On 7/6/2011 2:45 PM, James wrote:

Marvelous how habitat grows back. I see it regularly in bush camping
areas. "This area is closed for revegetation."

It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time. Both hikers and cyclists
cause trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have
been shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user,
besides having the most impact on wildlife.

The reason why some hikers are opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
nothing to do with impact on trails or habitat, that's a smokescren. The
real reason is that they just prefer to hike without the additional
trail users in what they believe to be space that they are entitled to.
I don't blame them. I find it unpleasant to be hiking on a trail and
have bicycles zoom by too, but I don't go around making up stories to
try and justify why bicycles should be banned.

The reason you see these incredible stories being fabricated (and MV is
by no means alone in doing this) is because the argument of "we were
here before there were any mountain bikes so we should have exclusive
use" is so weak.

If MV was really concerned about habitat or trail damage he'd be
spending his efforts toward banning equestrians on trails, not cyclists.
But of course it's clear that he actually has no concern about either of
those.