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

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.

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 Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

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?

Because they are destroying the environment and aren't natural. I go
to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.

They're just sitting there. Walk around them.

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 May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

wrote:
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?

Because they are destroying the environment...

No more than hikers, according to most real research.

... and aren't natural.

Neither are your shoes. Yet you wear them on the trails, right?

I go
to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.

Your preferences are unimportant.

E.P.

On May 20, 11:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

wrote:
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?

Because they are destroying the environment and aren't natural. I go
to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.

I view the heavens to see clouds and birds, not selfish
enviromentalists flying overhead aboard commercial airlines. You know,
the type you took to Australia and Canterbury, England just to name a
few.

Commercial jets are not natural in case you hadn't noticed.

Ed Pirrero wrote:

I go
to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.

Your preferences are unimportant.

Most users are guilty of bringing machinery into nature. Backpackers
bring camp stoves, GPS systems, bear proof containers, high tech packs,
titanium walking sticks, etc. Mountain bikers of course bring their
bicycles. Horses are not native to most of these areas and do a
tremendous amount of damage to the trail and to wildlife. The very
existence of a trail is not natural, as the trail was formed with
machines, either human powered or powered by fossil fuels.

What really matters is the effect each user has on the wilderness area,
not that some users would prefer that the other users not be there so
they can have it all for themselves. Sure, a lot of backpackers would
like to have the trails all to themselves, but that's not going to
happen, as mountain biking expands in popularity, while backpacking
continues to decline.

The one thing no one can legitimately claim is that mountain biking
damages the trails or wildlife any more than backpacking and hiking.
There have been numerous studies and they all have reached the same
conclusion that biking is no more damaging than hiking. There has never
been a peer-reviewed study that shows mountain biking to have any more
impact than hiking.

The real threat to the natural areas at this time is not from mountain
bikes, it's from general lack of use. National Park attendance is way
down, and in California many state parks are closing due to budget cuts,
with the justification being that these parks are not being used anyway.
Mountain biking could be the savior of the natural areas, if trails are
added and restrictions removed.

What needs to be done is to make visiting the parks more appealing to
young people, and young people aren't all that interested in hiking and
backpacking. Mountain biking would really attract more users. A lot of
trails in national parks could be opened to mountain bikers, not in the
heavy tourist areas like Yosemite Valley, but out in the back country.
There are pilot programs to open national park trails to biking, though
not yet in Yosemite.

Sooner or later, developers will get their hands on unused park land.
It'll be a desperate move by national, state or local governments to
raise money by selling land, with the justification being no one uses
the parks anyway.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

wrote:
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?

Because they are destroying the environment...

No more than hikers, according to most real research.

How would you know what "real research" is? LOL
--
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 Wed, 21 May 2008 08:55:25 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Ed Pirrero wrote:

I go
to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.

Your preferences are unimportant.

Most users are guilty of bringing machinery into nature. Backpackers
bring camp stoves, GPS systems, bear proof containers, high tech packs,
titanium walking sticks, etc. Mountain bikers of course bring their
bicycles. Horses are not native to most of these areas and do a
tremendous amount of damage to the trail and to wildlife. The very
existence of a trail is not natural, as the trail was formed with
machines, either human powered or powered by fossil fuels.

What really matters is the effect each user has on the wilderness area,
not that some users would prefer that the other users not be there so
they can have it all for themselves. Sure, a lot of backpackers would
like to have the trails all to themselves, but that's not going to
happen, as mountain biking expands in popularity, while backpacking
continues to decline.

The one thing no one can legitimately claim is that mountain biking
damages the trails or wildlife any more than backpacking and hiking.

Yes, we can:

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.

I know it's not fair, using real science.

There have been numerous studies and they all have reached the same
conclusion that biking is no more damaging than hiking.

You are LYING again.

There has never
been a peer-reviewed study that shows mountain biking to have any more
impact than hiking.

You CONVENIENTLY forgot this one:

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.

The real threat to the natural areas at this time is not from mountain
bikes, it's from general lack of use. National Park attendance is way
down, and in California many state parks are closing due to budget cuts,
with the justification being that these parks are not being used anyway.
Mountain biking could be the savior of the natural areas, if trails are
added and restrictions removed.

What needs to be done is to make visiting the parks more appealing to
young people, and young people aren't all that interested in hiking and
backpacking. Mountain biking would really attract more users.

You mean "abusers".

A lot of
trails in national parks could be opened to mountain bikers, not in the
heavy tourist areas like Yosemite Valley, but out in the back country.
There are pilot programs to open national park trails to biking, though
not yet in Yosemite.

Yes. NEVER!

Sooner or later, developers will get their hands on unused park land.
It'll be a desperate move by national, state or local governments to
raise money by selling land, with the justification being no one uses
the parks anyway.
--
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