A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 13th 04, 12:12 PM
Stephen Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

Tommy H says:

I'm new to this group and I just have to ask you a few questions. I
apologize to you and the group if these have been answered befo


snip rest

Tommy, it was a brave attempt, but you're not going to want to hold your breath
waiting for an answer longer than "Did you say something?" or "Duh!".

Mike rants aginst us because that's what he does for entertainment. He knows
he can never win, but it's like that really killer video game where you just
can't wait to be able to get past the first locked door, but you know it's
gonna take time figuring it out. ;-)

Steve
Ads
  #12  
Old July 13th 04, 09:17 PM
Stephen Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

Gawnsoft says:

orthogonal?


Don't confuse the troll by using long words - it embarasses him and he just
talks more to cover his deficiencies.

Steve
  #13  
Old July 15th 04, 08:30 PM
bomba
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:34:23 +0000, Tommy Homicide wrote:

Wrong. Be honest! Mountain biking is FASR more destructive than walking.


You're wrong, ya kook. Why don't you do something useful with that phd?


Bit of advice: You can keep debating until you eventually get sick of it,
or you can save a bit of time and just quit now.
http://www.j-harris.net/bike/ambfaq.htm#1.3.1
  #14  
Old July 15th 04, 09:05 PM
Tommy Homicide
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

bomba wrote in newsan.2004.07.15.19.30.39.885000
@hotmail.com:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:34:23 +0000, Tommy Homicide wrote:

Wrong. Be honest! Mountain biking is FASR more destructive than

walking.

You're wrong, ya kook. Why don't you do something useful with that phd?


Bit of advice: You can keep debating until you eventually get sick of it,
or you can save a bit of time and just quit now.
http://www.j-harris.net/bike/ambfaq.htm#1.3.1


Thanks. I've said all I need to say to the whacked out kook. No more...

--
____________________________
TOMMY HOMICIDE
http://www.tommyhomicide.com
  #15  
Old July 16th 04, 02:09 AM
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:34:23 GMT, Tommy Homicide
wrote:

.. Wrong. Be honest! Mountain biking is FASR more destructive than walking.
..
..You're wrong, ya kook. Why don't you do something useful with that phd?
..Find a cause that has some use or spend the rest of your life as a loser,
..having accomplished squat, unless your ambition is only that of a newsgroup
..troll, then I'd say you're doing well.
..
..You'll never win. Our community is stronger than yours.
..
..Mountain Biking is not destructive, closed minds like yours are
..destructive.

Science says otherwise:

The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
A Review of the Literature
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
July 3, 2004

"Every recreationist -- whether hiker, biker, horsepacker, or posey sniffer --
should not begin by asking, 'What's best for ME?' but rather 'What's best for
the bears?'" Tom Butler

"Will we keep some parts of the American landscape natural and wild and free --
or must every acre be easily accessible to people and their toys? … Mountain
bikes' impacts on the land are large and getting worse. … The aggressive push of
mountain bike organizations to build ever-growing webs of trails poses serious
problems of habitat fragmentation, increased erosion, and wildlife conflicts.
As interest in extreme riding continues to grow, as trail networks
burgeon, and as new technology makes it possible for ever-more mountain
bicyclists to participate, even the most remote wild landscapes may become
trammeled -- and trampled -- by knobby tires. … The destruction of wilderness
and the fragmentation of habitats and ecosystems is death by a thousand cuts.
Will introduction of mountain bikes -- and their penetration farther into
wilderness -- promote additional fragmentation and human conflicts with the
natural world? Yes." Brian O'Donnell and Michael Carroll

"Some things are obvious: mountain bikes do more damage to the land than hikers.
To think otherwise ignores the story told by the ground. Although I have never
ridden a mountain bike, I am very familiar with their impacts. For the last
seven years I have regularly run three to six miles several times a week on a
network of trails in the Sandia Mountain foothills two blocks from my home. …
These trails receive use from walkers, runners, and mountain bikers; they are
closed to motorized vehicles.
Because I'm clumsy, I keep my eyes on the trail in front of me. I run or
walk in all seasons, in all kinds of weather. I have watched the growing erosion
on these trails from mountain bike use. The basic difference between feet and
tires is that tire tracks are continuous and foot tracks are discontinuous.
Water finds that narrow, continuous tire tracks are a rill in which to flow.
Also, because many mountain bikers are after thrills and speed, their tires cut
into the ground. Slamming on the brakes after zooming downhill, sliding around
sharp corners, and digging in to go uphill: I see the results of this behavior
weekly. …
I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on steep
slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the damage they
cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to wilderness
trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another source of
damage to those trails." Dave Foreman

"Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other non-motorized
trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the board of
directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)

Introduction:

I first became interested in the problem of mountain biking in 1994. I
had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on wildlife, and had
come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is entirely
off-limits to humans, in order that wildlife that is sensitive to the presence
of humans can survive (see Vandeman, 2000). But what is the best way to minimize
the presence of people? Restricting human access is repugnant, and difficult and
expensive to accomplish. It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that they are
allowed to utilize in natu e.g. prohibit bicycles and other vehicles (and
perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).

