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

the Moderator wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message
...
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 done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. When
mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. That
is simply empirical evidence.

It's true, but not because of bikes versus boots. When mountain biking
is introduced to an area, usage goes way up.

Some areas are now doing alternate use, allowing bicycles and hikers on
different days, to reduce usage on popular trails. OTOH, many areas have
almost no usage at all from hikers, yet mountain biking is banned. This
leads to more mountain bikes using fewer trails, increasing impact. What
needs to be done is to distribute the users, both hikers and bikers,
over more trails, to lessen the impact on individual areas.

People like Vandeman, if they had any influence, would do tremendous
harm to the environment by reducing the available mountain biking areas.
What needs to be done is a massive expansion of trails for mountain
bikers. This would have several benefits:

1) Reduce the impact on trails by distributing the impact over a much
larger number of trails.

2) Create a constituency for preserving parkland and open space.

3) Create a huge new pool of volunteers for trail and park maintenance.

The problem with people like Vandeman is that they never learned to take
a scientific, "big picture" view of anything. They get tunnel vision,
and only think about themselves.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 20, 8:40 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero


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.

You are comparing apples & oranges. The trails & number of users are
obviously different.

You just told us they are different trails. DUH! The latter is
obvious.

So, you've been there, and actually compared them? No? Didn't think
so.

Do some SCIENCE, and maybe someone would listen.

As someone with a degree and career in hard science, "doing science"
comes naturally. Let's just say that in any sort of comparison
between your complete lack of knowledge of the trails of which I
speak, and my first-hand knowledge over the course of years, I'll take
my chances in the court of public opinion.

Come back when you have some real comparison *data*, rather than mere
pulled-out-of-your-ass conjecture.

E.P.

You are the one making an assertion. PROVE it.
--
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 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

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:43:21 -0500, "the Moderator"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
.. .

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 done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. When
mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. That
is simply empirical evidence.

Very true.

I also know that when a trail is rerouted due to a blow down or land slide,
in two years you can hardly find the old trail even if you are looking for
it. Mother Nature has a way of healing itself.

Only in certain areas. In the desert, the damage can last DECADES.
--
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 11:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 21, 11:43*am, "the Moderator"
wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message

...



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 done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. *When
mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. *That
is simply empirical evidence.

No, it's anecdotal. And not universal.

It may be that in some places, the additional traffic is not good for
the trails as-built. But that does not imply that all areas are this
way, or that the trails that exist cannot be reworked to eliminate the
problem.

BS. The laws of physics aren't going to change.

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 Wed, 21 May 2008 12:03:15 -0700, SMS
wrote:

the Moderator wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message
...
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 done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. When
mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. That
is simply empirical evidence.

It's true, but not because of bikes versus boots. When mountain biking
is introduced to an area, usage goes way up.

Some areas are now doing alternate use, allowing bicycles and hikers on
different days, to reduce usage on popular trails. OTOH, many areas have
almost no usage at all from hikers, yet mountain biking is banned. This
leads to more mountain bikes using fewer trails, increasing impact. What
needs to be done is to distribute the users, both hikers and bikers,
over more trails, to lessen the impact on individual areas.

People like Vandeman, if they had any influence, would do tremendous
harm to the environment by reducing the available mountain biking areas.
What needs to be done is a massive expansion of trails for mountain
bikers. This would have several benefits:

1) Reduce the impact on trails by distributing the impact over a much
larger number of trails.

BS.

2) Create a constituency for preserving parkland and open space.

BS. Mountan bikers are only a constituency for mountain biking, NOT
for protecting habitat.

3) Create a huge new pool of volunteers for trail and park maintenance.

Trail maintenance is destructive.

The problem with people like Vandeman is that they never learned to take
a scientific, "big picture" view of anything. They get tunnel vision,
and only think about themselves.

Sounds exactly like mountain bikers.
--
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 22, 9:20*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

wrote:
On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Because they are destroying the environment...

No more than hikers, according to most real research.

How would you know what "real research" is? LOL

Because I'm actually published, in real scientific journals.

Heh.

E.P.

On May 22, 9:19*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero





wrote:
On May 20, 8:40 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

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.

You are comparing apples & oranges. The trails & number of users are
obviously different.

You just told us they are different trails. DUH! The latter is
obvious.

Quibbling over the sentence construction and the strict literal
meanings of words doesn't make your argument stronger.

Try again.

So, you've been there, and actually compared them? *No? *Didn't think
so.

Do some SCIENCE, and maybe someone would listen.

As someone with a degree and career in hard science, "doing science"
comes naturally. *Let's just say that in any sort of comparison
between your complete lack of knowledge of the trails of which I
speak, and my first-hand knowledge over the course of years, I'll take
my chances in the court of public opinion.

Come back when you have some real comparison *data*, rather than mere
pulled-out-of-your-ass conjecture.

E.P.

You are the one making an assertion. PROVE it.

It's already proven, if we use your standard of what constitutes
proof.

E.P.

On May 22, 9:27*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero





wrote:
On May 21, 11:43*am, "the Moderator"
wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message

. ..

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 done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. *When
mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. *That
is simply empirical evidence.

No, it's anecdotal. *And not universal.

It may be that in some places, the additional traffic is not good for
the trails as-built. *But that does not imply that all areas are this
way, or that the trails that exist cannot be reworked to eliminate the
problem.

BS. The laws of physics aren't going to change.

Non sequitur. Nobody is attempting to change the laws of physics, nor
asserting that they can be changed.

E.P.