|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
USGS Study on trail impact
"Chris Foster" wrote in message
05.47... All, Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get near enough attention, so I am reposting it: Here's a recent study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey on trail use in a National River and Recreation Area for the National Park Service. Here's a synopsis and link from the IMBA page http://www.imba.com/news/news_releas...nps_study.html Here's a link to the report, again off the IMBA page http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...nps_report.pdf Obviously since IMBA is linking to it, the report shows mountain biking in a favorable light at least being no different than the impact of hiking. ATV and Horse trails were the worse degraded. Mountain Bikes had the smallest width and Cross Sectional Area than the other users (ATV, Horses) though there was no significant difference between bikes and hiking (essentially the same). Bike trails also had the lowest amount of soil loss. In short bike trails were in the best condition followed by hiking then horse then ATV trails. If nothing else, the report is invaluable just for the references. One thing I haven't seen on these discussion between hikers, horse riders, and mountain bikers is the spread of invasive weeds by horses into Natural and Wilderness Areas. Since horses are herbivores they have the potential to spread non-native plants (seeds) into new areas by defecation. This to me is far worse than any type of trail damage caused by hikers or bikers. Let the discussion and flaming begin! Pete Rissler Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat to flaming. -- Pete Rissler http://web1.greatbasin.net/~rissler/ http://www.tccycling.com |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
USGS Study on trail impact
On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:48:51 -0700, "Pete Rissler"
wrote: Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat to flaming. No, I think that the post was simply self-explanatory and comprehensive enough that those who understood it either had nothing to add or couldn't find anything to attack. You may infer from that fact that you're getting a response that your tactic of *not* being intentionally insulting and/or inflammatory is part of the reason that I don't have you plonked, unlike a certain other group of regular irritants. Keep it up. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
USGS Study on trail impact
Pete Rissler wrote:
"Chris Foster" wrote in message 05.47... All, Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get near enough attention, so I am reposting it: Here's a recent study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey on trail use in a National River and Recreation Area for the National Park Service. Here's a synopsis and link from the IMBA page http://www.imba.com/news/news_releas...nps_study.html Here's a link to the report, again off the IMBA page http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...nps_report.pdf Obviously since IMBA is linking to it, the report shows mountain biking in a favorable light at least being no different than the impact of hiking. ATV and Horse trails were the worse degraded. Mountain Bikes had the smallest width and Cross Sectional Area than the other users (ATV, Horses) though there was no significant difference between bikes and hiking (essentially the same). Bike trails also had the lowest amount of soil loss. In short bike trails were in the best condition followed by hiking then horse then ATV trails. If nothing else, the report is invaluable just for the references. One thing I haven't seen on these discussion between hikers, horse riders, and mountain bikers is the spread of invasive weeds by horses into Natural and Wilderness Areas. Since horses are herbivores they have the potential to spread non-native plants (seeds) into new areas by defecation. This to me is far worse than any type of trail damage caused by hikers or bikers. Let the discussion and flaming begin! Pete Rissler Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat to flaming. Nice work Pete. I think a reasonable approach to posting information can get drowned out by all the other crap. I didn't see this the first time around. I look forward to giving it a throrough read when I have a chance. Matt |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
USGS Study on trail impact
On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:48:51 -0700, Pete Rissler wrote:
Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat to flaming. Its just that we've heard so many of these things over the years that its old news. The few people who refuse to believe it will always find some way to rationalize that its wrong; everyone else already knows better. -- -BB- To e-mail me, unmunge my address |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USGS Study on trail impact | Chris Foster | Social Issues | 4 | May 27th 06 06:35 PM |
Dakota Ridge Trail [ratings are severe] - Denver, Colorado | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 24 | December 5th 05 06:24 PM |
RR: Slippin' Into Darkness | JD | Mountain Biking | 12 | November 28th 05 04:14 AM |
Lebanon bike trail to open in October | Garrison Hilliard | General | 0 | August 7th 05 03:36 PM |
Savage Man hits the trail.... | tomblackwood | Unicycling | 8 | April 26th 04 04:50 PM |