Having been a transportation activist for eight years (working on
stopping highway construction), and having a favorable view of my fellow
bicyclists as environmentalists, I turned to them to help me campaign to keep
bicycles out of natural areas. Was I ever surprised! I discovered that many
bicyclists (e.g. many mountain bikers) aren't environmentalists at all, but are
simply people who like to bicycle -- in the case of mountain bikers, many of
them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium! (Of course,
there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who fall into this
category.) To my suggestion to keep bikes off of trails in order to protect
wildlife, they reacted with hostility! (There is a degree of balkanization among
activists, where some transportation activists ignore the needs of wildlife, and
some wildlife activists eschew bikes and public transit.)

In 1994 I attended a public hearing held by the East Bay Municipal
Utility (water) District to decide whether to allow bikes on their watershed
lands. Mountain bikers were there asking for bike access, and the Sierra Club
was there to retain the right to hike, while keeping out the bicycles. I said
that I had no interest in using the watershed, but that I wanted to ensure that
the wildlife are protected -- hence, I asked that bikes not be allowed.
Afterward, the EBMUD Board of Directors took a field trip to Marin County, the
birthplace of mountain biking, to see the effects of mountain biking there.
While they were hiking along a narrow trail, a mountain biker came racing by,
swearing at them for not getting out of his way fast enough. That helped them
decide to ban bikes. Today bikes are still restricted to paved roads, and EBMUD
is still one of the public agencies most protective of wildlife.

It is obvious that mountain biking is harmful to some wildlife and
people. No one, even mountain bikers, tries to deny that. Bikes create V-shaped
ruts in trails, throw dirt to the outside on turns, crush small plants and
animals on and under the trail, facilitate increased levels of human access into
wildlife habitat, and drive other trail users (many of whom are seeking the
tranquility and primitiveness of natural surroundings) out of the parks. Because
land managers were starting to ban bikes from trails, the mountain bikers
decided to try to shift the battlefield to science, and try to convince people
that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. But there are two problems
with this approach: (1) it's not true, and (2) it's irrelevant.

I will examine (1) in a moment. But first, let's look at relevance:
whether or not hiking (or All Terrain Vehicles or urban sprawl or anything else)
is harmful really has no bearing on whether mountain biking is harmful: they are
independent questions. Such a comparison would only be relevant if one were
committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to know which
is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the question is
whether to add mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that case, the only
relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is. However,
since many people seem interested in the outcome of the comparison, I will
examine the research and try to answer it.

The mountain bikers' other line of research aims to prove that mountain
bikers are just like hikers, implying that they should have the same privileges
as hikers. (Of course, they already have the same privileges! The exact same
rules apply to both groups: both are allowed to hike everywhere, and neither is
allowed to bring a bike where they aren't allowed.) Using surveys, they have
tried to show that mountain bikers are really environmentalists, lovers of
nature, and deep ecologists. Of course, surveys are notoriously unreliable:
statements of belief don't easily translate into behavior. I'm going to ignore
this research, since I am (and the wildlife are) more interested in actual
impacts, not intentions.

The International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) has done me the
favor of collecting all the research they could find that seemed favorable to
mountain biking. Gary Sprung (2004) summarized it in his carefully worded essay,
"Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking". Gary says "the empirical studies
thus far do not support the notion that bikes cause more natural resource
impact". I will show that this is not true; in fact, those studies, if their
data are interpreted properly, show the exact opposite: that mountain biking has
much greater impact than hiking! Gary says that we should make "make rational,
non-arbitrary, less political decisions regarding which groups are allowed on
particular routes". This is disingenuous. Mountain bikers (but not bikes) are
already allowed on every trail.

Impacts on Soil (Erosion):

Gary says "No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more
wear to trails than other users". He cites Wilson and Seney (1994) and claims
that "hooves and feet erode more than wheels. … Wilson and Seney found no
statistically significant difference between measured bicycling and hiking
effects". He quotes the study: "Horses and hikers (hooves and feet) made more
sediment available than wheels (motorcycles and off-road bicycles) on prewetted
trails" (p.74).

