Equestrian paralyzed, horse spooked by mt. bike racer on WST

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:14 AM
Subject: [ACE] Rider paralized, horse spooked by mt. bike racer on WST

ACE members,

There was a serious Trail Alert up on Park Watch this past week to alert
other trail users that a one-time permit was given to allow a 100-mile
mt. bike race on the Western States (Tevis) Trail.

This trail is considered one of the most treacherous in the nation with
no access for safety personnel. Because of that reason, mt. bikes aren't
allowed on most of it, let alone those who are racing at high speeds.
Last year the permit was requested and ultimately wasn't given. But,
this year, despite the outcry from the trail-using community, a
different (larger) promoter was given a permit.

And, the very worst happened.

Crystal Costa didn't realize there were racing mt. bikes on the trail
and was riding her Tevis-trained horse with two others. She was close to
Francisco's when the mt. bike racers come by. One of the mt. bikers was
going too fast, crashed his bike and scared her horse. In his fright,
her horse stepped on one of his boots and it twisted, frightening him
further. Crystal was thrown into brush and rock and landed on her back.

She was helicoptered out. She had to wait three hours for a helicopter
because all of them were fighting the Robbers fire. The cyclist who
caused her accident stayed with her the whole time.

She has a badly broken back and is facing paralysis. She will be in the
hospital for a minimum of a month.

This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.

[Blackblade]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:06:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
> an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
> land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
> dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.

How on earth is that conclusion justified ? This is a tragedy and everyone, of course, hopes that the rider in question makes a full recovery.

However, how on earth is this the fault of either the land managers or the mountain bikers ? The trail was clearly marked out for the race and had also been used two weeks previously for an extreme run. There is also a similar endurance race on the same trail for horses.

There was no impact between the horse and the bike, according to the report, the horse merely got spooked, trod on its own boots and then threw its rider.

If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.

The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:53:40 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:06:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
> > an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
> > land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
> > dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.
>
> How on earth is that conclusion justified ? This is a tragedy and everyone, of course, hopes that the rider in question makes a full recovery.
>
> However, how on earth is this the fault of either the land managers or the mountain bikers ? The trail was clearly marked out for the race and had also been used two weeks previously for an extreme run. There is also a similar endurance race on the same trail for horses.
>
> There was no impact between the horse and the bike, according to the report, the horse merely got spooked, trod on its own boots and then threw its rider.
>
> If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.
>
> The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.

BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!

[Blackblade]

On Friday, July 20, 2012 12:54:47 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!

That's an assertion without facts. How do you know that the running race would not have caused the same, or a similar, incident. What about a wild animal spooking a horse ???

One could, although I personally wouldn't, make the case that horses are inherently too dangerous to permit on multi-use trails ... in the UK, horses are not permitted on footpaths, only bridleways.

[Trevor[_7_]]

On 7/19/2012 5:54 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:53:40 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:06:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>> > This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
>> > an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
>> > land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
>> > dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.
>>
>> How on earth is that conclusion justified ? This is a tragedy and everyone, of course, hopes that the rider in question makes a full recovery.
>>
>> However, how on earth is this the fault of either the land managers or the mountain bikers ? The trail was clearly marked out for the race and had also been used two weeks previously for an extreme run. There is also a similar endurance race on the same trail for horses.
>>
>> There was no impact between the horse and the bike, according to the report, the horse merely got spooked, trod on its own boots and then threw its rider.
>>
>> If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.
>>
>> The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.
>
> BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!
>

If horses were not allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault
of the land manager for permitting it, and of the equestrian for
endangering herself and other trail users.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Friday, July 20, 2012 10:46:06 AM UTC-7, Trevor wrote:
> On 7/19/2012 5:54 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:53:40 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:06:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >>
> >> > This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
> >> > an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
> >> > land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
> >> > dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.
> >>
> >> How on earth is that conclusion justified ? This is a tragedy and everyone, of course, hopes that the rider in question makes a full recovery.
> >>
> >> However, how on earth is this the fault of either the land managers or the mountain bikers ? The trail was clearly marked out for the race and had also been used two weeks previously for an extreme run. There is also a similar endurance race on the same trail for horses.
> >>
> >> There was no impact between the horse and the bike, according to the report, the horse merely got spooked, trod on its own boots and then threw its rider.
> >>
> >> If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.
> >>
> >> The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.
> >
> > BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!
> >
>
> If horses were not allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault
> of the land manager for permitting it, and of the equestrian for
> endangering herself and other trail users.

She was fine until the mountain biker came along. QED

[Trevor[_7_]]

On 7/20/2012 11:55 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

>> > BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!
>> >
>>
>> If horses were not allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault
>> of the land manager for permitting it, and of the equestrian for
>> endangering herself and other trail users.
>
> She was fine until the mountain biker came along. QED
>

The mountain biker was fine until the horse came along. And then the
mountain biker was still fine. The horse appears to have been the
problem, particularly since the trail had been marked for a mountain
bike race. The horse simply should not have been there.

