On 10 Apr 2007 18:02:50 GMT, Chris wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in
news:HjeJh.1867$Bi2.1326@trnddc01:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:11:30 +0000, Simon Wyndham
wrote:

Mike, most of what you said in that FAQ is of course rubbish. However
if you want to win people over to your way of thinking you won't
achieve it by insulting other peoples hobbies. I could give you a
diatribe on how walkers and horses erode pathways much more than
bikes.

A diatribe is irrelevant. Conveniently, you provide no examples of my
alleged "rubbish".

Provide some science, as I do, or shut up. There is no science
showing that walkers cause more erosion than mountain bikers. I don't
think there's ANY reliable science on horses vs. mountain bikers. Put
up or shut up.


There are LOTS of examples of where hikers and horses do all of the
erosion. Well, not ALL erosion, just trail erosion, which is the kind
of erosion you are against.

Trail erosion is problematic in every national forest and park,
Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone to name a few, where bikes are
not used. Since trail erosion is problematic for these areas, then
they are examples of where hikers and horses do all of the erosion.

Once again, logic and fact trumps your "science."







Hey Mike,
Where is your response to this ??

What's there to respond to? Hiker-caused erosion is much less sthan
mountain biker-caused erosion, and is totally unrelated.
===
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