This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that mountain
biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a number of defects
that call its conclusions into question. The authors used a "rainfall simulator"
to measure "sediment made available" by the various treatments. They
"[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the simulated
rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim "correlates with
erosion" (they don't say what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem
like a good measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the
very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the
collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they
admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the kinetic energy of the
simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms".
Another reason to suspect that the measurements aren't valid is that "none of
the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil
moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant".

The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail users
typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several times as far as
hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the additional impacts due to
the mountain bike bringing new people to the trails that otherwise would not
have been there (the same omission is true of all other studies, except Wisdom
et al (2004)). They do say "Trail use in the last ten years has seen a dramatic
increase in off-road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't incorporate this fact into
their comparison. In addition, there is no recognition of different styles of
riding and their effect on erosion. We don't know if the mountain bikers rode in
representative fashion, or, more likely, rode more gently, with less skidding,
acceleration, braking, and turning. There was also no recognition that soil
displaced sideways (rather than downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It
seems likely that they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I
don't think that these results are reliable. (Note that the study was partially
funded by IMBA.)

Gary next cited Chiu ) and Kriwoken
), claiming that there was "no significant difference
between hiking and biking trail wear". I wasn't able to acquire this study, but
it is apparent from Gary's description of it that he (and perhaps the authors)
misstated the conclusions. If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers
have the same impact per mile (which is what they measured), then it follows
that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they
generally travel several times as far. (I haven't found any published
statistics, but I have informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride
announcements, which advertise rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27
miles, and a maximum of 112 miles.)

Impacts on Plants:

Gary says "No scientific studies indicate that bicycling causes more
degradation of plants than hiking. Trails are places primarily devoid of
vegetation, so for trail use in the center of existing paths, impacts to
vegetation are not a concern." However this is a concern for plants that try to
establish themselves in the trail, and for roots that cross the trail and end up
being killed or damaged.

He cites Thurston and Reader (2001), claiming that "hiking and bicycling
trample vegetation at equal rates … the impacts of biking and hiking measured
here were not significantly different". Actually, that is not true. Although
overall impacts weren't significantly different, "soil exposure [was] greater on
biking 500 pass lanes than hiking 500 pass lanes" (p.404). In other words, after
500 passes, mountain biking began to show significantly greater impacts. Thus
their conclusion, "the impacts of biking and hiking measured here were not
significantly different" (p.405) is unwarranted.

The authors said "Bikers traveled at a moderate speed, usually allowing
bicycles to roll down lanes without pedaling where the slope would allow." Thus
it would appear that the mountain biking that they measured is not
representative: it was unusually slow and didn't include much opportunity for
braking, accelerating, or turning, where greater impacts would be expected to
occur.

The authors also said "Some hikers feel that bikers should be excluded
from existing trails" (p.397). Of course, this is not true. Hikers are only
asking that bikes be excluded, not bikers. On page 407 they admit the
"possibility … that mountain bikers simply contribute further to the overuse of
trails". In other words, allowing bikes on trails allows trail use to increase
over what it would be if bikes weren't allowed. This is probably true, and
deserves to be recognized and researched.

They found that "One year following treatments, neither vegetation loss
nor species loss was significantly greater on treated lanes than on control
lanes" (p.406). They conclude that the recreation impacts are "short-term", and
experience "rapid recovery". This is unjustified. Killing plants and destroying
seeds modifies the gene pool, and introduces human-caused loss of genetic
diversity, and evolution. Dead plants and lost genetic diversity do not
"recover" (see Vandeman, 2001).

However, the greatest defect of the study and its interpretation is that
is that it doesn't consider the distance that bikers travel. Even if we accepted
their conclusions that impacts per mile are the same, it would follow that
mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they are easily
able to, and do, travel several times as far as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or
100 miles in a day!

Impacts on Animals:

Gary cites Taylor and Knight (1993), claiming that "hiking and biking
cause [the] same impact to large mammals on Utah island". First, as noted by
Wisdom et al (2004), this study lacked a control group, and hence can't infer
causation. Second, the authors made the same mistake that all other researchers
made: they ignored the different distances that hikers and bikers travel. I also
wonder how realistic it was to have all recreationists continue past the animals
without stopping to look at them. (All of those researchers also failed to
implement blind measurement and analysis: the researchers were aware, as they
were measuring, which treatment they were testing. Only Wisdom et al were able
to carry out their measurements (electronically) without any people even being
present.)

