|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking in Our National Forests
From: a friend
Subject: Mountain Biking in Our National Forests Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:07:42 -0800 Remarks after attending United States Forest Service Mountain Bike Users Listening Session December 6, 2006 6pm Ontario Convention Center 2000 Convention Center Way Ontario, CA 91764 Let's cut right to it. These hearings co-hosted by IMBA are promoted by and for a single user interest group. This is a well-funded might-makes-right all out do-or-die campaign waged against less organized hiking, environmental and equestrian groups. It's not illegal to pay lobbyists to try and blur the traditional demarcation line between mechanized trails and non-vehicular ones. It's a change of use. The agency is justified in restricting vehicular access to riding and hiking trails until that change can be justified and the risks and impacts analyzed. There must be a balance between various trail users, environmental impacts, safety, finance, liability and public/private partnerships. I used to go regularly into the forest for the express purpose of escaping mechanized world. Today, I don't even own an Adventure Pass .. That's a direct result of my own "Mountain Bike Horror Story. There is a common sense safety element that the mountain biking lobby chooses to ignore. Vehicles aren't allowed on sidewalks where pedestrians walk and pedestrians walk on sidewalks because there is a perception that they are protected from harm if they stay on those sidewalks. Has the agency conducted any studies to analyze the correlation between the rise in mountain biking and declining visitation by hikers and campers or minorities and families in areas that are already legally, or illegally used by mtn bikes? Has the mountain bike lobby provided any statistics on the demographics of their sport? Do these demographics further the goal of widening the diversity of park visitors, or would it serve to constrict those demographics? Will the agency hold an equal number of separate hearings for the current user groups such as the Sierra Club, Audubon Society and Back Country Horsemen, Boy Scouts and youth groups, or is this it? If these are the only hearings, might the comments be skewed in favor of the Bike Lobby, because these hearings are perceived as being BY mountain bikers FOR mountain bikers? WHOSE THE REAL ELITIST? Every Trail-- All The Time - Down the Trail to Single Use The trails that mountain bike enthusiasts request conversion into Multi-use are; historic riding and hiking trails in back country and wilderness areas. There are miles of multi-use trails already in existence, this hearing is focused on ONLY THOSE TRAILS to which the Mountain Bike user groups have NO legal access. This hearing is a demand for access to the trails that are off limits to THEM. This demand is exclusive, not inclusive. This user group is already using, reconstructing and building illegal courses suited only for downhill Mountain Bike Racing. Trails that include obstacles built by chopping down trees to construct ramps, teeter totters and seesaws. "Jumps" where users get "air time" . Trails that are banked so they can be traveled by a vehicle at speed around a curve. Armored trails with a rigid trail bed and surfaces created by digging out roots and moving boulders. These aren't multi-use trails, they are technical courses which the majority of those present tonight hope to permanently convert to a new use- training grounds and practice courses for competitive sport, not simply a recreational amenity for rest and relaxation and communing with nature. One argument I've heard from the former President of the IMBA is that making access legal will cut down the cost of enforcing a "No vehicles" restriction. This argument sounds remarkably like the "Make Marijuana Legal" arguments of the '60's. California recently passed "medicinal marijuana" legislation. What has happened in Los Angeles is that exception to an otherwise illegal drug use has facilitated illegal drug sales and a nightmare load of enforcement complaints and prostitution and heroine drug use around these "dispensaries". MOUNTAIN BIKES ARE OPENING THE DOOR TO A GROWING RANGE OF VEHICLES The newest mountain bikes in catalogs boast models that look more like motocross dirt bikes. Like dirt bikes, Mountain Bikes are prohibited on narrow trails and in wilderness areas. Both vehicles include large knobby tires and heavy, dual suspensions which look identical. Knobby tires' erosion damage caused by speed, can be nearly identical between motorized dirt bikes and non-motorized mountain bikes on downhill courses. Agency and land managers should require the Mountain Bike Lobby to fund the environmental studies and mitigate the range of impacts in each area where access is requested. Has the Agency considered other vehicles that might request access besides mountain bikes? If every trail allows some type of vehicle, the door is open to add other types of mechanized travel. "Personal mobility devices" fit this category. Has the agency considered those non-motorized devices beside mountain bikes like off road skate boards and electric cycles which are arguing that they can't be restricted either?. How many miles of "no vehicle use" trails remain? Where are they? What is the percentage (in total miles) to the trails in forests that are ALREADY multi-use? There are many common defensive statements made by bikers about their "right" to multi use trails. What