Mountain Biking FAQ

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 23:27:01 -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise
wrote:

Dr. Vandeman,

I read your FAQ with some interest. My recent activities have clued
me in to the controversy over bicycles on trails--an issue that, until
recently, I confess I was completely oblivious to. I am also
interested in environmental concerns in general, which are why I am
asking for additional clarification and answers to a few questions I
have had.

About me: Briefly, I am a computer scientist who has recently returned
cycling, primarily recreationally, and as a commuter. Like you, I am
from California, although not living there presently. As I mentioned,
I have significant sympathy for environmental issues, in large part
due to having witnessed some of its destruction in my formative years.
My role models were very influential, as well. This is my second post
to the mountain biking newsgroup, and my first to those cross posted.

So, I'm trying to form an opinion on this issue in particular, and so
I'm hoping that your comments may aid me in coming to a better
conclusion.


1. What specific recommendation do you have regarding the issue of
mountain bikes on trails?

I couldn't figure out exactly what you are proposing. Are you
advocating wholesale ban of bicycles from unpaved surfaces?

Yes. The laws of physics and biology are the same everywhere. There's
no reason to allow bikes in natural areas, since all mountain bikers
can walk.

If not,
what cases is it acceptable for mountain bikes to use unpaved roads
and trails?

Transportation (not recreation) where there are no paved roads.

Also, are you primarily seeking to influence individual mountain
bikers, or policy makers (legislators, park officials)?

Both. But mountain bikers as a rule don't listen to anything negative
about their sport.

2. Can you be more specific about the harm mountain biking causes?

You discuss this in detail in FAQ section 3, but I'm still not quite
sure I understand. Generalizing, the harm seems to fall into two
categories: environmental damage and annoyance to other users.

And harm to wildlife (plants and animals).

In the environmental case, I understand that erosion and killing of
miscellaneous living things (hopefully not other human trail users!)
is the primary concern. Can you give more qualitative and
quantitative information about these? Also, can you justify, in
general, why these things (erosion, killing) are bad to the extent
they happen as a result of bicycles?

Natural areas are wildlife habitat. Therefore erosion & killing
wildlife are harmful.

In the annoyance case, do you feel that the level of annoyance other
trail users feel in response to encountering mountain bikes is
unacceptable? Do you feel other users, such as hikers, have any moral
imperative to tolerate bicycles, and if so, to what extent?

None, since there is a workable alternative: everyone can WALK on the
trails.

3. How much harm to trails and trail environment is OK?

None. It is wildlife habitat. At the very least, it should be
minimized, by banning bikes.

I think your arguments regarding mountain bikes being more damaging to
trails than hikers are reasonable. However, from a critical
standpoint, I do not understand why this is a problem. Why is hiking
in general acceptable, but mountain biking not?

Hiking is NOT acceptable. But we have to do what we can, and therefore
try to MINIMIZE impacts, by banning bikes off-road. I have never heard
even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off-road for recreation.

Is there some upper limit on the maximum amount of damage a trail user
may cause that the mountain bike crosses? Are you simply saying that
any practice that causes more damage than hiking is unacceptable?

Of course. Hiking causes the least amount of damage.

4. Is it possible--though changes--to accommodate mountain bikes on
trails?

No. Yosemite National Park doesn't allow bikes on trails. Why should
any other jurisdiction do anything different?

Regarding the environmental concerns, is there some new rule, policy,
or technical innovation that would enable bikes to be acceptable on
trails? (I'm thinking of things like speed limits, traffic rules, and
special low-impact tires.)

Speed limits are unenforcable. And besides, animals don't care if they
are killed at 5 MPH or 15 MPH. They are just as dead.

Regarding annoyance, is there some way that mountain bikes could be
made less bothersome to other trail users?

Of course not. They belong in the city. They allow bikers to go too
fast for safety, and to force hikers off the trail.

5. What is your underlying philosophy regarding this issue?

Specifically, why do you feel that this is an important issue? Are
you opposing bicycles on trails based on some simple philosophical
test that could be applied more generally?

Of course. Wildlife have already lost 95% (?) of their habitat, and
can't afford to lose any more. Banning bikes is the only way that
everyone can have equal access to natural areas, since the presence of
bikes on trails drives hikers off the trails and out of the parks.