This is a very informative paper. The authors "examined the responses of
bison …, mule deer …, and pronghorn antelope … to hikers and mountain bikers …
by comparing alert distance, flight distance, and distance moved" (p.951). They
noted, significantly, that "Outdoor recreation has the potential to disturb
wildlife, resulting in energetic costs, impacts to animals' behavior and
fitness, and avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. … outdoor recreation is
the second leading cause for the decline of federally threatened and endangered
species on public lands" (p.951). They also noted that "Mountain biking in
particular is one of the fastest-growing outdoor activities, with 43.3 million
persons participating at least once in 2000" (p.952). However, they didn't draw
on this fact when they concluded "We found no biological justification for
managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).

The authors also surveyed the recreationists, and found that they
"failed to perceive that they were having as great an effect on wildlife as our
biological data indicated. Most recreationists felt that it was acceptable to
approach wildlife at a much closer distance (mean acceptable distance to
approach = 59.0 m) than wildlife in our experimental trials would typically
allow a human to approach (mean flight distance of all species = 150.6 m). … Of
all visitors surveyed, 46%, 53%, and 54%, respectively, felt that bison, deer,
and pronghorn were being negatively affected by recreation on Antelope Island. …
Visitors expressed little support for allowing only one type of recreational use
on island trails, having fewer trails on the island, for requiring visitors to
watch an educational video about the effects of recreation on wildlife, and for
allowing recreation only on the north (developed) end of the island" (p.957).
(Gary Sprung omitted this information from his summary.)

They noted that the wildlife might habituate to the presence of humans,
but that exactly the opposite happened with the pronghorn: they "in fact used
areas that were significantly farther from trails than they had prior to the
start of recreational use on the island" (p.961). They also noted: "Because
flushing from recreational activity may come at the cost of energy needed for
normal survival, growth, and reproduction …, and because it may cause animals to
avoid otherwise suitable habitat …, it is important that recreationists
understand that their activities can flush wildlife and may make suitable
habitat unavailable" (p.961). I think that the wealth of such information
provided by the authors makes this paper especially valuable.

They concluded "Our results indicate that there is little difference in
wildlife response to hikers vs. mountain bikers" (p.957). I was present when Ms.
Taylor presented her findings at the Society for Conservation Biology meeting at
the University of Kent, in Canterbury, England, in July, 2002. I pointed out to
her that she wasn't justified in concluding, as she did, that "hiking and
mountain biking have the same impacts", since she only measured impacts per
incident. Since bikers are able, and typically do, travel several times as far
as hikers, a more proper conclusion would be that bikers have several times as
much impact on wildlife as hikers. That is why I am so disappointed to find her
later concluding in this 2003 paper, "We found no biological justification for
managing mountain biking any differently than hiking" (p.961). If mountain
bikers can travel even twice as far as hikers, and disturb twice as many
animals, I would think that that is biologically significant! It isn't much help
that she goes on to admit that "because bikers travel faster than hikers, they
may cover more ground in a given time period than hikers, thus having the
opportunity to disturb more wildlife per unit time" (p.961). She has still drawn
an unjustified conclusion, and it is certain to be frequently quoted (out of
context) by mountain bikers, as they try to lobby for more trail access.

I also wonder about the accuracy of their measurements of distance.
Distance is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially when animals
and recreationists may be hidden from view ("Due to the inherent errors in
triangulating in the steep canyon country, only ground visual locations were
used in the analysis" p.577). Bias may also have been introduced by the fact
that researchers knew, as they were measuring, which treatment they were
measuring.

It is interesting that "when bighorn sheep did respond to human
activity, they noticed vehicles and mountain bikers, on average, from twice the
distance they noticed hikers" (p.577). This would seem to imply that, were
hikers to remain on the trail where the mountain bikers were, they might have
equal or lower impacts than the mountain bikers.

Sprung next cited Papouchis et al (2001), claiming that "Hikers have
[the] greatest impact on bighorn sheep [in Canyonlands National Park] … because
the hikers were more likely to be in unpredictable locations and often directly
approached [the] sheep". Actually, this is an artifact of the experimental
design, and not a result of research: the researchers, for some reason, told the
hikers (who were research assistants) to approach the sheep! So the study
actually compared apples and oranges: bikers who stay on a road, vs. hikers who
approach bighorn sheep! Nothing useful can be concluded from such a study,
except that people who approach bighorn sheep disturb them. Of course, there is
nothing to prevent mountain bikers from getting off their bikes and doing the
same thing. It's unfortunate that the opportunity was lost to gain more valuable
knowledge. I wrote the authors, asking why they had done this, but I got no
reply. It would appear that the intention was to exonerate mountain biking (this
also applies to most of the other studies).

