|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 20/07/2011 4:34 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:09 pm, wrote: What is your "PhD" all about? Psychology/Psychometrics, You forgot comedy? -- JS |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 18, 3:29*pm, James wrote:
I would like to see a lot of access restricted to "under your own power" types of recreation. No power boats. No snowmobiles. No horses. Interesting. *Bicycles are obviously accepted. A long time ago, AYH (American Youth Hostels) had something in their handbook that stated that priority would be given to travelers arriving 'under their own power.' The reality was that few hostels in the U.S. abided by that policy. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 20, 4:54*pm, RobertH wrote:
If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy unnatural gash through the wilderness. Wild animals make and use "game trails" all the time. Domestic animals do the same. Just look at sheep tracks around hillsides. -- JS. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/19/2011 11:09 PM, RobertH wrote:
It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also, some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of a slow human on foot. This is what all the scientists have found (and what docents and rangers have also observed). A human that moves quickly (and quietly) through an area is far less disruptive than a human that moves slowly. Of course this all changes when the human is on a motorized vehicle or riding an animal. Amusingly, if you wanted to minimize wildlife impact you would ban hikers and allow only mountain bikes, but I don't see any mountain bikers lobbying for this. The bottom line is that whether using boots made of rubber, leather, plastic, and metal, or a bicycle made of metal, rubber, and plastic, trail users have an impact both on the trail and on wildlife. The reason that a few hikers are so opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely nothing to do with the relative impact on trails and wildlife and everything to do with preferring to have the trails to themselves. I don't blame them for not wanting mountain bikes on the trail, it's annoying to have to move over to let them pass. At least most are honest about it and don't make up stories about trail damage or wildlife impact, which is wise considering all the scientific evidence. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 20, 7:13 am, James wrote:
On Jul 20, 4:54 pm, RobertH wrote: If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy unnatural gash through the wilderness. Wild animals make and use "game trails" all the time. Domestic animals do the same. Just look at sheep tracks around hillsides. Yes.. but a man-made trail or trail associated with humans will cause disruption even if nobody is on it. Certain species incl. birds will alter their natural migration patterns to avoid the trail entirely. In arid areas or high altitude the trail itself represents the biggest erosion-starter around, even if it is in perfect condition. This is true for trails that have never hosted a single mtb'er. It is environmentally bogus to 'protect' trails. There are a lot of fine reasons for keeping trails in good shape, ecology aint one of em. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 20, 10:27 am, SMS wrote:
On 7/19/2011 11:09 PM, RobertH wrote: It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also, some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of a slow human on foot. This is what all the scientists have found (and what docents and rangers have also observed). A human that moves quickly (and quietly) through an area is far less disruptive than a human that moves slowly. Of course this all changes when the human is on a motorized vehicle or riding an animal. Amusingly, if you wanted to minimize wildlife impact you would ban hikers and allow only mountain bikes, but I don't see any mountain bikers lobbying for this. The bottom line is that whether using boots made of rubber, leather, plastic, and metal, or a bicycle made of metal, rubber, and plastic, trail users have an impact both on the trail and on wildlife. The reason that a few hikers are so opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely nothing to do with the relative impact on trails and wildlife and everything to do with preferring to have the trails to themselves. I don't blame them for not wanting mountain bikes on the trail, it's annoying to have to move over to let them pass. At least most are honest about it and don't make up stories about trail damage or wildlife impact, which is wise considering all the scientific evidence. Yes.. Here are some more ref's if anyone is interested in this stuff: Bennett and Zuelke, 1999. Showed passing or stopping vehicles less disturbing than people on foot. Papouchis, Singer and Sloan, 2001. Desert bighorn sheep study showed hikers have more impact than vehicles or mountain bikes. Spahr, 1990 grad. thesis, on eagle flushing, walkers most disturbing. Knight and Cole, "Wildlife Responses to Recreationists," in Knight, ed., Wildlife and Rescreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research, 1995. Gutzwiller, et al, 1994. On the outsized impact from horses: Nagy and Scotter, 1974. in addition to the two already mentioned up-thread. Etc. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
RobertH wrote:
On Jul 14, 2:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Jul 14, 1:02 pm, Peter Cole wrote: On 7/14/2011 10:48 AM, SMS wrote: 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. India has sacred cows, we've got sacred horses. I've ridden horses, mountain biked and hiked on the same trails. No contest, horses trash the place, but they're grandfathered in. It's ironic that many of our local trails have seasonal closures during mud season, but the only users who are excluded are bikers. You obviously haven't studied the SCIENCE (REAL science, not the JUNK science created by mountain bikers). The SCIENCE shows that mountain bikers have greater impacts on erosion, plants, and animals, partly because they generally travel several times as FAR and as FAST as other trail users, multiplying their impacts. (Seehttp://mjvande/nfshost.com/scb7.htm.) Your link doesn't work. It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also, some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of a slow human on foot. Generally speaking, mtn bikers have some negative impact on wildlife. But hikers are in no position to get all self-righteous about the negative impact caused by mtn. bikers. That would be very hypocritical, based on all available evidence. Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have the right to go wherever they want to. Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s. What is your "PhD" all about? meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7468891.story -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
In article
, RobertH wrote: On Jul 14, 2:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: [...] Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have the right to go wherever they want to. Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s. Both are true statements. -- Michael Press |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/20/2011 9:47 AM, RobertH wrote:
snip Here are some more ref's if anyone is interested in this stuff: Bennett and Zuelke, 1999. Showed passing or stopping vehicles less disturbing than people on foot. Papouchis, Singer and Sloan, 2001. Desert bighorn sheep study showed hikers have more impact than vehicles or mountain bikes. Spahr, 1990 grad. thesis, on eagle flushing, walkers most disturbing. Knight and Cole, "Wildlife Responses to Recreationists," in Knight, ed., Wildlife and Rescreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research, 1995. Gutzwiller, et al, 1994. On the outsized impact from horses: Nagy and Scotter, 1974. in addition to the two already mentioned up-thread. Etc. Just confirms what everyone already knew. It's not surprising that facts, logic, and science are of no interest to criminals. Criminals don't read much and are not well-informed. Many cannot read at all. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist Bashed | Craig Strong | Australia | 21 | January 31st 07 03:58 AM |
Bush bashed by bike | Grazza | Australia | 0 | February 28th 06 01:43 AM |
McEwen bashed by thugs at Indy | Shabby | Australia | 14 | October 26th 05 12:23 AM |