Some Bicyclists Think They Are Above the Law

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:46:18 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
We don't need to break the law, because we already have access to
trails. But, of course, mountain bikers ALSO have access; they just
don't want to admit it.
I want to admit it! I have legal access to virtually all the public
trails in Tilden Park, many of which I legally ride on my mountain bike.

I think you owe me an apology.

For destroying the park and its wildlife? Give me a break. You owe all
of us an apology.

-Beej
===
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

Looks like this is going to turn up all blue and pointless due to my
email prog, but I will reply anyway...
I have noticed that you, Mike Vandeman (who will presumably read this at
some point), seem to be entirely against mountain biking, and thus there
is no reason for you to be reading, let alone responding to posts here.
You seem to love spurring debates, but I'll go on ahead anyway.
Perhaps you should do your research. There have been measurements of
trail erosion caused by various groups using multi-purpose trails.
Mountain bikers often cause erosion to the same extent that HIKERS do,
and to a far lesser extent than do equestrians. Perhaps any
'destruction' we cause to 'parks and wildlife' appears more noticeable
due to our tire treads, which generally follow the centre of the trail,
occasionally compounding upon eachother's and leaving slight and visible
'dents' or ruts in trails, but hikers may cause just as much to
different areas of the trail, dependent on conditions.
Regardless, mountain bikers using legal trails have no ruddy reason to
apologize to anybody. I don't believe we go around torching squirrels
or felling trees with reckless abandon in general, and thus we don't
particularly contribute to the destruction of wildlife.
If mountain bikers do erode and destroy trails and wildlife so much,
then why are all the trails at my local mtb park, ridden very frequently
even in muddy conditions, and not maintained too much, fairly smooth and
undamaged, like the local hiking trails, if slightly depressed in the
middle, as well as being surrounded by trees and chirping birds?

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:24:52 GMT, AJ wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:46:18 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
We don't need to break the law, because we already have access to
trails. But, of course, mountain bikers ALSO have access; they just
don't want to admit it.
I want to admit it! I have legal access to virtually all the public
trails in Tilden Park, many of which I legally ride on my mountain bike.

I think you owe me an apology.

For destroying the park and its wildlife? Give me a break. You owe all
of us an apology.

-Beej
===
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

Looks like this is going to turn up all blue and pointless due to my
email prog, but I will reply anyway...
I have noticed that you, Mike Vandeman (who will presumably read this at
some point), seem to be entirely against mountain biking, and thus there
is no reason for you to be reading, let alone responding to posts here.
You seem to love spurring debates, but I'll go on ahead anyway.
Perhaps you should do your research. There have been measurements of
trail erosion caused by various groups using multi-purpose trails.
Mountain bikers often cause erosion to the same extent that HIKERS do,
and to a far lesser extent than do equestrians. Perhaps any
'destruction' we cause to 'parks and wildlife' appears more noticeable
due to our tire treads, which generally follow the centre of the trail,
occasionally compounding upon eachother's and leaving slight and visible
'dents' or ruts in trails, but hikers may cause just as much to
different areas of the trail, dependent on conditions.
Regardless, mountain bikers using legal trails have no ruddy reason to
apologize to anybody. I don't believe we go around torching squirrels
or felling trees with reckless abandon in general, and thus we don't
particularly contribute to the destruction of wildlife.
If mountain bikers do erode and destroy trails and wildlife so much,
then why are all the trails at my local mtb park, ridden very frequently
even in muddy conditions, and not maintained too much, fairly smooth and
undamaged, like the local hiking trails, if slightly depressed in the
middle, as well as being surrounded by trees and chirping birds?

Thanks for demonstrating just how utterly ignorant mountain bikers
are. That so-called "research" was refuted by me long ago:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. Do your homework, before putting
your foot in your mouth.
===
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

Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action :: Unequivocal, Mike Vandeman,
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...interests.html
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action

An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to
make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed
listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species.

"This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers
to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide
emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail.

To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of
Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider
whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the
bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

"This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and
power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell,
president of Clean Air Watch.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act

Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the
"safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say
environmentalists.

March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to
fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out
in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed
changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail
the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to
enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it
dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or
mining.

"The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act," says Jan Hasselman, a Seattle attorney with
Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, who helped Salon interpret
the proposal. "This is a no-holds-barred end run around one of
America's most popular environmental protections. If these regulations
stand up, the act will no longer provide a safety net for animals and
plants on the brink of extinction."

In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to
extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the
public. All copies of the working document were given a number
corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to
that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional
director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for
comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the
concern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall,
director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this
stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation."

Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not
based on "defensible science," says a federal employee who asked to
remain anonymous. Yet "there is genuine fear of retaliation for
communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs."

Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's
accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under
wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public
about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he
adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review
process.

Administration critics characterize the secrecy as a way to maintain
spin control, says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for
Biological Diversity, a national environmental group. "This
administration will often release a 300-page-long document at a press
conference for a newspaper story that will go to press in two hours,
giving the media or public no opportunity to digest it and figure out
what's going on," Suckling says. "[Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne
will give a feel-good quote about how the new regulations are good for
the environment, and they can win the public relations war."