It is also unfortunate that there was no control group, so that they
could determine the effect of the presence of roads, with and without people on
them. They did note that "avoidance of the road corridor by some animals
represented 15% less use of potential suitable habitat in the high-[visitor-]use
area over the low-[visitor-]use area. … human presence in bighorn sheep habitat
may cause sheep to vacate suitable habitat" (p.573). This argues for eliminating
all recreation in the area, especially since the absence of water forces
recreationists to bring motor vehicles carrying water and other supplies:
"mountain bikers frequently use the 161-km White Rim trail, a 4-wheel-drive
road. Caravans of mountain bikers accompanied by support vehicles are common.
Day use along the Shafer and White Rim trails exceeded 17,500 vehicles during
the study period, 1993-1994. This use was concentrated from March to October,
with peak use of 134 vehicles/day in May" (p.575).

The authors conclude "Contrary to our original expectations and the
concerns of park managers, the increase in numbers of mountain bikers visiting
the park does not appear to be a serious threat to desert bighorn sheep,
probably because mountain bikers are restricted to predictable situations such
as the currently designated road corridors" (p.580). For several reasons, this
conclusion is not justified: (1) as they reported, all recreationists drive the
sheep away from parts of their habitat, causing loss of energy as well as
habitat; (2) permitting bikes causes the total number of visitors to increase
significantly; (3) bikes can't travel alone -- they require motorized support
vehicles, further increasing impacts (e.g. worsening air quality); (4) there is
nothing to prevent mountain bikers from getting off their bikes and approaching
the wildlife; if hikers do that, so will mountain bikers; there is no reason to
exonerate mountain bikers.

They note, significantly, "However, these results should not be
extrapolated to other public lands where mountain bikers are not confined to
designated trails and may surprise sheep in novel situations" (p.580). Gary
Sprung didn't mention this, thus encouraging inappropriate use of this study's
already-questionable results.

I would like, however, to commend the authors for stating "we recommend
that park managers manage levels of backcountry activity at low levels" (p.580).
The best policy would be to ban all vehicles, including bicycles (as well as
animals used as vehicles). That would reduce human impacts, without directly
restricting who could go there (perhaps occasional exceptions could be made for
the disabled).

Gary next cited Gander and Ingold (1997), claiming that "hikers, joggers
& mountain bikers [are] all the same to chamois". But again, this is not an
accurate representation of the results: "They fled over longer distances in
jogging and mountain biking experiments … carried out late in the morning"
(p.109). Also, "the three activities carried out on the ground could have
long-term consequences as they prevent the animals from using areas near trails.
Thus, depending on the density of trails and the intensity of recreational
activities in a certain area, animals may lose a large part of their habitat"
(p.109).

The authors conclude "Our results show that specific restrictions on
mountainbiking above the timberline are not justified from the point of view of
chamois" (p.109). Once again (is there a pattern here?), this conclusion is not
justified. It ignores the fact that mountain bikers are able to travel several
times as far as hikers, and thus negatively impact several times as much
wildlife. It also ignores the fact that bicycles enable a large increase in
numbers of human visitors (note that this places the blame on the bicycle, not
the bicyclists -- my argument doesn't depend on there being any difference
between hikers and mountain bikers). And, of course, wherever the number of
visitors increases, there is pressure to build more trails, destroying even more
habitat. Once again, it would appear that this study was undertaken with the
intent of excusing mountain biking.

Gary next cites a study of bald eagles by Robin Spahr, that I wasn't
able to acquire. "Spahr found that walkers caused the highest frequency of eagle
flushing". However, this study is difficult to interpret. Eagles don't
congregate in large numbers, like sheep. So it is hard to ensure that all
treatments are equally balanced. Gary doesn't mention the numbers of eagles or
recreationists. It is hard to imagine that the conditions under different
treatments (or even within treatments) were equal. Thus, I don't know if this
was really a controlled study. Spahr also found that "bicyclists caused eagles
to flush at [the] greatest distances", which would tend to indicate bicyclists
have greater impacts. At best, these are mixed results. And, once again, the
greater distances that bikers travel are ignored, as well as the greater visitor
numbers that the bicycle enables.