That is, do you genuinely feel strongly about erosion itself, or do
you have deeper reasons for spending your time on this?

I can't see any reason to allow the destruction of our natural areas.
Mountain bikers CLAIM to love nature, but actively DESTROY it by
mountain biking. That makes no sense. If you don't care about nature,
be a man, and admit it. Don't PRETEND to care.

Thank you in advance for your time in responding to these questions. I
would also invite anyone else to respond in any way that seems
appropriate. More discussion can only bring more light and
understanding to this issue.

I hope you are right, but I haven't seen any rational response from
mountain bikers yet!
===
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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:24:55 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

Of course. Wildlife have already lost 95% (?) of their habitat, and
can't afford to lose any more. Banning bikes is the only way that
everyone can have equal access to natural areas, since the presence of
bikes on trails drives hikers off the trails and out of the parks.

This does seem to be a sorry state of affairs. According to the FAO,
about 40% of Earth's availible land area is used for farming and
pastures. I suppose these are the areas that were formerly home to
the most important ecologies.

I am curious though. What are you really asking for in the long run?
Hypothetically, once mountain bikers are off the trails, will you seek
general trail closure (including hikers) as well?

I can't see any reason to allow the destruction of our natural areas.
Mountain bikers CLAIM to love nature, but actively DESTROY it by
mountain biking. That makes no sense. If you don't care about nature,
be a man, and admit it. Don't PRETEND to care.

It's my perception, based on my reading so far, that some mountain
bikers do appreciate nature, and some don't particularly. Although
you may not agree, many mountain bikers seem to be very similar to
hikers in mindset; the bicycle is only a tool to go faster. (What is
the proper and moral speed at which nature should be enjoyed? I
cannot say.)

Also, many mountain bikers do not seem to appreciate living things
specifically, but rather the outdoor environmental in general: the
mountains, the rocks, the streams, the clean air. Maybe this is
another moral failing, but I am not really sure.

Have you read Gordon R. Cessford's paper
http://www.mbosc.org/Impacts? It is very similar in topic to your
"Review of Literature" presentation, but he draws a distinctly
different conclusion. Of primary interest (to me) is his discussion
of the socialogical aspect of trail use conflicts.

Mike Vandeman wrote:


Yes. The laws of physics and biology are the same everywhere. There's
no reason to allow bikes in natural areas, since all mountain bikers
can walk.

Actually, I can't. I can walk only short distances, but can bicycle for
hours at a time. However, I'm sure I'm in such a tiny minority that I'm
statistically meaningless.

What isn't meaningless is that here I'm also a volunteer to maintain /
patrol the multi-use areas. These are open to hikers, runners, horses
and bicycles. The head of the division said that over 90% of the
volunteers are bicyclists. If it weren't for these bicyclists, there
wouldn't BE ANY trails for hikers. They'd instead just tramp around
randomly doing enormous damage.

Now if you don't want any damage, you need to close the area to all
humans of any sort including hikers. Just a further note, hikers are the
most destructive of wildlife here because they short cut across fragile
areas instead of remaining on the trails as bicyclists do.

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:28:17 -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:24:55 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

Of course. Wildlife have already lost 95% (?) of their habitat, and
can't afford to lose any more. Banning bikes is the only way that
everyone can have equal access to natural areas, since the presence of
bikes on trails drives hikers off the trails and out of the parks.

This does seem to be a sorry state of affairs. According to the FAO,
about 40% of Earth's availible land area is used for farming and
pastures. I suppose these are the areas that were formerly home to
the most important ecologies.

I am curious though. What are you really asking for in the long run?
Hypothetically, once mountain bikers are off the trails, will you seek
general trail closure (including hikers) as well?

Not mountain BIKERS, BICYCLES! No one has ever advocated banning
mountain BIKERS from trails. As you can easily see from my signature
and web site, I am also advocating designating some areas off-limits
to ALL humans, which obviously includes hikers.

I can't see any reason to allow the destruction of our natural areas.
Mountain bikers CLAIM to love nature, but actively DESTROY it by
mountain biking. That makes no sense. If you don't care about nature,
be a man, and admit it. Don't PRETEND to care.

