On 13/07/2011 3:46 AM, SMS wrote:
On 7/6/2011 2:45 PM, James wrote:

Marvelous how habitat grows back. I see it regularly in bush camping
areas. "This area is closed for revegetation."

It goes beyond that as well. Every single study on impact to trails has
shown that hikers and mountain bikers have similar levels of impact--the
impacts are slightly different, but similar level. Hikers have a much
greater impact on wildlife because they move through an area more slowly
and hence are there for a much longer time.

I have done both hiking and ridden the mountain bike on trails. I can
guarantee that I can walk passed an animal with less disturbance and I
would normally ride passed.

Often I walk so quietly the animals barely notice me, or just stand and
look. On a bike they hear more and see more rapid motion and take
flight in alarm far more frequently.

Realise that I am also a hunter, and as such am practised in the arts of
moving quietly and inconspicuously through the bush.

Both hikers and cyclists
cause trail erosion and damage in different ways. Horses of course have
been shown to do much greater damage to trails than any other user,
besides having the most impact on wildlife.

Horses also leave lots of manure that may contain foreign seeds, and it
is said heavy hooves damage delicate soil structures, in this country.

The reason why some hikers are opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
nothing to do with impact on trails or habitat, that's a smokescren. The
real reason is that they just prefer to hike without the additional
trail users in what they believe to be space that they are entitled to.
I don't blame them. I find it unpleasant to be hiking on a trail and
have bicycles zoom by too, but I don't go around making up stories to
try and justify why bicycles should be banned.

I think they might feel cheated that the bicyclist covered a distance in
2 hours what took them half a day.

--
JS.