Gary concludes "Mountain biking, like other recreation activities, does
impact the environment. On this point, there is little argument. But … a body of
empirical, scientific studies now indicates [sic] that mountain biking is no
more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking [Gary's
emphasis]. Thus, managers who prohibit bicycle use (while allowing hiking or
equestrian use) based on impacts to trails, soils, wildlife, or vegetation are
acting without sound, scientific backing." Au contraire, as I have indicated,
the very studies that Gary and IMBA cite as support for mountain biking actually
show that mountain biking does much more harm to the environment than hiking!
Gary goes on to fault "the wisdom of prohibiting [sic] particular user groups".
However, as I explained earlier, mountain bikers are not prohibited from using
any trails. Bicycles are occasionally prohibited. Mountain bikers are merely
required to follow the same rules as everyone else, and walk.

At the bottom of the same web page is the notice: "IMBA wishes to obtain
and incorporate into future revisions of this document any new or additional
empirical science regarding the impacts of mountain biking. IMBA welcomes input
[my emphasis]. To offer information, please contact the author at
". On April 25 I emailed Gary (and Pete Webber, ) the
Wisdom et al study, which demonstrates that mountain bikers have a greater
impact on elk than hikers. Not only hasn't this new research been incorporated
into his paper, but I haven't even received a reply. It would appear that IMBA
isn't really interested in achieving a scientific answer to this question.

In 2003, Jason Lathrop wrote an excellent "critical literature review"
on the ecological impacts of mountain biking, raising some questions found
nowhere else. He quotes the BLM: "An estimated 13.5 million mountain bicyclists
visit public lands each year to enjoy the variety of trails. What was once a low
use activity that was easy to manage has become more complex". He criticizes all
of the studies for not using realistic representations of mountain biking. For
example, on Thurston and Reader, he says "this study's treatment passes at best
loosely approximate the forces exerted by actual mountain biking. On real
trails, riders possess widely varying levels of skill, resulting in variant
speeds, turning, and braking. This study does not address these variables."
Lathrop also makes the excellent point that "Direct mortality [of animals] is
virtually unstudied. I could find no references to it in the literature.
Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that small mammals are vulnerable to
impact and are not uncommonly killed."

And: "Taylor (2001) concluded that short-term behavioral changes do not
vary between bicyclists and hikers on a per-encounter basis. However, because
bicyclists are capable of and, in most areas, typically do travel much farther
than hikers, it is reasonable to conclude that they will create a somewhat
higher total number of encounters and flushings."

Cessford (1995) did an oft-quoted review (which I am including only
because it is so widely cited) that, like all others, uncritically accepts
Wilson and Seney (1994) as proof that mountain biking impacts are no worse than
those of hikers. His paper is mostly speculation, based on few actual research
findings. He disparages negative information about mountain biking by such
devices as claiming that problems are caused by a minority of mountain bikers,
exhibiting "poor riding habits", that accidents involving hikers and bikers are
"rare", that hikers' dislike for being around bikes in the woods, and feelings
that bikes cause greater environmental harm than hiking, are mere "perceptions".
He blames hikers for "misperceiving" mountain bikers, claiming that "the two
groups are more similar than is generally perceived. … The bicyclists … are
basically hikers who are using mountain bikes to gain quicker access to the
wilderness boundary". He speculates, without any evidence, that "the degree of
conflict with mountain biking may diminish over time as other users become more
familiar with bike-encounters and riders themselves". A more likely
interpretation is that hikers who dislike being around bikes simply stop using
trails that are open to bikes, thereby lessening the conflict!

Finally, in 2004, Wisdom et al did a very well controlled study
comparing the impacts of ATV riders, mountain bikers, and hikers on elk and mule
deer. They say we have an "urgent need for timely management information to
address the rapid growth in off-road recreation. … Mountain biking [is] …
increasing rapidly". Recreationists were allowed to stop for less than a minute
to look at the animals. All measurements were made electronically, using an
Automated Telemetry System and GPS, allowing control measurements to be made
"blind", with no humans present! "Use of the automated telemetry system to track
animal movements, combined with the use of GPS units to track human movements,
provided real-time, unbiased estimates of the distances between each ungulate
and group of humans [the recreationists were in pairs]". He pointed out that
direct measurements, a la Taylor and Knight, tend to be biased, because some
animals can't be observed. The area was entirely fenced, allowing researchers to
completely control human access.