It's my perception, based on my reading so far, that some mountain
bikers do appreciate nature, and some don't particularly.

I'm not talking about SENTIMENT. People who REALLY care about wildlife
ACT like it, and don't, for example, mountain bike.

Although
you may not agree, many mountain bikers seem to be very similar to
hikers in mindset; the bicycle is only a tool to go faster.

That may seem to you like a small difference, but it is actually a
MAJOR difference. People who want to see wildlife WALK. There's no way
you can look at wildlife, while on top of a bike. Bikers miss most of
the willdife, which is not something you can watch while biking "fast"
or even "slow": you will CRASH if you pay attention to anything but
the trail & the bike. Why do you think people hike? It is to get close
to nature. On top of a bike, you can't even feel the ground.

(What is
the proper and moral speed at which nature should be enjoyed? I
cannot say.)

There is a practical limit. You can go fast, as in a car or on a bike,
but then you miss almost everything. "Scenic drives" are BS. People
who want to see nature get out of their car or off their bike and
WALK. About 7 million years of human evolution led to that tradition.

Also, many mountain bikers do not seem to appreciate living things
specifically, but rather the outdoor environmental in general: the
mountains, the rocks, the streams, the clean air. Maybe this is
another moral failing, but I am not really sure.

I'm sure ATV users also say they like being in nature. But what they
don't say is how their presence DESTROYS that very nature. An ATV
rider is kidding himself if he thinks he is exepriencing nature. Most
wildlife will have long since run away. The same goes for mountain
bikers. Even hikers scare wildlife away, but they do it a lot less,
because they can't travel as far as a biker or ATV rider.

Have you read Gordon R. Cessford's paper
http://www.mbosc.org/Impacts? It is very similar in topic to your
"Review of Literature" presentation, but he draws a distinctly
different conclusion. Of primary interest (to me) is his discussion
of the socialogical aspect of trail use conflicts.

Gordon Cessford's objective is to excuse mountain biking. He doesn't
tell the truth about mountain biking impacts. Notice how he accepts
studies like Wilson & Seney at face value, when in fact, the study is
WORTHLESS. Anyone who read it would know that. They didn't measure
erosion properly. I discussed that in my paper.

The "sociological" material in his paper is irrelevant. I don't care
what mountain bikers claim to believe. Their ACTIONS are what count.
The wildlife don't care what they believe, either. "Sociological" and
"psychological" studies are notoriously unreliable. If people were
judged by their ACTIONS, the studies would be far more useful. The
mountain bikers KNOW that they are being interviewed in order to
improve the image of mountain biking, so that biases their responses.
Cessford is nothing but a dishonest apologist for mountain biking.
===
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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:39:41 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:


Yes. The laws of physics and biology are the same everywhere. There's
no reason to allow bikes in natural areas, since all mountain bikers
can walk.

Actually, I can't. I can walk only short distances,

You just contradicted yourself. EVERYONG can only walk for short
distances. That benefits the wildlife, who need to be left alone.

but can bicycle for
hours at a time. However, I'm sure I'm in such a tiny minority that I'm
statistically meaningless.

That's not a good reason to allow bikes on trails. If you can't walk,
you could use a wheelchair, which is legal. Mountain biking is also
physically harmful. It causes impotence, and many people get seriously
injured or die from it. So not being able to walk isn't a good reason
to allow mountain biking.

What isn't meaningless is that here I'm also a volunteer to maintain /
patrol the multi-use areas. These are open to hikers, runners, horses
and bicycles. The head of the division said that over 90% of the
volunteers are bicyclists. If it weren't for these bicyclists, there
wouldn't BE ANY trails for hikers. They'd instead just tramp around
randomly doing enormous damage.

You aren't being honest. Hikers are the people who got those lands
protected in the first place, so you can go there. Mountain bikers do
MUCH more damage than hikers do, on average.

Now if you don't want any damage, you need to close the area to all
humans of any sort including hikers. Just a further note, hikers are the
most destructive of wildlife here because they short cut across fragile
areas instead of remaining on the trails as bicyclists do.

BS. Hikers don't build illegal trails. Mountain bikers do that all the
time. They love riding off-trail and building their own trails
illegally. For example, 3 mountain bikers were caught red-handed
building a 4-mile-long trail accross 4 different jurisdictions in
Marin County, CA.
===
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

Paul Cassel wrote:

No offense intended, but it doesn't really matter what you wrote. You
are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

PH

Mike Vandeman wrote:


You aren't being honest. Hikers are the people who got those lands
protected in the first place, so you can go there. Mountain bikers do
MUCH more damage than hikers do, on average.


You're being ignorant. Here, the damage is by hikers and the repairs by
mtn biker volunteers. I'm not saying that the hikers do a lot of damage,
but they do some by crossing virgin territory which is very fragile due
to the nature of our high desert. Mtn bikers do not cross trails. I
think they don't because the desert flora would ruin their tires, but
the FACT is that they don't. Hikers do (some).

My information is not from me or from mtn bikers, but from the executive
director of the division who is in charge of maintaining these
recreational areas. I was surprised to hear these things too.


BS. Hikers don't build illegal trails. Mountain bikers do that all the
time. They love riding off-trail and building their own trails
illegally. For example, 3 mountain bikers were caught red-handed
building a 4-mile-long trail accross 4 different jurisdictions in
Marin County, CA.

Build? I didn't say hikers build anything which is much of the problem.
Mtn bikers build and maintain the trails which are multi use. Hikers use
them and cross from trail to trail despite pleas not to from the
conservation office of the State. In these crossings (not built trails)
they trample fragile flora and hurt the habitat of endangered
invertebrate species.

They also disrupt the fauna by taking their dogs along which add
pollution and also the dogs harass the local fauna by chasing or killing
what they can. Bikers take no dogs.

-paul

pmhilton wrote:
Paul Cassel wrote:

No offense intended, but it doesn't really matter what you wrote. You
are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

I'm only forwarding information I got from my State Officer in charge of
these areas. I was surprised at the information.

Let's see.

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:47:05 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:


You aren't being honest. Hikers are the people who got those lands
protected in the first place, so you can go there. Mountain bikers do
MUCH more damage than hikers do, on average.


You're being ignorant. Here, the damage is by hikers and the repairs by
mtn biker volunteers. I'm not saying that the hikers do a lot of damage,
but they do some by crossing virgin territory which is very fragile due
to the nature of our high desert. Mtn bikers do not cross trails.

I see FREQUENTLY photos of mountain bikers ridoing off-road in the
desert. And I am not even looking for that.

I
think they don't because the desert flora would ruin their tires, but
the FACT is that they don't. Hikers do (some).

My information is not from me or from mtn bikers, but from the executive
director of the division who is in charge of maintaining these
recreational areas. I was surprised to hear these things too.


BS. Hikers don't build illegal trails. Mountain bikers do that all the
time. They love riding off-trail and building their own trails
illegally. For example, 3 mountain bikers were caught red-handed
building a 4-mile-long trail accross 4 different jurisdictions in
Marin County, CA.

Build? I didn't say hikers build anything which is much of the problem.

Why? Trail construction destroys habitat.

Mtn bikers build and maintain the trails which are multi use. Hikers use
them and cross from trail to trail despite pleas not to from the
conservation office of the State. In these crossings (not built trails)
they trample fragile flora and hurt the habitat of endangered
invertebrate species.

They also disrupt the fauna by taking their dogs along which add
pollution and also the dogs harass the local fauna by chasing or killing
what they can. Bikers take no dogs.

Mountain bikers don't have dogs? That's the first I've heard of that.
Oh, yes, the dog might bark and give them away as they are riding
illegally, e.g. at night.

-paul
===
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

"Paul Cassel" wrote in message
. ..
[...]
They [hikers] also disrupt the fauna by taking their dogs along which add
pollution and also the dogs harass the local fauna by chasing or killing
what they can. Bikers take no dogs.

I have seen that too Paul and it just outrages me every time I encounter it.
The dog is running loose and chasing small animals and killing them. Not
only that, but a dog will constitute a nuisance to other hikers. It has got
to be illegal to do this sort of thing surely!

I have run into it on the trails around Aspen and it is always the locals
who are doing it. They seem to think the natural areas are their back yards
and they can do as they please. And where the hell are the rangers? They are
never around when needed. I think they are back at headquarters shuffling
papers like all good bureaucrats.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota