On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers,
BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
biking has much greater impacts than hiking.

As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.

Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
assumptions.

Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.

That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
hikers:

Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H.
K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and
B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.

One study does show
a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.

That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.

Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
primary.

You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.

This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande