to a subject. I could say with equal authority that humans
are bad because:<br> <ul>
<li> The kill anything for pleasure</li>
<lii> They Rape, Murder, Steal, lie,
cheat</li>
<liii>Love [censored] and anything carnal<br> </li>
<liv>Pollute the planet, Destroy Rain forests</li>
<lv>They are all greedy</li>
<lvi>Driver SUV's for pleasure and to intimidate
others.</li>
<lvii>Get the point.....<br> </li> </ul> It is unfortunate
that you are so biased that you didn't take the time
to get your facts strait and publish fair
assessment<br> of moutainbikers. I wish I had
the time to point out all of the silly things you
state as absolute fact, but it would<br> be as waste
of my time because people like you will never look
at anything objectively. <br> <br> -Steve
(MTBt at large)<br> <br> Mike Vandeman wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="midej9ca054f40hgchnht-
[email hidden]"> <pre wrap="">Frequently
Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Michael
Vandeman, Ph.D. March 5, 2004
1. Why do people mountain bike?
a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much
farther, in the same amount of time, than they can
by walking. They also maintain constant pressure on
land managers, to open more and more trails to
bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already
open to them, if they choose to walk. They also
frequently claim that closing trails to bikes
"excludes" them from the parks. This could only be
true if they were unable to walk. Of course, they
are able to walk. There's nothing inherently wrong
with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle
to replace automobile use is obviously beneficial.
However, by the same token, replacing hiking with
mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they
can see, rather than the quality of their
experience. While riding a bike, especially over
terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be
constantly paying attention to not crashing. That
make it almost impossible to notice much else. By
contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can
stop instantly, if he/she finds something
interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation. A
biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker,
to get the same stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the
same token, motorcyclists have to travel several
times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user
several times as far as a motorcyclist, since they
are enclosed in a metal box.)
c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a
trail, especially a trail containing many obstacles,
or a trail one is not familiar with, is very
challenging. (But if mountain biking is the high
point of your week, as it seems to be for many
mountain bikers, you must be leading a pretty dull
life, off of the bike!)
d. They are interested in building mountain biking
skills and competing with other mountain bikers. The
thrill of racing drives people to spend more money
on their bike, and ride it harder and more often.
Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a
lot of mountain biking. Of course, it is also
extremely harmful to the parks and natural areas
that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
any other (legal) use of public lands, other than
hunting, that is as harmful as mountain biking.
2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides
the attraction for participants, manufacturers and
retailers of mountain bikes and mountain biking
accessories, as well as "adventure" travel guides, make
a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even some
auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and sponsor
mountain biking, and try to use its popularity to sell
more cars. The tourism industry also promotes mountain
biking, among other attractions.
3. What harm does mountain biking do?
a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby
tires rip into the soil, loosening it and allowing
rain to wash it away. They also create V-shaped
grooves that make walking difficult or even
dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the
gears and ball bearings allow a mountain biker to
travel several times as fast as a hiker. Given their
increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater
horizontal (shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness
the skid marks from stops, starts, and turns.)
According to Newton, every action has an equal and
opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much
stronger than other bikes, so that they could
withstand the greater forces they were subject to on
rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are
being applied to the trails! To give a definite
number, the winner of a 20-mile race here in Briones
Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed limit is 15
MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally
step on small animals and plants on the trail. For
a mountain biker, it is almost impossible to avoid
killing countless animals and plants on and under
the trail. They have to pay attention to
controlling the bike, and can't afford to look
carefully at what is on the trail, especially when
travelling fast. And even if they happen to see,
for example, a snake, it is hard for them to stop
in time to avoid killing it. A hiker, when crossing
a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by crossing
on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the
other hand, simply ride right through the creek
bed, crushing any animals or plants that happen to
be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
photos of mountain bikers throwing up spray, as
they barrel through creeks. Not only do bikes
destroy animals and plants as they ride across
streams, they ride through streams stirring up
sediment. The sediment in the water interferes with
the oxygen uptake by aquatic life, for example,
killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are
extremely sensitive to sediment in water.
c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as
far as a hiker. This translates into several times
the impacts, both on the trail and on the wildlife
(to say nothing of the other trail users). Existing
parklands are already inadequate to protect the
wildlife that live there. When they are crisscrossed
by mountain bikers and legal or illegal trails,
their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or
more. Have you ever tried to walk that far in a day?