In some ways, the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act
should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its
fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species
endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a
lawsuit. That's fewer than in any other administration in history --
and far fewer than were listed during the administrations of Reagan
(253), Clinton (521) or Bush I (234). Furthermore, during this
administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been
directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would
result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to
a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and
botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, a nonprofit organization.

"We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to
rubber stamp everything," wrote a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist
as part of the survey. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and
this is the worst it has ever been."

The agency has long seen a need to improve the act, says Tollefson.
"This is a look at what's possible," he says. "Too much of our time as
an agency is spent responding to litigation rather than working on
recovering the species that are most in need. The current way the act
is run creates disincentives for people to get involved with
recovering species."

Kempthorne, boss of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been an
outspoken critic of the act. When he was a U.S. senator from Idaho in
the late 1990s, he championed legislation that would have allowed
government agencies to exempt their actions from Endangered Species
Act regulations, and would have required federal agents to conduct
cost-benefit analyses when considering whether to list a species as
endangered. (The legislation failed.) Last June, in his early days as
interior secretary, Kempthorne told reporters, "I really believe that
we can make improvements to the act itself."

Kempthorne is keeping good on his promise. The proposed draft is
littered with language lifted directly from both Kempthorne's 1998
legislation as well as from a contentious bill by former Rep. Richard
Pombo, R-Calif. (which was also shot down by Congress). It's "a wish
list of regulations that the administration and its industry allies
have been talking about for years," says Suckling.

Written in terse, dry legal language, the proposed draft doesn't make
for easy reading. However, the changes, often seemingly subtle,
generally serve to strip the Fish and Wildlife Service of the power to
do its stated job: to protect wildlife. Some verge on the biologically
ridiculous, say critics, while others are a clear concession to
industry and conservative Western governors who have long complained
that the act degrades the economies of their states by preventing
natural-resource extraction.

One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible
for endangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become
extinct in "the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe
that can stretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act
protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean
either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which
timeline). For certain species with long life spans, such as killer
whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't even one
generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they
would not make the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely
to die out in two decades.

"It makes absolutely no sense biologically," wrote Hasselman in an e-
mail. "One of the Act's weaknesses is that species aren't protected
until they're already in trouble and this proposal puts that flaw on
steroids."

Perhaps the most significant proposed change gives state governors the
opportunity and funding to take over virtually every aspect of the act
from the federal government. This includes not only the right to
create species-recovery plans and the power to veto the reintroduction
of endangered species within state boundaries, but even the authority
to determine what plants and animals get protection. For plants and
animals in Western states, that's bad news: State politicians
throughout the region howled in opposition to the reintroduction of
the Mexican gray wolf into Arizona and the Northern Rockies wolf into
Yellowstone National Park.

"If states are involved, the act would only get minimally enforced,"
says Bob Hallock, a recently retired 34-year veteran of the Fish and
Wildlife Service who, as an endangered species specialist, worked with
state agencies in Idaho, Washington and Montana. "States are, if
anything, closer to special economic interests. They're more
manipulated. The states have not demonstrated the will or interest in
upholding the act. It's why we created a federal law in the first
place."

Additional tweaks in the law would have a major impact. For instance,
the proposal would narrow the definition of a species' geographic
range from the landscape it inhabited historically to the land it
currently occupies. Since the main reason most plants and animals head
toward extinction is due to limited habitat, the change would strongly
hamper the government's ability to protect chunks of land and allow
for a healthy recovery in the wild.

The proposal would also allow both ongoing and planned projects by
such federal agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest
Service to go forward, even when scientific evidence indicates that
the projects may drive a species to extinction. Under the new
regulations, as long as the dam or logging isn't hastening the
previous rate of extinction, it's approved. "This makes recovery of
species impossible," says Suckling. (You can read the entire proposal,
a PDF file, here.)

Gutting the Endangered Species Act will only thicken the pall that has
hung over the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past six years,
Hallock says. "They [the Bush administration] don't want the
regulations to be effective. People in the agency are like a bunch of
whipped dogs," he says. "I think it's just unacceptable to go around
squashing other species; they're of incalculable benefit to us. The
optimism we had when this agency started has absolutely been dashed."


http://www.earthjustice.org/news/pre...otections.html
Bush Administration Rewrite of Endangered Species Act Regulations
Would Gut Protections

Hush-hush proposal "a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's
most popular laws"

Washington, DC -- A secret draft of regulations that fundamentally
rewrite the Endangered Species Act was leaked to two environmental
organizations, which provided them to the press last night An article
in Salon quotes Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman saying, "The
proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act."

The changes are fiercely technical and complicated, but make future
listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts to the detriment
of protected species, virtually hand over administration of the act to
hostile states, and severely restrict habitat protections.

Many of the changes -- lifted from unsuccessful legislative proposals
from then-Senator (now Interior Secretary) Dirk Kempthorne and the
recently defeated congressman Richard Pombo -- are reactions to
policies and practices established as a result of litigation filed by
environmental organizations including Earthjustice.

"After the failure of these legislative proposals in the last
Congress, the Bush administration has opted to gut the Endangered
Species Act through the only avenue left open: administrative
regulations," said Hasselman. "This end-run around the will of
Congress and the American people will not succeed."

