#1
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] habitat
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. 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. 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. The reason you see these incredible stories being fabricated (and MV is by no means alone in doing this) is because the argument of "we were here before there were any mountain bikes so we should have exclusive use" is so weak. If MV was really concerned about habitat or trail damage he'd be spending his efforts toward banning equestrians on trails, not cyclists. But of course it's clear that he actually has no concern about either of those. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] habitat
"SMS" wrote in message ... 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. 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. 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. The reason you see these incredible stories being fabricated (and MV is by no means alone in doing this) is because the argument of "we were here before there were any mountain bikes so we should have exclusive use" is so weak. I have the good fortune to live in an area that sees off road cycling as a client base and contributor to the trail system, not a foe. We have our trails that we build and maintain that are open to hikers and that are closed when riding would be damaging, the hikers have foot traffic only trails and there are trails that are open to horses. We alter the trails when they start to become too permanent so that regrowth is a continual process. The trails that are open to cyclists are clearly marked as such and everybody mostly gets along very nicely. None of them have formed factions. Our enemies are common, wild pigs at the top with varying degrees of rudeness being anathema to all. Yep, there are jerk mountain bikers, they are rude to other riders as well. Nobody is rude to the horses, it doesn't pay. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] habitat
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] habitat
On 7/12/2011 12:46 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf 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. 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.[...] Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 12, 8:27*pm, Tºm Shermªn ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 7/12/2011 12:46 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf 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. 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.[...] Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct. No, he isn't. Not even close. He obviously hasn't actually READ the research. Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Tà¸*m Shermลn wrote Steven M. Scharf wrote: 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. 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.[...] Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct. No, he isn't. Not even close. He obviously hasn't actually READ the research. Mr Vandeman, 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] habitat
On 7/12/2011 11:27 PM, Tºm Shermªn wrote:
On 7/12/2011 12:46 PM, SMS aka Steven M. Scharf 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. 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.[...] Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct. As long as he limits his posts to two a day he's infallible. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 13, 12:50Â*am, Chalo wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: Tà¸*m Shermลn wrote Steven M. Scharf wrote: 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. 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.[...] Like a stopped analog clock, every once in a while, Scharf is correct.. No, he isn't. Not even close. He obviously hasn't actually READ the research. Mr Vandeman, You have demonstrated yourself to the point of absurdity to be an unreliable and uncorrectable "expert" on this topic. BS. I am the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does. Witness scientific papers presented at more than a dozen scientific conferences. I didn't see YOU on the agenda. ONE mountain biker tried to present a paper after me, but after I shot holes in his paper before he gave it, he was left with nothing to say! Mountain bikers are all FRAUDS. Â*I suggest you retire from the discussion both here and elsewhere, for your own benefit. Â*Cooler heads than yours will carry on from here. You have said exactly NOTHING on the topic. Mountain bikers can only BLUFF, as you did. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Chalo wrote: Mr Vandeman, You have demonstrated yourself to the point of absurdity to be an unreliable and uncorrectable "expert" on this topic. [cycling's effects on trails and wilderness] BS. I am the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does. Witness scientific papers presented at more than a dozen scientific conferences. I didn't see YOU on the agenda. ONE mountain biker tried to present a paper after me, but after I shot holes in his paper before he gave it, he was left with nothing to say! Mountain bikers are all FRAUDS. *I suggest you retire from the discussion both here and elsewhere, for your own benefit. *Cooler heads than yours will carry on from here. You have said exactly NOTHING on the topic. Mountain bikers can only BLUFF, as you did. I rest my case. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] habitat
On 7/12/2011 5:08 PM, James wrote:
Horses also leave lots of manure that may contain foreign seeds, and it is said heavy hooves damage delicate soil structures, in this country. MV is probably very opposed to horses as well but since one of his only supporters is a real estate agent that bills herself as a "Horse Property Specialist," he feels obligated to not publicly oppose them. This is a shame since if he could be educated to direct his efforts against the trail users that cause the most damage he would give up on mountain bikes and concentrate on equestrians. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BIKE HABITAT | kolldata | Techniques | 2 | March 6th 11 11:52 PM |
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 7 | August 31st 08 05:15 AM |
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 17 | July 31st 08 02:15 AM |
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 17 | July 31st 08 02:15 AM |