about hikers and equestrians' "right" to not have these trails converted to a race course for non-motorized vehicles? What is the liability exposure created by an unsafe condition that mixes vehicles traveling at a speed with hikers and equestrians? ENVIRONENTAL DISTURBANCE Where are the environmental studies by jurisdictional land managers looking into the impacts on native flora and fauna in wilderness areas opened to non-motorized vehicles? Mountain biking popularity has skyrocketed since it was recognized as an Olympic sport. A competitive Mountain Bike is designed for downhill mountain bike racing. This is an EXTREME sport on a course designed to test the enthusiast’s skill and maximize the speed- it is a race after all. This most certainly requires the riders undivided attention on the winding dirt course directly ahead rather than admiring surrounding natural beauty. Lizards and many kinds of snakes stretch out on bare trails. The velocity at which the bikers travel makes it virtually impossible for them to swerve out of the way. With increased recreational activity deer, bears and cougars are displaced. Shouldn't this disruption of wildlife habitats been studied before converting even one mile of trail? 1.Shared use trails best accommodate the needs of the mechanized users. Those users that it doesn't accommodate are slow moving and personally exposed hikers and equestrians A generally open backcountry threatens hikers and equestrians for 100% of their trip. This ruins the quality of the experience because there is the constant threat of a speeding bike "'coming round the corner". 2. Sharing trails help polarize a trail community by increasing the number of conflicts and near-miss encounters. It's difficult to establish mutual respect and courtesy when your first encounter was a threat to your personal safety. I have yet to see a Mt Biker communicate on a downhill portion of a trail. 3. Shared trails are not cost effective for land managers. As more trails are open to vehicles hiking and equestrian user groups abandon them volunteer maintenance declines and maintenance frequency increases. Monitoring and enforcement are only portion of the cost. Any perceived savings could immediately be wiped out by the conversion of traditional hiking and equestrian trails if there were to be a lawsuit against an agency created by mixing non-compatible users. 4. Shared trails do not enable responsible, experienced users to educate outlaws and novices. Waiting for an Education opportunity for peer regulation in the real time trail situation in a wilderness area is a threat to the safety, the environment and enjoyment of others. 5. Adding mountain bike use to backcountry and narrow hiking and equestrian trails serves a single user group-- mountain bikes. This increases the ecosystem impacts including potential habitat fragmentation and water sedimentation. It is clearly a CHANGE OF USE and requires an environmental impact analysis. IMBA is aware that local conditions vary and that sometimes separate trails are a legitimate compromise solution to a management problem. A designated mountain bike area could allow experts to race train without the inconvenience of other users. They advocate setting aside very technical, trials type sections for mountain bikers to hone their skills. Similarly, trails designated for mountain bike beginners might allow for individuals to develop their trail riding abilities before joining other users on the multiple use trail systems. === 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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NOMT
"Not On My Trails" mentality. IMBA and the NFS create a forum for open
discussion and still the misperceptions are put forth over reality. A spirit of cooperation to ease tensions falls on deaf ears. It doesn't matter what was said or what efforts are put forth, there will always be those who simply grasp at "Not On My Trails" because their viewpoints are set and to accept anything different would, in their minds, be a defeat rather than a measure of progress for all concerned. It is sad. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NOMT
S Curtiss wrote:
"Not On My Trails" mentality. IMBA and the NFS create a forum for open discussion and still the misperceptions are put forth over reality. A spirit of cooperation to ease tensions falls on deaf ears. It doesn't matter what was said or what efforts are put forth, there will always be those who simply grasp at "Not On My Trails" because their viewpoints are set and to accept anything different would, in their minds, be a defeat rather than a measure of progress for all concerned. It is sad. Actually, it's an aesthetic. Another example is snowmobiles in Yellowstone. It's impossible for these machines to behave in such a way as to satisfy those who think they should not be there. Even if snowmobilers could prove beyond any doubts whatsoever that their presence in Yellowstone wasn't harmful, many would think they should be banned anyway. The very presence of anything in any way mechanical offends many hikers who see themselves as a green incarnation of Danial Boone. What you're up against isn't a reasoned position, but a white hot hatred which can't be dealt with south of force. -paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NOMT
First off, let me say that I am a avid hiker. I backpack a couple of
