Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise, Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers

\On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:53:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Ed Pirrero wrote:
On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
truth, as I did.

And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.

Again, thank you for supporting my argument.

The bottom line is that there's a big incentive for the trail users
opposed to mountain bikes on the trail to come up with a study that
proves that mountain bikes cause more trail damage than other users.

Nonsense. What's the point in proving the OBVIOUS?

Yet
all the studies, both by the various park entities (national, state, and
local) and private studies (both by anti and pro mountain biking groups)
prove that mountain bikes are no more destructive than hikers (in some
cases less destructive) and that both hikers and bicycles are less
destructive than horses.

You are LYING.

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, pp.531-550.

After all this time, if anyone could show that mountain bikes were
having a greater impact than other users they'd have stepped forward,
yet no one has ever presented any evidence that shows that mountain
bikes are causing more damage than other users.

BS. See above.

Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument.

We're talking about BIKES, idiot. BIKES have no rights.

In
reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users. Equestrians
are invariably polite as their horses destroy the trail and leave their
droppings for everyone else to deal with.

Of course if anyone ever does a scientific study that contradicts all
the previous studies it'd be worth looking at, or if it becomes
necessary to limit trail use of _all users_ to reduce impact then that
would also be worth looking at. Unfortunately, trail and park use is way
down, so that's not a problem at this time. In fact, what's needed is to
open a lot more trails to mountain bikers to get park visitation back
up, to stop giving politicians excuses to close parks to save money.

BIKES aren't users. If we get rid of the BIKES, there would be no
mountain biking problems.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On May 20, 5:38*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
\On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:53:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

The bottom line is that there's a big incentive for the trail users
opposed to mountain bikes on the trail to come up with a study that
proves that mountain bikes cause more trail damage than other users.

Nonsense. What's the point in proving the OBVIOUS?

Circular reasoning is not logic. Try again.

E.P.