A major change would make it more difficult for a species to gain
protection, by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in
which to consider whether a species is likely to become extinct.
Instead of looking far enough ahead to be able to reasonably determine
whether a species could be heading for extinction, the new regulations
would drastically shorten the timeframe to either 20 years or 10
generations at the agency's discretion. For species with long
generations like killer whales and grizzly bears, this truncated view
of the future isn't nearly enough time to accurately predict whether
they are at-risk now.

"These draft regulations represent a total rejection of the values
held by the vast majority Americans: that we have a responsibility to
protect imperiled species and the special places they call home," said
Kate Freund, Legislative Associate at Earthjustice.

According to several sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service
quoted by Salon, hostility to the law within the agency has never been
so intense. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is
the worst it has ever been," one unnamed source is quoted as saying.

In addition, the proposal would allow projects by the Forest Service
and other agencies to proceed even if scientific evidence suggests
that the projects might drive species to extinction so long as the
rate of decline doesn't accelerate owing to the project.

The Bush administration's antipathy to the law is shown by the numbers
of species it has protected, in each case as the result of litigation
-- 57. By comparison, 253 species were listed during the Reagan
administration, 521 under Clinton, and 234 under Bush I.

The administration reportedly had expected to reveal the new
regulations in a few weeks. The draft regulations must be published in
the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final,
which is likely to be at least a year off.

Contact:

Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25

Mike Vandeman wrote:
wrote:
I think you owe me an apology.

For destroying the park and its wildlife?

No. But you still have two guesses remaining!

-Beej

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Looks like this is going to turn up all blue and pointless due to my
email prog, but I will reply anyway...
I have noticed that you, Mike Vandeman (who will presumably read this at
some point), seem to be entirely against mountain biking, and thus there
is no reason for you to be reading, let alone responding to posts here.
You seem to love spurring debates, but I'll go on ahead anyway.
Perhaps you should do your research. There have been measurements of
trail erosion caused by various groups using multi-purpose trails.
Mountain bikers often cause erosion to the same extent that HIKERS do,
and to a far lesser extent than do equestrians. Perhaps any
'destruction' we cause to 'parks and wildlife' appears more noticeable
due to our tire treads, which generally follow the centre of the trail,
occasionally compounding upon eachother's and leaving slight and visible
'dents' or ruts in trails, but hikers may cause just as much to
different areas of the trail, dependent on conditions.
Regardless, mountain bikers using legal trails have no ruddy reason to
apologize to anybody. I don't believe we go around torching squirrels
or felling trees with reckless abandon in general, and thus we don't
particularly contribute to the destruction of wildlife.
If mountain bikers do erode and destroy trails and wildlife so much,
then why are all the trails at my local mtb park, ridden very frequently
even in muddy conditions, and not maintained too much, fairly smooth and
undamaged, like the local hiking trails, if slightly depressed in the
middle, as well as being surrounded by trees and chirping birds?

Thanks for demonstrating just how utterly ignorant mountain bikers
are. That so-called "research" was refuted by me long ago:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. Do your homework, before putting
your foot in your mouth.
===
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

I would, but I have enough to do anyway without reading your redundant
drivel... Anyways, I suppose not trudging through the archives was a
mistake on my part, but I'll maintain that, at least in my hometown, I
honestly don't see bikers destroying trails and wildlife to any extent.
This is partially due to all our trails being built only by the CRD,
or when they authorize it, preventing spidering networks of trails that
take up huge amounts of space and the like, but we still aren't
destroying anything.
Mountain bikers around here are generally much more respectful of the
environment than you'd think, occasionally screaming at illegal loggers
and often felling absolutely no trees to create linear trails which they
very rarely stray off of.
Not all mountain bikers are so innately destructive as you'd suggest in
your... thing up there.
I must admit your plentiful use of exclamation marks in what I hope
isn't some kind of copy of your master's thesis demonstrates a leaning
towards feigned innocence, as well, but I shall ignore your varying
defects, as we all have them.
Your work is based on mountain bikers who ride in wet, deeply muddy
conditions with little regard for trails, the environment and, likely,
their own safety.
There are enough of us who don't follow this model that you're making a
moot point, or so I believe.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be calling me ignorant, if I were you, because
you don't know me. All the above that I write contains mere theories on
your personality.
I must wonder where you bought your Ph. D. I shall look on your
delightful website.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:44:23 GMT, AJ wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Looks like this is going to turn up all blue and pointless due to my
email prog, but I will reply anyway...
I have noticed that you, Mike Vandeman (who will presumably read this at
some point), seem to be entirely against mountain biking, and thus there
is no reason for you to be reading, let alone responding to posts here.
You seem to love spurring debates, but I'll go on ahead anyway.
Perhaps you should do your research. There have been measurements of
trail erosion caused by various groups using multi-purpose trails.
Mountain bikers often cause erosion to the same extent that HIKERS do,
and to a far lesser extent than do equestrians. Perhaps any
'destruction' we cause to 'parks and wildlife' appears more noticeable
due to our tire treads, which generally follow the centre of the trail,
occasionally compounding upon eachother's and leaving slight and visible
'dents' or ruts in trails, but hikers may cause just as much to
different areas of the trail, dependent on conditions.
Regardless, mountain bikers using legal trails have no ruddy reason to
apologize to anybody. I don't believe we go around torching squirrels
or felling trees with reckless abandon in general, and thus we don't
particularly contribute to the destruction of wildlife.
If mountain bikers do erode and destroy trails and wildlife so much,
then why are all the trails at my local mtb park, ridden very frequently
even in muddy conditions, and not maintained too much, fairly smooth and
undamaged, like the local hiking trails, if slightly depressed in the
middle, as well as being surrounded by trees and chirping birds?