times a summer, and love the summer hiking season in the Sierra. My fiance and I are planning a hike-in wedding next June. Two summers ago, I hiked to the top of Mt Kilimanjaro. I think you get the picture. I am also a bicyclist. I bike to work 2-3 days a week, and cycling is my primary mode of exercise (along with walking and swimming). Sacramento has a excellent array of good biking trails along the American and Sacramento rivers, and I enjoy them a lot. I think it's fair to say that I don't "hate" cyclists. Having said all that... I also like the fact that there are places where I can't ride my bike. Life moves at a slower pace... no clank of metal... no dodging vehicles (it's bad enough I have to do that in the city)... just me and the trail. Mountain bikers... have you ever thought of getting off of your machine, and just going for a walk?? Could you handle going that slow?? I totally support the idea that there are places where mountain bikers can go and share trails with hikers and equestrians, and hope there will be more of them. But I also support the idea that there should be wilderness areas where mechanized transport is not allowed. And I know I'm opening up myself to something here... I also support the idea that there are places where equestrian use is not appropriate. I have many times in the high sierras, encountered horses scrambling around on granite, with a look of total fear in their eyes, as their metal shoes tear up the rock and trail. I don't think my vibram soled LL Beans have ever broken up a granite slab. I had an equestrian person once tell me that "horses have been indigenous to the Sierras for thousands of years." This person went on to say that "Indians had used horses to get through the mountains for centuries." My understanding of history is that horses were introduced to North America by the Spanish Conquistadors. Yet the equestrian lobby (which is pretty influential) has used this cowboy mythology to keep their access. There are a couple of National Parks in Alaska, where the wilderness is so deep, that there are not even any trails. If you want access to them, you're on your own. I really like the idea that there are places where there are NO people at all. Truly wild places... I'd love to experience that. Wouldn't you?? Sorry for rambling... David. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NOMT
"David" wrote in message ups.com... First off, let me say that I am a avid hiker. I backpack a couple of times a summer, and love the summer hiking season in the Sierra. My fiance and I are planning a hike-in wedding next June. Two summers ago, I hiked to the top of Mt Kilimanjaro. I think you get the picture. I am also a bicyclist. I bike to work 2-3 days a week, and cycling is my primary mode of exercise (along with walking and swimming). Sacramento has a excellent array of good biking trails along the American and Sacramento rivers, and I enjoy them a lot. I think it's fair to say that I don't "hate" cyclists. Having said all that... I also like the fact that there are places where I can't ride my bike. Life moves at a slower pace... no clank of metal... no dodging vehicles (it's bad enough I have to do that in the city)... just me and the trail. Mountain bikers... have you ever thought of getting off of your machine, and just going for a walk?? Could you handle going that slow?? I totally support the idea that there are places where mountain bikers can go and share trails with hikers and equestrians, and hope there will be more of them. But I also support the idea that there should be wilderness areas where mechanized transport is not allowed. And I know I'm opening up myself to something here... I also support the idea that there are places where equestrian use is not appropriate. I have many times in the high sierras, encountered horses scrambling around on granite, with a look of total fear in their eyes, as their metal shoes tear up the rock and trail. I don't think my vibram soled LL Beans have ever broken up a granite slab. I had an equestrian person once tell me that "horses have been indigenous to the Sierras for thousands of years." This person went on to say that "Indians had used horses to get through the mountains for centuries." My understanding of history is that horses were introduced to North America by the Spanish Conquistadors. Yet the equestrian lobby (which is pretty influential) has used this cowboy mythology to keep their access. There are a couple of National Parks in Alaska, where the wilderness is so deep, that there are not even any trails. If you want access to them, you're on your own. I really like the idea that there are places where there are NO people at all. Truly wild places... I'd love to experience that. Wouldn't you?? Sorry for rambling... David. A voice of commen sense and cooperation. Too bad that position is alien to the hardliners that can not move beyond their own bias, perceptions and egos. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lift Serviced Mountain Biking at Snow's Mountain at Waterville Valley, NH | Steve | Off Road | 0 | July 12th 05 10:29 PM |
National Parks Service Likes Mountain Biking! | Joz | Mountain Biking | 6 | May 17th 05 07:46 PM |
Mountain Biking Video -- See What Mountain Biking Is Really Like! | Peter | Mountain Biking | 0 | March 25th 05 10:56 PM |
Mountain Biking is DANGEROUS! -- Mountain Biker Found Dead In Capitol State Forest, WA | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 4 | February 12th 05 11:33 PM |
Mountain Biking is DANGEROUS! -- Mountain Biker Found Dead In Capitol State Forest, WA | treefrog | Social Issues | 1 | February 12th 05 11:33 PM |