|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--NoSurprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
On May 19, 11:00 pm, SMS wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote: Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research. Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the environmentalist movement. Actually, getting kicked out of the Sierra Club probably doesn't qualify as being "well-connected in the environmentalist movement" (not that I consider the Sierra Club a true environmentalist organizations). I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. More than he deserves, really - sociopaths like Mike should never for one second be given any slack. But I'm a softy... E.P. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
On Mon, 19 May 2008 23:00:09 -0700, SMS
wrote: Ed Pirrero wrote: Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research. Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the environmentalist movement. Actually, getting kicked out of the Sierra Club LIAR. -- 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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--NoSurprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
Ed Pirrero wrote:
On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the truth, as I did. And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion. Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing. Again, thank you for supporting my argument. 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. Yet all the studies, both by the various park entities (national, state, and local) and private studies (both by anti and pro mountain biking groups) prove that mountain bikes are no more destructive than hikers (in some cases less destructive) and that both hikers and bicycles are less destructive than horses. After all this time, if anyone could show that mountain bikes were having a greater impact than other users they'd have stepped forward, yet no one has ever presented any evidence that shows that mountain bikes are causing more damage than other users. 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. Equestrians are invariably polite as their horses destroy the trail and leave their droppings for everyone else to deal with. Of course if anyone ever does a scientific study that contradicts all the previous studies it'd be worth looking at, or if it becomes necessary to limit trail use of _all users_ to reduce impact then that would also be worth looking at. Unfortunately, trail and park use is way down, so that's not a problem at this time. In fact, what's needed is to open a lot more trails to mountain bikers to get park visitation back up, to stop giving politicians excuses to close parks to save money. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise,Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
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/mediarel/01-08-16/biking.html" 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." 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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--NoSurprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
On May 20, 8:53*am, SMS 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. I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails. Expereinced users know better. E.P. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--NoSurprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
Ed Pirrero wrote:
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. I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails. Expereinced users know better. It's also inconsiderate for hikers to string themselves out across the entire trail so that other users can't get past. I find that a bell on the bike is very useful. You don't have to yell out which many trail users find irritating. A lot of the time the bikes are very quiet and you don't hear them approaching without some sort of extra sound. It can be startling to hikers to have a bike come up next to them without warning. I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction between trail users. It's the developers that we all need to be fighting, not fighting among ourselves. Fortunately, there aren't a lot of Vandeman type people in the world. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
\On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:53:22 -0700, SMS
wrote: Ed Pirrero wrote: On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the truth, as I did. And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion. Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing. Again, thank you for supporting my argument. 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? Yet all the studies, both by the various park entities (national, state, and local) and private studies (both by anti and pro mountain biking groups) prove that mountain bikes are no more destructive than hikers (in some cases less destructive) and that both hikers and bicycles are less destructive than horses. You are LYING. Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H. K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and B. K. Johnson ), "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. After all this time, if anyone could show that mountain bikes were having a greater impact than other users they'd have stepped forward, yet no one has ever presented any evidence that shows that mountain bikes are causing more damage than other users. BS. See above. 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. We're talking about BIKES, idiot. BIKES have no rights. In reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users. Equestrians are invariably polite as their horses destroy the trail and leave their droppings for everyone else to deal with. Of course if anyone ever does a scientific study that contradicts all the previous studies it'd be worth looking at, or if it becomes necessary to limit trail use of _all users_ to reduce impact then that would also be worth looking at. Unfortunately, trail and park use is way down, so that's not a problem at this time. In fact, what's needed is to open a lot more trails to mountain bikers to get park visitation back up, to stop giving politicians excuses to close parks to save money. BIKES aren't users. If we get rid of the BIKES, there would be no mountain biking problems. -- 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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote: On May 20, 8:53*am, SMS 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. Or prevent the RUTS you are creating. I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails. Expereinced users know better. 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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS
wrote: Ed Pirrero wrote: 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. I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails. Expereinced users know better. It's also inconsiderate for hikers to string themselves out across the entire trail so that other users can't get past. I find that a bell on the bike is very useful. You don't have to yell out which many trail users find irritating. A lot of the time the bikes are very quiet and you don't hear them approaching without some sort of extra sound. It can be startling to hikers to have a bike come up next to them without warning. 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. It's the developers that we all need to be fighting, not fighting among ourselves. Fortunately, there aren't a lot of Vandeman type people in the world. -- 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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers
On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:57:46 -0700, SMS
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/mediarel/01-08-16/biking.html" 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. See http://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: banding together to stop the destruction caused by mountain biking. -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bikers and hikers face off over trail access in Marin County | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 10 | April 12th 07 04:05 AM |
Bikers and hikers face off over trail access in Marin County | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 10 | April 12th 07 04:05 AM |
Hypocritical Mountain Bikers Preach Coexistence with Hikers & Equestrians, but Not Motorcyclists! | Jeff Strickland | Mountain Biking | 0 | April 23rd 06 01:58 AM |
Hypocritical Mountain Bikers Preach Coexistence with Hikers & Equestrians, but Not Motorcyclists! | Jeff Strickland | Social Issues | 0 | April 23rd 06 01:58 AM |
Hypocritical Mountain Bikers Preach Coexistence with Hikers & Equestrians, but Not Motorcyclists! | Jason | Mountain Biking | 1 | April 20th 06 02:30 PM |