Incidentally, at a mountain bike park I ride at that is owned by the
city in which it is located, there are certain trails that are marked
for mountain bikers only (and only downhill). I think there is great
wisdom in that. (Runners and horses can freely use the other trails in
the park.)

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Monday, July 23, 2012 1:36:36 PM UTC-7, Trevor wrote:
> On 7/20/2012 11:55 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >> > BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!
> >> >
> >>
> >> If horses were not allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault
> >> of the land manager for permitting it, and of the equestrian for
> >> endangering herself and other trail users.
> >
> > She was fine until the mountain biker came along. QED
> >
>
> The mountain biker was fine until the horse came along. And then the
> mountain biker was still fine. The horse appears to have been the
> problem, particularly since the trail had been marked for a mountain
> bike race. The horse simply should not have been there.
>
> Incidentally, at a mountain bike park I ride at that is owned by the
> city in which it is located, there are certain trails that are marked
> for mountain bikers only (and only downhill). I think there is great
> wisdom in that. (Runners and horses can freely use the other trails in
> the park.)

Horses have a right to go wherever they want to! BICYCLES are machines, and have no rights whatsoever. DUH!

[Trevor[_7_]]

On 7/23/2012 10:20 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

>
> Horses have a right to go wherever they want to! BICYCLES are machines, and have no rights whatsoever. DUH!
>

You're at least good for a laugh. :)

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:13:30 AM UTC-7, Trevor wrote:
> On 7/23/2012 10:20 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >
> > Horses have a right to go wherever they want to! BICYCLES are machines, and have no rights whatsoever. DUH!
> >
>
> You're at least good for a laugh. :)

What does that mean? Over your head?

[SMS]

On 7/19/2012 4:53 AM, Blackblade wrote:

> If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.
>
> The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.

A sad accident, but it was caused by a horse that should not have been
out on a trail where it was known there would be other trail users.

Equestrians need to buy land and create their own exclusive trail system
if their horses are going to be spooked by something like this. Public
trails should be for self-powered users only. No off-road vehicles, no
horses, no snowmobiles, no motorcycles. These non-human powered devices
and animals damage trails, make a huge mess, endanger other trail users,
and in some cases cause noise pollutions as well.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:20:48 PM UTC-7, SMS wrote:
> On 7/19/2012 4:53 AM, Blackblade wrote:
>
>
>
> > If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.
>
> >
>
> > The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.
>
>
>
> A sad accident, but it was caused by a horse that should not have been
>
> out on a trail where it was known there would be other trail users.
>
>
>
> Equestrians need to buy land and create their own exclusive trail system
>
> if their horses are going to be spooked by something like this. Public
>
> trails should be for self-powered users only. No off-road vehicles, no
>
> horses, no snowmobiles, no motorcycles. These non-human powered devices
>
> and animals damage trails, make a huge mess, endanger other trail users,
>
> and in some cases cause noise pollutions as well.

Total BS. Bikes and other machinery doesn't belong on trails. Horses belong here, and have a right to go wherever they want to!

[SMS]

On 7/23/2012 1:36 PM, Trevor wrote:

<snip>

> The mountain biker was fine until the horse came along. And then the
> mountain biker was still fine. The horse appears to have been the
> problem, particularly since the trail had been marked for a mountain
> bike race. The horse simply should not have been there.

Very true. But the root cause of the problem is the horses don't belong
on trails used by those traveling under their own power. Part of it is
that horses are easily spooked and dangerous. But the bigger problem, as
hikers and other trail users all agree, is that horses make a huge mess
of the trail. They cause far more erosion than boot prints or tire
tracks, and equestrians are not as considerate as most dog owners and
they don't clean up after their animals. Since equestrians don't clean
up after their animals, a very big problem is the effect of manure and
urine on the eco-system: "Two types of impacts that are likely to be
much greater from horse riding than the other activities are
nutrification of soils and waterways from horse manure and the spread of
weeds. In addition to the impacts due to human waste (Bridle and
Kirkpatrick, 2003, 2005; Bridle et al., 2006) that would be associated
with all three activities, horses themselves produce large amounts of
waste."

With all the damage caused by equestrians, they are very lucky that
mountain bikers are, by nature, non-confrontational. The same is true
for most hikers. Other than that case on the Strawberry Canyon Fire Road
near UC Berkeley, where a deranged individual was convicted of attacking
mountain bikers, hikers are usually mild-mannered.

There's a good compendium of studies on the subject of trail impact of
horses, hikers, and mountain bikes at
<http://www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/trails/ComparingHikingMtnBikingHorseRidingImpacts.pdf>.
In terms of trail damage, horses cause far more damage than hikers or
mountain bikers, and in terms of overall impact mountain bikers have the
least impact.