Thanks for demonstrating just how utterly ignorant mountain bikers
are. That so-called "research" was refuted by me long ago:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. Do your homework, before putting
your foot in your mouth.
===
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

I would, but I have enough to do anyway without reading your redundant
drivel... Anyways, I suppose not trudging through the archives was a
mistake on my part, but I'll maintain that, at least in my hometown, I
honestly don't see bikers destroying trails and wildlife to any extent.
This is partially due to all our trails being built only by the CRD,
or when they authorize it, preventing spidering networks of trails that
take up huge amounts of space and the like, but we still aren't
destroying anything.
Mountain bikers around here are generally much more respectful of the
environment than you'd think, occasionally screaming at illegal loggers
and often felling absolutely no trees to create linear trails which they
very rarely stray off of.
Not all mountain bikers are so innately destructive as you'd suggest in
your... thing up there.
I must admit your plentiful use of exclamation marks in what I hope
isn't some kind of copy of your master's thesis demonstrates a leaning
towards feigned innocence, as well, but I shall ignore your varying
defects, as we all have them.
Your work is based on mountain bikers who ride in wet, deeply muddy
conditions with little regard for trails, the environment and, likely,
their own safety.

You obviously never read my paper, because your comments are totally
irrelevant. It's not based on biker BEHAVIOR, but on the UNAVOIDABLE
impacts of mountain biking, HOWEVER it's done. For example, animals
don't care whether the mountain biker who squashes them is polite or
not. DUH!

There are enough of us who don't follow this model that you're making a
moot point, or so I believe.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be calling me ignorant, if I were you, because
you don't know me.

I can tell from the senseless garbage you write.

All the above that I write contains mere theories on
your personality.
I must wonder where you bought your Ph. D. I shall look on your
delightful website.
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:

There are enough of us who don't follow this model that you're making a
moot point, or so I believe.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be calling me ignorant, if I were you, because
you don't know me.

I can tell from the senseless garbage you write.


That makes me rather discouraged. I thought I was pretty good for a
twelve year-old.

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:16:50 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more
than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law.

Up to 15% of mountain bikers are law-abiding citizens!

Then why is it so hard to find one of them?

Is the number you posted accurate? Perhaps the study is flawed.

"At the stream crossing 83.1% of the bicyclists traveled through the
stream [illegally] and 16.7% crossed the bridge."


Please state which "law" was broken. A quote would be nice


-Beej
===
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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 07 May 2007 19:03:15 GMT, Chris wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:16:50 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more
than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law.

Up to 15% of mountain bikers are law-abiding citizens!

Then why is it so hard to find one of them?

Is the number you posted accurate? Perhaps the study is flawed.

"At the stream crossing 83.1% of the bicyclists traveled through the
stream [illegally] and 16.7% crossed the bridge."


Please state which "law" was broken. A quote would be nice

The law that required everyone to use the bridge, not ride through the
stream.

To Cross or Not to Cross: Mt. Bicyclists'
Resource Trail Etiquette Behavior

William W. Hendricks
Recreation Administration Program
Natural Resources Management Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
(805) 756-1246 phone
(805) 756-1402 fax


Roy H. Ramthun
Travel Industry Management
Concord College
P.O. Box 78
Athens, WV 24712-1000

Deborah J. Chavez
USDA Forest Service, PSW
4955 Canyon Crest Drive
Riverside, CA 92507

Running Head: Resource Trail Etiquette

*This research was supported in part by funds provided by the USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station and a McIntire-Stennis grant.

Abstract

One management concern related to the increased use of mountain bikes
on multiple-use trails is that
heavily used sites may suffer damage to natural resources. An
important part of the trail etiquette
guidelines advocated by the International Mountain Bicycling
Association (IMBA) is protecting trail
resources. The purpose of this study was to examine mountain
bicyclists behavior in two resource trail
etiquette settings. The study took place at a protection road (dirt,
fire road) on Mt. Tamalpais in Marin
County, California. In the resource conditions, the behavior of
mountain bicyclists was unobtrusively
recorded as they passed a designated area to observe whether the
behavior complied with trail etiquette
guidelines. The first situation entailed whether bicyclists rode or
walked their bikes across a section of
single-track trail that is closed to riding. The second situation
involved whether the bicyclists traveled
through a stream or across a bridge. There was a significant
difference between the number of subjects
(78.1%) who rode their bicycles across the trail and those (21.9%) who
walked their bicycles across the
trail. At the stream crossing 83.1% of the bicyclists traveled through
the stream and 16.7% crossed the
bridge. Significant differences were also present for gender and two
potential specialization equipment
indicators. In these two resource conditions the majority of mountain
bicyclists are not following trail
etiquette guidelines. These results imply that continued inappropriate
behavior could result in resource
degradation at these sites. Education and enforcement regarding these
two particular resource conditions
has not been a priority of land managers on Mt. Tamalpais, but should
be considered in the future.

