Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise,Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers

On May 20, 5:40*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
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.

Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
than I would have on foot.

Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

I don't create ruts.

E.P.

On May 20, 5:42*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS
wrote:

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.

How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
bothering you? They're just sitting there. Walk around them.

E.P.

"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
...
On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS
wrote:

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.

How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
bothering you? They're just sitting there. Walk around them.

I'm imagining a derivative of the spooky scene from the classic Hitchcock
movie 'The Birds' where the birds are all silently watching the people. In
this case Mikey is sitting in a clearing surrounding by millions of
riderless bikes staring at him.

Ed Pirrero wrote:

Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
than I would have on foot.

That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
mountain bikers have less impact.

If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
(at least according to all the studies done thus far).

Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

I don't create ruts.

The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
as important as responsible hiking.

On May 20, 6:16*pm, "recycled" wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message

...
On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS
wrote:
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.
How did the bikes get out there without any riders? *And why are they
bothering you? *They're just sitting there. *Walk around them.

I'm imagining a derivative of the spooky scene from the classic Hitchcock
movie 'The Birds' where the birds are all silently watching the people. In
this case Mikey is sitting in a clearing surrounding by millions of
riderless bikes staring at him.

Ooooo, nice.

E.P.

On May 20, 6:27*pm, SMS wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:
Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
than I would have on foot.

That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
mountain bikers have less impact.

If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
(at least according to all the studies done thus far).

Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

I don't create ruts.

The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
as important as responsible hiking.

I have been riding the same trails locally for about 6 years. For the
most part, these trails are limited to MTBers and hikers. No horses,
no motos.

The company that owns the land has been very generous to allow us to
ride there, and we are happy to be able to do so. I take part in the
trail maintenance program, and I can tell you that the trails most
used by MTBs are in much better shape than the trails in a nearby
state park. The difference? No MTBers allowed on the state park
trails. The state park trails are rutted and have erosion problems.
Same geology, similar amounts of users, at least from observing
trailhead parking and trail occupancy.

The trail maintenance we do amounts to removing blowdowns and
occasionally improving runoff routes to minimize erosion. There are
no ruts. There has been some trail widening at a few switchbacks, but
not too bad, and easily cured by strategic rock and log placement.

Since Mike has never seen these trails, he's just making it up.
Again. I guess, if I were less charitable, I would call that LYING.

But I wouldn't, because I am charitable.

E.P.

On May 20, 5:38*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
\On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:53:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

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?

Circular reasoning is not logic. Try again.

E.P.

On May 20, 5:43*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
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/medi..."
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. Seehttp://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: ...

Again with the "we". Who is this mythical "we" of which you speak?

E.P.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 20, 5:40*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
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.

Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
than I would have on foot.

Since you travel a lot farther than you would on foot, and a lot
faster, you also kill more animals and plants than you would on foot.

Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

I don't create ruts.

If you ride a bike, you do. That's what knobby tires do.

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

On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:27:16 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Ed Pirrero wrote:

Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
than I would have on foot.

That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
mountain bikers have less impact.

You are deliberately LYING. Why? You are fooling NO ONE.

If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
(at least according to all the studies done thus far).

BS. You deliberately ignored:

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.

WHY?

Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

I don't create ruts.

The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
as important as responsible hiking.

There is no such thing as "responsible" mountain biking, any more than
there is "responsible" bulldozer racing.

Hikers can't cause ruts, because they don't erode a continuous line.
One of the papers I reviewed (Chiu and Kriwoken) admitted that bikers
create ruts (search for "groove").
--
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