On 7/21/2011 12:17 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:20 am, wrote:

meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:

Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.

In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
storm.

There are tragic accidents for both hikers and cyclists, as well as
non-accidents caused by doing something stupid. Look what happened at
Yosemite a couple of days ago to two hikers. Tragic, but it should not
reflect on all hikers.

If you're just looking at the impact of various activities upon habitat,
all the studies and evidence have proven that there is basically no
difference between cyclists and hikers, but that horses have a far
greater negative impact. For disturbing wildlife, cyclists have the
least impact of the three activities.

It's immaterial as to a) when horses came to North America, or b) when
mountain bikes were invented. This is not a debate on who was here
first, it's a debate on who is creating the most negative impact on
habitat and who is damaging trails the most. In that respect, our
favorite troll has absolutely no scientific evidence to back his position.