Introduction

Park and recreation resource managers are increasingly faced with
adapting to technological advances,
changing social values, and varied recreational experiences in rural
and urban parks, open space areas,
and forests (Hendricks, 1995; Watson, 1995; Williams, 1993). These
natural resources areas are often
places of refuge, excitement, solitude, adventure, social experiences,
and nature appreciation on any given
day for diverse user groups.

Since the late 1970s, one multiple-use trail user group in particular
has gained the attention of the public,
media, and land managers. Mountain biking began quietly on Mt.
Tamalpais in Marin County, California in
the late 1970s (Edger, 1997; Hendricks, 1997) and has become one of
the fastest growing recreational
activities in the United States and beyond. Although many mountain
bikes never travel off a paved road
(Hoger & Chavez, 1998), the potential social and resource impacts are
a concern in many areas.

Newly adopted regulations, increased enforcement, and interpretive and
informational strategies have been
among the approaches employed to reduce recreational conflict, social
impacts, and resource degradation
that could potentially develop from mountain bicyclists emergence upon
the multiple-use trail scene (Chavez,
1996, 1997a; Hendricks, Ramthun, & Chavez, 2000; Watson, Asp, Walsh, &
Kulla, 1997). As has been the
case for actions in other resource managerial decisions, the preferred
strategy is usually an indirect
educational or informational approach (Chavez, 1996; Moore, 1994;
Moore & Barthlow, 1997; Watson et al.,
1997).

A concerted educational campaign has been adopted by land management
agencies and mountain biking
organizations to promote and protect mountain biking access to trails,
to educate bicyclists about
appropriate riding techniques and behavior, and to reduce social and
environmental impacts that may be
caused by mountain biking. These educational efforts have commonly
been referred to as "rules of the trail"
or trail etiquette guidelines (Hendricks & Ruddell, 1995; Ruddell &
Hendricks, 1997; Moore, 1994; Moore &
Barthlow, 1997; Widmer, 1997). Perhaps the most widely publicized of
these etiquette guidelines are those
promoted by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA).
IMBA's guidelines suggest that
mountain bicyclists should (a) ride open trails only, (b) leave no
trace, (c) control the bicycle, (d) always yield,
(e) never spook animals, and (f) plan ahead (Hendricks, et al., 2000;
Widmer, 1997).

Applied research to assist in managing both perceived and actual
impacts due to mountain biking is still in
its infancy (Hendricks, 1997; Watson, 1995). Recreational conflict
between mountain bicyclists and hikers
has received some attention from social scientists (e.g. Ramthun,
1995; Watson, Williams, & Daigle, 1991).
Descriptive studies of mountain bicyclists' characteristics,
attitudes, motivations, and opinions have also
been examined (e.g. Chavez, 1997b; Hollenhorst, Schuett, Olson, &
Chavez, 1995; Schuett, Hollenhorst, &
Chavez, 1997; Vilter, Blahna, & Van Patten, 1995). However research
regarding resource impacts caused
from mountain biking remains rather inconclusive.

What is known is that land managers have observed and documented
resource impacts at local, state, and
national levels (Chavez, 1996, 1997a; Chavez, Winter, & Baas, 1993;
Edger, 1997; Tilmant, 1991). Among
the impacts that have been observed that managers have attributed to
the presence of mountain bikes on
trails are erosion, vegetation trampling and damage, cutting
switchbacks, soil compaction, riding in wet
sensitive areas, and damage by removing or avoiding erosion structures
such as water-bars (Chavez,
1997a). While most managers and researchers currently regard mountain
biking as a moderately disruptive
activity, having a greater impact than hiking but less than horses or
ATVs, there are still concerns that heavily
used sites may suffer damage to natural resources on or near trails.

Most of the previous studies related to mountain biking have relied on
self-reported behavior or knowledge
of mountain bicyclists. For example, on Mt. Tamalpais 94% of
bicyclists surveyed indicated that they were
knowledgeable about the biking regulations on the mountain (Cerkel,
1993). Similarly, Chavez (1997b)
found that mountain bicyclists supported appropriate riding techniques
and trail etiquette. The question
remains is actual behavior consistent with trail etiquette guidelines?
In a study conducted simultaneously to
the research reported here, 55.9% of mountain bicyclists unobtrusively
observed were traveling over the 15
mph speed limit on Mt. Tamalpais and the average behavior of mountain
bicyclists when approaching two
hikers on a protection road was to make eye contact only, but not to
yield to the hikers (Hendricks, et al.,
2000). In furthering this line of research, the purpose of the present
study was to unobtrusively observe the
behavior of mountain bicyclists in two resource trail etiquette
settings to determine if a preferred behavior as
espoused by a land management agency and mountain bike organizations
was being followed.

Methods

The study took place at Lake Lagunitas on the Mt. Tamalpais watershed
in Marin County, California. A
protection road (dirt, fire road) heavily used by bicyclists and
hikers circles the lake. The research presented
here was a component of a larger study involving observational and
quasi-experimental designs during the
1998 summer.

