|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Biking FAQ
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
mountain biking question | [email protected] | General | 9 | March 21st 06 03:02 PM |
Mountain Biking VS Tae Kwon Do | LIBERATOR | Mountain Biking | 51 | November 21st 05 08:44 PM |
Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet | SuperG | Social Issues | 0 | July 1st 05 04:16 AM |
IMBA Tries to Justify Mountain Biking with Junk Science | HCH | Mountain Biking | 4 | April 10th 04 11:38 PM |
More Hate Mail from a Typical Mountain Biker | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 11 | October 26th 03 05:14 AM |