They found: "Movement rates of elk were substantially higher during all
four off-road activities as compared to periods of no human activity. … For the
morning pass, movement rates of elk were highest during ATV activity,
second-highest during mountain bike riding, and lowest during hiking and
horseback riding. … Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were
highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute), followed by mountain bike riding (17
yards/minute) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute). … By
contrast, peak movement rates of elk during the control periods did not exceed 9
yards/minute during daylight hours of 0800-1500, the comparable period of each
day when off-road treatments were implemented. Interestingly, movement rates of
elk were also higher than control periods at times encompassing sunrise and
sunset for the days in which an off-road activity occurred, even though humans
were not present at these times of the day. These higher movement rates near
sunrise and sunset suggest that elk were displaced from preferred security and
foraging areas as a result of flight behavior during the daytime off-road
activities. In particular, movement rates of elk at or near sunrise and sunset
were higher during the 5-day treatments of mountain bike and ATV activity"
(p.6).

"Higher probabilities of flight response occurred during ATV and
mountain bike activity, in contrast to lower probabilities observed during
hiking and horseback riding. Probability of a flight response declined most
rapidly during hiking, with little effect when hikers were beyond 550 yards from
an elk. By contrast, higher probabilities of elk flight continued beyond 820
yards from horseback riders, and 1,640 yards from mountain bike and ATV riders.
In contrast to elk, mule deer showed less change in movement rates during the
four off-road activities compared to the control periods" (p.7). (Perhaps they
seek cover, rather than running away.)

"The energetic costs associated with these treatments deserve further
analysis to assess potential effects on elk survival. For example, if the
additional energy required to flee from an off-road activity reduces the percent
body fat below 9 percent as animals enter the winter period, the probability of
surviving the winter is extremely low. Animal energy budgets also may be
adversely affected by the loss of foraging opportunities while responding to
off-road activities, both from increased movements, and from displacement from
foraging habitat. … Our results from 2002 also show clear differences in elk
responses to the four off-road activities. Elk reactions were more pronounced
during ATV and mountain bike riding, and less so during horseback riding and
hiking. Both movement rates and probabilities of flight responses were higher
for ATV and mountain bike riding than for horseback riding and hiking."

It is also instructive to note that only one pair of ATV users were
needed to cover the 20-mile study area, but two pairs of mountain bikers and
three pairs of hikers were needed, to cover the distance in the time allotted,
underscoring the different relative distances that the three groups are capable
of covering.

Summary:

Mountain bikers have turned to scientific research to try to make
mountain biking seem less harmful, and in particular, to studies comparing it
with hiking. Although they have interpreted this data as indicating that
mountain biking impacts are no greater than those of hiking, a more careful look
at these studies leads to the conclusion that mountain biking impacts are
actually several times greater than those of hikers.

Some of the important characteristics of mountain biking that have been
ignored a speed; distance traveled; the increase in number of visitors that
bikes allow; increased trail-building, with its attendant habitat destruction;
the displacement of soil (other than downhill); the killing of roots and soil
organisms and ecosystems; most effects on wildlife; manner of riding (skidding,
braking, acceleration, turning, and representativeness); tire tread; and noise
(bikes are relatively quiet, but a rattling chain may be perceived as "alien" to
natural surroundings).

In addition, measuring techniques need to be described in more detail,
"blind" measurements should be considered (where the measurers don't know what
treatment they are measuring), controls need to be added, and "intangibles"
(e.g. loss of feelings of safety and loss of the primitive feel of natural
settings) need to be taken more seriously. The direct killing of small animals
deserves attention.

On the other hand, why do we need research to prove what is obvious? We
don't need any research to know that we shouldn't step in front of a speeding
truck. Or mountain bike.

References:

Butler, Tom, "Mountain biking in wilderness: What bears want -- a wilderness
view". Wild Earth, Vol.13, No.1, 2003,
http://www.wildlandsproject.org.

Cessford, Gordon R. ), "Off-road impacts of mountain bikes
-- a review and discussion". Science & Research Series No.92, Department of
Conservation, P. O. Box 10-420, Wellington, New Zealand, 1995,
http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politi...acts/index.htm.

Foreman, Dave, "A modest proposal". Wild Earth, Vol.13, No.1, 2003, pp.34-5,
http://www.wildlandsproject.org.

Gander, Hans and Paul Ingold, "Reactions of male alpine chamois Rupicapra r.
rupicapra to hikers, joggers and mountainbikers". Biological Conservation,
Vol.79, 1997, pp.107-9.

Goeft, Ute and Jackie Alder, "Sustainable mountain biking: a case study from the
southwest of Western Australia". Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol.9, No.3,
2001, pp.193-211.

