Thread: [OT] habitat
View Single Post
  #24  
Old July 15th 11, 03:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default habitat

On 7/14/2011 5:51 PM, SMS wrote:
On 7/13/2011 12:50 AM, Chalo wrote:

You have demonstrated yourself to the point of absurdity to be an
unreliable and uncorrectable "expert" on this topic. I suggest you
retire from the discussion both here and elsewhere, for your own
benefit. Cooler heads than yours will carry on from here.

Chalo


He's a big fan of junk science, and he obviously hasn't read the volumes
of material by impartial researchers.

The fact is that all the experts agree that horses create far more
damage than cyclists and that hikers and cyclists have similar impact
both to trails and wildlife. There are no reputable studies that show
otherwise, obviously.

It's not zero impact. Vibram soles have impact to trails just as
mountain bike tires do, though in slightly different ways. Similarly, as
far as wildlife impact, horses do far more damage than hikers or
cyclists, but hikers, since they stay in one area for a longer period of
time, are more disruptive of wildlife than a responsible mountain biker.

There's the extremely weak argument that horses are okay because they're
"grandfathered in" while off-road bicycling is only a few decades old,
but of course the "we were here first" argument has no real validity.

Again, one his only supporters in his jihad against bicyclists is an
equestrian who also specializes in selling properties suitable for horse
owners. Obviously she has a vested interest in keeping as many trails
open to horses as possible and as many trails closed to cyclists. You
think she might want to have enlisted someone more knowledgeable in her
efforts since clearly her convicted friend is not helping her cause!


Wow! Scharf is correct twice in one week.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home