In other words, allowing bikes in a park greatly
increases human presence in that park and drives
wildlife further from the resources that they need
to survive, including water, food, and mates.
d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely
pass each other on narrow trails. Therefore,
policies that permit mountain biking also result in
more habitat destruction, as trails are widened by
bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of
their way).
e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying
mud, and consequently exotic plants, fungi, and
other organisms from place to place, resulting in
the spread of exotic invasive species, such as weeds
and Sudden Oak Death.
f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old
off of the trails and hence out of the parks. Even
able-bodied hikers and equestrians fear for their
safety, and don’t enjoy sharing the trails
with bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they
are simply being selfish and "unwilling to share",
but actually they have no problem sharing trails
with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that
are a problem!)
g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go
anywhere, teach children and anyone else who sees
them that the rough treatment of nature is
acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect
on people's treatment of nature.
h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park
managers have been resorting to extreme measures --
even in some cases putting a plastic matrix or other
exotic material under the trail (e.g. in Pleasanton
Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton,
California)! It's hard to imagine that this will
have a beneficial effect on the park and its
wildlife….
4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater
environmental impact than hiking. Is that true? If you
read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that
they don't really compare the impacts of hiking and
mountain biking, but only the impacts per foot. If, for
a moment, we assume that the studies are correct in
their having equivalent impacts per foot, it would still
follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per
person, since mountain bikers typically travel so much
farther than hikers. Besides overlooking distances
travelled, those "studies" almost all ignore impacts on
wildlife. And they don't study mountain biking under
normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed.
Actually, the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It
would only be relevant if we planned to allow only one
of the two, and were considering which of the two is
more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning
hiking. We are only considering adding mountain biking.
Therefore, the only relevant question is, "Is mountain
biking harmful"? (Of course, it is!) There is only one
truly scientific study that I know of that compares the
impacts of hiking and mountain biking. It found that
mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than hiking
(Wisdom, M. J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K.
Johnson. 2004. Effects of Off-Road Recreation on Mule
Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in press.
Wisdom et al. 2).
5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role
models for wildlife protection are Yosemite National
Park and East Bay Municipal Utility District (in
Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California). They
both restrict bicycles to paved roads, where they
can't do much harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed to
enjoy their sport for over a hundred years, without
riding off-road.
6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes,
unless marked open. Signs that say "No Bikes" are
quickly and repeatedly ripped out of the ground by
mountain bikers.
7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians
on trails, but not mountain bikers? Mountain bikers
love to say this, apparently because they think it will
gain them some sympathy. The truth is that mountain
bikers have exactly the same access to trails that
everyone else has! It is only their bikes that are
banned. If mountain bikers were really being
discriminated against, they could easily go to court to
gain access. However … they already have access
to every trail in the world!
8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public
lands? I am a taxpayer! The public has the right,
through its elected representatives, to restrict how
land is used. A federal court has already ruled that
there is no right to mountain bike. It is a privilege,
and any land manager who gives a good reason (such as
safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off
of trails (see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="h-
ttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm">home.p-home.p-Open ↗
acbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm</a>😉.
9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail
construction and trail maintenance? Trail construction
destroys wildlife habitat both directly (by killing
plants and animals) and indirectly (by reducing the size
of the intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover,
mountain bikers favor trails that are "twisty"
(sinuous), bumpy, and full of obstacles that provide
thrills for mountain bikers. Such designs increase
habitat destruction (by lengthening the trail) and make
the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would
hardly be necessary, if bikes weren't allowed there. The
mountain bikers are the main reason why trail
maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by hikers
require hardly any maintenance. Therefore, admitting
bicycles to a park greatly increases its cost of
maintenance. Nothing is really "free", including trail
construction and maintenance. (How does the saying go?
"Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)
10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being
able to quickly summon help in the event of an
emergency? I would rather trust in a cell phone, than a
speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural areas are
already one of the safest places you can be. In over 50
years of hiking and backpacking, I have never witnessed
any situation requiring emergency aid. Most people go to
natural areas partly for solitude. If we wanted to be
around large, fast-moving pieces of machinery, we would
stay in the city!
===
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.)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="home.pacbell.-home.pacbell.-Open ↗
net/mjvande">home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗</a> </pre>
</blockquote> </body> </html>
--------------020502060000000507010306--