Two resource trail etiquette settings were examined. In each case,
trained research assistants sat adjacent
to the site and unobtrusively recorded the behavior of mountain
bicyclists as they passed the designated
area. In the first setting, approximately 150 feet of trail is reduced
to a single-track trail and bicyclists are
required to walk their bicycles over this section of trail. A posted
sign at each end of this section of trail
states, "Walk bicycles next 150 ft." Bicyclists are prohibited from
riding on single-track trails on Mt.
Tamalpais; thus, the signs are consistent with overall regulations and
assist in reducing erosion from an
area where siltation buildup in the lake is a concern. Furthermore,
all watershed users on Mt. Tamalpais are
directed by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to stay on
designated trails and protection roads
and to help prevent damage to natural resources. The researcher
recorded whether a bicyclist rode or
walked the bike on this section of trail and estimated age category,
gender, and specialization equipment
that could potentially indicate behavior. These indicators included
riding shorts, jersey, helmet, gloves,
shoes, sport glasses, hydration pack, and clipless pedals. The age
categories were 18-25, 26-35, 36-45,
46-55, and 56 and above. The second setting involved a stream crossing
on the protection road. As an
alternative to crossing the stream, a bridge is available for use.
Trail etiquette guidelines suggest that
bicyclists should avoid riding in wet conditions and in sensitive
areas. The research assistant recorded
whether the bicyclist crossed the stream or the bridge and the
variables mentioned previously.

Data were collected on 10 days during three of four randomly selected
4-hour time blocks in June, July, and
August 1998. Observations were recorded for 772 bicyclists at the two
designated areas. Two hundred
thirty-three cyclists were observed at the trail setting and 539 were
viewed at the stream setting. A limitation
that occurred during data collection was that the research assistant
at the stream setting had to move further
from the trail than originally planned to remain unseen and to
continue to observe behavior. Therefore, with
four of the potential specialization indicators there were only 239
recorded observations. Similarly, at this
setting age was recorded for 364 bicyclists. A chi-square statistic
with cross tabulations was employed for
the data analysis. For data analysis, the 46-55 and 56 and above
estimated age categories were combined
because of few observations in the latter category.

Results

Two hundred and thirty-three bicyclists were observed crossing the
single-track section of trail. The majority
of these cyclists were males (n=176, 75.7%). There was a statistically
significant difference between the
182 subjects (78.1%) who rode their bicycles across the trail and the
51 (21.9%) who walked their bicycles
across the trail (c2 [1, N=233] = 73.65, p .0005). Estimated age
categories, gender, and the potential
specialization equipment indicators did not result in significant
differences between expected and observed
frequencies.

Table 1
Trail Observations
Category
n
Walk Bike
Ride Bike
Chi-square
p
f
%
f
%
Overall
233
51
21.9
182
78.1
73.652
..0001
Gender
Male
176
37
21.0
139
79.0
Female
57
14
24.6
43
75.4
.315
..574
Age Groups
Age 18-25
29
7
24.1
22
75.9
Age 26-35
101
19
18.8
82
81.2
Age 36-45
70
13
18.6
57
81.4
Age 46+
32
12
37.5
20
62.5
5.638
..1311
Equipment Indicators
No gloves
75
16
21.3
59
78.7
Gloves
158
35
22.2
123
77.8
.020
..888
No helmet
36
7
19.4
29
80.6
Helmet
197
44
22.3
153
77.7
.149
..700
No hydration pack
180
37
20.6
143
79.4
Hydration pack
53
14
26.4
39
73.6
.822
..365
No jersey
144
27
18.8
117
81.3
Jersey
89
24
27.0
65
73.0
2.172
..141
No sport glasses
214
44
20.6
170
79.4
Sport glasses
19
7
36.8
12
63.2
2.706
..100
No clipless pedals
139
25
18.0
114
82.0
Clipless pedals
94
26
27.7
68
72.3
3.069
..080
No riding shoes
146
33
22.6
113
77.4
Riding shoes
87
18
20.7
69
79.3
.117
..733
No riding shorts
94
19
20.2
75
79.8
Riding shorts
139
32
23.0
107
77.0
.259
..611


Five hundred thirty-nine bicyclists were observed at the stream
crossing. Seventy-two (13.4%) walked their
bike across the bridge, 18 (3.3%) rode their bike across the bridge,
448 (83.1%) rode their bike through the
stream, and 1 (0.2%) walked a bike through the stream. For further
analysis those bicyclists who traveled
through the stream were combined into one category and those who
crossed the bridge were combined into
a second category. Again, most of the observations were of male
cyclists (n=418, 77.6%). A significant
difference was present between those who went through the stream and
those who traveled over the bridge
(c2 [1, N=539] = 239.11, p .0005). Overall, bicyclists observed in
this setting were more likely to go
through the stream (83.1%) than over the bridge. Significant
differences between expected and observed
frequencies were present for gender (c2 [1, N=539] = 4.656, p .031),
gloves (c2 [1, N=239] = 8.563, p
..003), and hydration pack (c2 [1, N=539] = 5.800, p .016).
Bicyclists more likely to cross the bridge were
females, did not wear gloves, and did not wear a hydration pack.

Table 2
Stream Observations
Category
n
Bridge
Stream
Chi-square
p
f
%
f
%
Overall
539
90
16.7
449
83.3
239.111
..0001
Gender
&nbspMale
418
62
14.8
356
85.2
&nbspFemale
121
28
23.1
93
76.9
4.656
..031
Age Groups
&nbspAge 18-25
42
3
7.1
39
92.9
&nbspAge 26-35
220
40
18.2
180
81.8
&nbspAge 36-45
87
18
20.7
69
79.3
&nbspAge 46+
15
2
20.0
12
80.0
3.853
..278
Equipment Indicators
&nbspNo gloves
111
27
24.3
84
75.7
&nbspGloves
128
13
10.2
115
89.8
8.536
..003
&nbspNo helmet
58
8
13.8
50
86.2
&nbspHelmet
481
82
17.0
399
83.0
.394
..530
&nbspNo hydration pack
436
81
18.6
355
81.4
&nbspHydration pack
103
9
8.7
94
91.3
5.800
..016
&nbspNo jersey
394
62
15.7
332
84.3
&nbspJersey
145
28
19.3
117
80.7
.974
..324
&nbspNo sport glasses
230
38
16.5
192
83.5
&nbspSport glasses
9
2
22.2
7
77.8
.202
..635
&nbspNo clipless pedals
141
21
14.9
120
85.1
&nbspClipless pedals
98
19
19.4
79
80.6
.838
..360
&nbspNo riding shoes
189
36
19.0
153
81.0
&nbspRiding shoes
50
4
8.0
46
92.0
3.463
..063
&nbspNo riding shorts
214
29
13.6
185
86.4
&nbspRiding shorts
325
61
18.8
264
81.2
2.526
..112


Discussion and Conclusions

In these two resource conditions the majority of mountain bicyclists
are not following a regulation or standard
trail etiquette guidelines. Similar results have been found when
examining etiquette in social condition
settings on Mt. Tamalpais (Hendricks, et al., 2000). These results
imply that continued inappropriate
behavior could result in resource degradation at these sites.

The exploratory use of potential specialization equipment indicators
is not particularly useful in these
resource conditions although it was effective in understanding
behavior of bicyclists in the social conditions
study (Hendricks, et al., 2000). One explanation for the discrepancy
is simply the statistical methods
employed. Chi-square is sensitive to sample size and in addition to
observing statistical significance it is
important to observe practical differences (Norusis, 1991). For
example, in the current research, when
compared to two of the other groups, riders in the oldest age group
(46+) were nearly 20% more likely to
walk their bikes at the single-track trail. This difference was not
statistically significant, yet it does seem to
have practical significance. Also, from a practical significance
viewpoint, observations of potential
equipment indicators of specialization for this resource condition
indicate that for seven of the eight
indicators those cyclists with the equipment were more likely to walk
their bikes. Although only 19 individuals
were wearing sport glasses the percentage of these individuals to walk
across the trail is 16.2% greater
than the individuals not wearing sport glasses. In the stream setting
age again seems to have practical
relevance, this time with the youngest riding group (18-25) traveling
through the stream 92.9% of the time,
whereas the other three age groups range from 79.3% to 81.8% who go
through the stream. Results are
somewhat mixed in the stream setting for the equipment indicators.
Statistically significant differences are
present for gloves and the hydration pack with the individuals without
this equipment more likely to walk
across the bridge. There is also an 11% difference between cyclists
wearing riding shoes and those without
shoes with the latter more likely to travel over the bridge. On the
other hand, cyclists with the other five
equipment indicators demonstrate slightly more likelihood of going
across the bridge than individuals
without this equipment.

These results do not clearly support the findings of the social
conditions study on Mt. Tamalpais. Hendricks
et al. (2000) found the potential specialized equipment indicators to
be a fairly useful means of segmenting
visitors in the social etiquette settings. In their study bicyclists
with equipment indicators were especially
inclined to travel a higher rate of speed. If equipment does play a
role in a recreational experience as
suggested by Warnick (1995), confirmatory research needs to be
conducted to further examine the potential
of this and other multi-dimensional aspects of recreational
specialization as originally proposed by Bryan
(1977). Research regarding mountain bicyclists and other trail users
commitment, involvement, and skill
development may ultimately lead to innovative management actions and
segmentation of users (Hendricks
et al., 2000).

Education and enforcement regarding these two particular resource
conditions has not been a priority of
land managers on Mt. Tamalpais. This may, in part, explain the lack of
compliance with the two resource trail
etiquette conditions examined. These two situations were chosen for a
subsequent quasi-experimental
study because of the control they provided in a field laboratory
setting.

With an observational study such as this one it is impossible to
speculate whether the cyclists were even
aware that the trail etiquette guidelines exist or whether the
bicyclists think that compliance with these
guidelines is expected. As is the case with the social etiquette
study, it is possible that the lack of
compliance is based on unintentional or uninformed violations (Gramann
& Vander Stoep, 1987) and that
education may be an effective means of gaining compliance (Hendricks
et al., 2000). Due to the potential
for additional resource degradation in these resource settings and the
lack of compliance in both the
resource and social conditions trail etiquette the Marin Municipal
Water District may want to consider
reemphasizing educational programs and focus some energies on these
potential impacts.

References

Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational
specialization: The case of trout fisherman.
Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 174-187.

Cerkel, M. (1993). The potential for conflict between mountain bikers
and hikers using the trail system of
Mount Tamalpais Watershed, California. Contribution No. 700. Moscow,
ID: Idaho Forest, Wildlife and
Range Experiment Station, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range
Sciences, University of Idaho. 21 p.