Hasenauer, Jim ), "A niche for bicycles". Wild Earth, Vol.13,
No.1, 2003, pp.21-22, http://www.wildlandsproject.org.

Lathrop, Jason, "Ecological impacts of mountain biking: a critical literature
review". 2003,
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/resource...kingreport.htm.

McCoy, Michael and Mary Alice Stoner, "Mountain bike trails: Techniques for
design, construction and maintenance". Bikecentennial, P. O. Box 8308, Missoula,
MT 59807, 1992.

O'Donnell, Brian and Michael Carroll, "Don't tread here". Wild Earth, Vol.13,
No.1, 2003, pp.31-33, http://www.wildlandsproject.org.

Papouchis, Christopher M. ), Francis J. Singer, and
William B. Sloan, "Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased human
recreation". Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol.65, No.3, 2001, pp.573-82.

Sprung, Gary ), "Natural resource impacts of mountain biking -- a
summary of scientific studies that compare mountain biking to other forms of
trail travel", 2004, http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html.

Taylor, Audrey ) and Richard L. Knight
) "Wildlife responses to recreation and associated
visitor perceptions". Ecological Applications, Vol.13, No.4, 2003, pp.951-63.

Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts of
experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a
deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3, 2001, pp.397-409.

Vandeman, Michael J., "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!" Presented at
the Society for Conservation Biology meeting, University of Montana, Missoula,
Montana, June 10, 2000, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.htm.

Vandeman, Michael J., "The Myth of the Sustainable Lifestyle". Presented at the
Society for Conservation Biology meeting, University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii,
July 30, 2001, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sustain.htm.

Wilson, John P. and Joseph Seney, "Erosional impact of hikers, horses,
motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana". Mountain
Research and Development, Vol.14, No.1, 1994, pp.77-88.

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, in press.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
  #16  
Old July 16th 04, 02:33 AM
Stephen Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

MV blathers:

You IMAGINE that you (or someone) can do better, but we see no
evidence.


We see no evidence at all that you yourself are succeeding in anything, Mike.
You have driven two roadies, at least, to buying and using mountain bikes, and
you have yet to persuade ONE person here (Alt.mountain-bike) that giving up
riding on legal trails is a good idea. Great progress.


Meanwhile, I am going to keep telling the truth --


Bwahahahahahahaha..... That's a good one from you.

Steve


  #17  
Old July 16th 04, 03:09 AM
Tommy Homicide
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

Bit of advice: You can keep debating until you eventually get sick of
it, or you can save a bit of time and just quit now.
http://www.j-harris.net/bike/ambfaq.htm#1.3.1


I realize, bomba, from reading this wacko's posts that debating with him
is useless. When I hear comments from lunatics like him on the trails, I
just smile and wave because that's what we're supposed to do.

But it feels good for a change to tell idiots like Vandeman off, and this
appears to be the perfect place to do it, even if my comments fall on deaf
ears.

--
____________________________
TOMMY HOMICIDE
http://www.tommyhomicide.com
  #18  
Old July 16th 04, 03:12 AM
Tommy Homicide
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Blablablablablablabla


I'm debating whether I should stay at home all weekend and read all of this
drivel or go RIDE.

Hmmm. What a dilemma...

NOT!

--
____________________________
TOMMY HOMICIDE
http://www.tommyhomicide.com
  #19  
Old July 16th 04, 04:28 AM
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:09:25 GMT, Tommy Homicide
wrote:

.. Bit of advice: You can keep debating until you eventually get sick of
.. it, or you can save a bit of time and just quit now.
.. http://www.j-harris.net/bike/ambfaq.htm#1.3.1
..
..I realize, bomba, from reading this wacko's posts that debating with him
..is useless. When I hear comments from lunatics like him on the trails, I
..just smile and wave because that's what we're supposed to do.
..
..But it feels good for a change to tell idiots like Vandeman off, and this
..appears to be the perfect place to do it, even if my comments fall on deaf
..ears.

Did you say something?
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The "Science" on Mountain Biking Impacts Gary S. Mountain Biking 7 April 24th 04 05:33 PM
IMBA Tries to Justify Mountain Biking with Junk Science HCH Mountain Biking 4 April 10th 04 11:38 PM
Mike Vandeman qa2 Mountain Biking 26 November 18th 03 01:16 PM
More Hate Mail from a Typical Mountain Biker Stephen Baker Mountain Biking 11 October 26th 03 06:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.