Chavez, D. J. (1996). Mountain biking: Direct, indirect, and bridge
building management styles. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 14(4), 21-35.

Chavez, D. J. (1997a). Mountain bike management: Resource protection
and social conflicts. Trends, 34(3),
36-40.

Chavez, D. J. (1997b). Bunny hops or vegetable tunnels? Perceptions
and preferences of mountain bike
riders on the San Jacinto Ranger District. Western Journal of Applied
Forestry, 12(2), 44-48.

Chavez, D. J., Winter, P. L., & Baas, J. M. (1993). Recreational
mountain biking: A management
perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(3),
29-36.

Edger, C. O. (1997). Mountain biking and the Marin Municipal Water
District Watershed. Trends, 34(3),
5-10.

Gramann, J. H., & Vander Stoep, G. A. (1987). Prosocial behavior
theory and natural resource protection: A
conceptual synthesis. Journal of Environmental Management, 24:
247-257.

Hendricks, B., & Ruddell, E. J. (1995). Mountain bike trail etiquette:
A comparison of guidelines and
behavior. Journal of Recreation and Leisure, 14(1), 105-118.

Hendricks, W. W. (1995). A resurgence in recreation conflict research:
Introduction to the special issue.
Leisure Sciences, 17, 157-158.

Hendricks, W. W. (1997). Mountain bike management and research: An
introduction. Trends, 34(3), 2-4.

Hendricks, W. W., Ramthun, R. H., & Chavez, D. J. (2000). Mountain
bicyclists' behavior in social trail
etiquette situations. Proceedings of the 1999 Northeastern Recreation
Research Symposium. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report.

Hoger, J. L., & Chavez, D. J. (1998). Conflict and management tactics
on the trail. Parks & Recreation,
33(9), 41-42, 44, 46-48, 50, 52, 54, 56.

Hollenhorst, S., Schuett, M., Olson, D., & Chavez, D. (1995). An
examination of the characteristics,
preferences, and attitudes of mountain bike users of the national
forests. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 13(3), 41-51.

Moore, R. L. (1994). Conflict on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the
literature and state of the practice.
Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.

Moore, R. L., & Barthlow, K. (1997). Principles for minimizing trail
conflicts: Applications to mountain biking.
Trends, 34(3), 11-14.

Norusis, M. J. (1991). The SPSS guide to data analysis. Chicago: SPSS.
Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in user group conflict between hikers and
mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences,
17, 159-169.

Ruddell, E. J., & Hendricks, W. W. (1997). Martial arts, Confucius,
and managing mountain bikes: The role
of etiquette in conflict management. Trends, 34(3), 41-44.

Schuett, M. A., Hollenhorst, S., & Chavez, D. J. (1997). Profiling
members of the International Mountain
Bicycling Association. Trends, 34(3), 48-51.

Tilmant, J. T. (1991). Mountain bike use within national parks: A
report on a 1990 survey. Unpublished
manuscript supplied by author.

Vilter, J. C., Blahna, D. J., Van Patten, S. (1995). Trends in
experience and management preferences of
mountain bikers. In J. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M.
Sames (Comp). Proceedings of the
Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium
and the 1995 National Recreation
Resource Planning Conference ( pp. 49-54). St. Paul, MN: University of
Minnesota, College of Natural
Resources and Minnesota Extension Service.

Warnick, R. (1995). Trends in recreation and leisure equipment. In J.
L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner,
& W. M. Sames (Comp). Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism Trends
Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning
Conference ( pp. 307-315). St. Paul, MN:
University of Minnesota, College of Natural Resources and Minnesota
Extension Service.

Watson, A. E. (1995). An analysis of recent progress in recreation
conflict research and perceptions of
future challenges and opportunities. Leisure Sciences, 17, 235-238.

Watson, A., Asp, C., Walsh, J., & Kulla, A. (1997). The contribution
of research to managing conflict among
national forest users. Trends, 34(3), 29-35.

Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R., & Daigle, J. J. (1991). Sources of
conflict between hikers and mountain bike
riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 9(3), 59-71.

Widmer, M. A. (1997). Management through education: A mountain biking
curriculum. Trends, 34(3), 22-25.

Williams, D. R. (1993). Conflict in the great outdoors. Parks &
Recreation, 28(9), 28-34.

--
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

Mike Vandeman wrote in
news
On 07 May 2007 19:03:15 GMT, Chris wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
m:

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:16:50 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that
more
than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law.

Up to 15% of mountain bikers are law-abiding citizens!

Then why is it so hard to find one of them?

Is the number you posted accurate? Perhaps the study is flawed.

"At the stream crossing 83.1% of the bicyclists traveled through the
stream [illegally] and 16.7% crossed the bridge."


Please state which "law" was broken. A quote would be nice

The law that required everyone to use the bridge, not ride through the
stream.

To Cross or Not to Cross: Mt. Bicyclists'
Resource Trail Etiquette Behavior




This is "Trail Etiquette" and I dont dispute that all should follow it
(Cyclists, Peds, and Equestians) but this is not the law.

California state statutes can be found here :

http://www.prairienet.org/~scruffy/f.htm
or here
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

Please show me which law is broken by crossing a stream versus using a
bridge.


Just 'teaching' you a few little tid-bits

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com