Bikes should be restricted to paved roads!



Status
Not open for further replies.
"SRedford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I also do rock climbing, but everything we do in rock climbing is way safer than the bikers and
> runners. I hear of more mountain bikers dying every year than rock climbers and hikers combined
> (don't know about runners). Many bikers and arms-flailing-runners are honestly not

What a stupid statement, I climbed for many years in the Boulder area I can tell you for sure that
there are plenty of unsafe climbers out there, many of which end up getting hurt or killed. Learning
how to climb safely is much more difficult than learning how to ride safely, and it is significantly
easier to remain safe when you are over your head on a mountain bike then whey are you are on a rock
face. You must not be a very experienced climber and have no experience riding.

> very safety conscious for others and that upsets me more than anything. Any rock climber worth
> his/her salt is very safety conscious.

They just keep coming. Are you suggesting a biker "worth his/her salt" is not safety
conscious? Dumb!

>The erosion stuff is a problem too, trails are ruined so much faster because of bikers skidding
>their tires because their going too fast to start with.

A biker "worth his/her salt" does not skid, and can avoid it in nearly all situations. They don't
ride out of control or too fast for the situation. I would agree that there are bikers out there
who do not behave appropriately for the circumstances, but there are hikers and climbers in that
same boat.

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado (remove .nospam. if replying)
 
The moderator thoughtfully penned:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "SRedford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> The bike tires do cause a lot of erosion - not as much as a horse, but
> way
>> more than hikers.
>>
>> You just lost any and all credibility. Have you ever seen a slightly soft trail after even *one*
>> horse plows through it? When there are many equines, the trail's integrity can be destoyed in
>> five minutes (and that's being generous).
>>
>> Bill "as for bikers/hikers: tires roll; feet plant, twist, grind and push off" S.
>
> For anyone who has spent time on the trail it is obvious that bikes do more damage than hikers. It
> is not even a close call.

so much for my personal theory on who the moderator is.

In the meantime learn how to differentiate between skidiots and trail riders.

Penny S
 
On 6 Jun 2003 01:45:25 -0700, SRedford wrote:

> My pet peeves with bikers are similar to those of mountain joggers: My wife and I hike in Southern
> California and most the trails have a descent drop on one side. If a biker corners a blind turn
> too fast or a runner is going too fast down hill, then they could easily knock us off the trail.

Guess what - its even WORSE if you're riding a bike up a hill like that. Think about it - a hiker
can at least quickly hop to the side of the trail, a biker can't. I'm not saying hikers should HAVE
to do that, but for a rider slowly working his way up a hill, that option simply doesn't exist.
Believe me, mountain bikers hate those idiots every much as you.

> The moral of this story is SLOW DOWN when there are people present, slow down when you can't see
> around a turn, slow down on paths that can kill you if you fall, and slow down so you don't knock
> off other people and kill them too.

Truth!

> I also do rock climbing, but everything we do in rock climbing is way safer than the bikers and
> runners. I hear of more mountain bikers dying every year than rock climbers and hikers combined
> (don't know about runners).

Up here in the Pacific Northwest, its fairly common to hear of hikers wandering off-trail and
disappearing sometimes for days, sometimes forever. I've never heard of a mountain biker getting
killed around here. What are all these incidents - regular riders or downhill racers?

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
 
In news:[email protected], SRedford <[email protected]> typed:

> The bike tires do cause a lot of erosion - not as much as a horse, but way more than hikers.
> Bikers also cause fatigue damage to those rubber water run-offs that hikers just step over.
>

I suggest you read the research in this area. A good start might be to read
2.3 of http://www.mbosc.org/Impacts/. Since you are from an edu, I am sure you will rely more on
proper research than annecdotal observation.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
Even thought I didn't say it directly, I'm primarily referring to situations where there is a huge
momentum difference between one party and the other. This is most often the case when bikers are
going downhill and coming upon hikers (going either uphill or downhill). So, I'm not really
addressing BB's post about bikers going uphill - that usually isn't as big of a problem.

The trails RULES are that bikers yield to hikers and furthermore that those going uphill have
right-of-way over those going downhill. It occasionally happens, as I mentioned in my first post,
that a biker will stop, but it's very rare -- and by the way, when a biker stops, they almost always
choose the non-cliff side because it's safer and easy to stay upright. The trails I'm on are 2-3
feet wide. If a bikers stops or a runner walks, I'm more than happy to pass on the cliff-side or
whichever side they don't want, and my wife has no problem handling that either.

I don't know exactly how to define 'yielding' on a trail, but I (a hiker) am typically moving off
the path to get out of the way of bikers. The bikers typically slow down but they don't yield to
hikers. Some bikers even have bells to 'warn' me of their coming so I'll get out of their way. The
bikers typically stay in motion while the hikers move aside and stop. As I said, it's hard to define
'yielding' on a trail, but I'm pretty darn sure that the hikers are doing the yielding. SO, if biker
yields to me, I'll pass them on either side they like whether they follow trail 'etiquette' or not.

However, if a biker is going to pass me with enough momentum to knock me off a cliff (if they loose
it right then), then you can be sure that etiquette is my last concern, especially since they aren't
yielding to the hiker in the first place. Yesterday my wife and I were hiking on a pretty thin/rough
trail and a runner walked past us and then resumed running. It's not a requirement but it was pretty
cool in my opinion.

Your driving analogy works (sorta) if you consider cars (like bikers) and pedestrian (like hikers).
The main difference is who has greater momentum and bikers win based on their velocity (so bikers
are the cars). Just about everywhere, pedestrians are given right-of-way (like the trail RULES) and
pretty much everyone here follows the rules including the cross walk signs (like your trail
etiquette). Manhattan is nearly the opposite with pedestrians more like moving targets. Few in
Manhattan pays attention to the cross-walk signs, because the drivers don't seem to care in the
first place, so pedestrians just walk whenever and try to not get hit. That's not a good system but
that's how it is in Manhattan.

Most of the trails are more like Manhattan than Los Angeles. The biggest difference in this analogy
is that the RULES I have mentioned are posted on trailheads by the USFS so they are 'technically'
enforceable. Trail etiquette is not and I've never had a hiker tell me about this etiquette (maybe
the Sierra Club does this, but I've seen them in huge groups with people gabbing and trying to walk
two-abreast not even realizing they are about to knock me off the shoulder.) So in short, if the
bikers yield, I've got no problem with trail etiquette you suggest (though in most cases you just
pick the obvious side to pass on - however this makes more sense for bikers passing bikers).

Now let me ask those bikers reading this post (and upset about my comments, which I think are pretty
darn fair) - do you yield to uphill hikers or do you expect hikers to move when your coming by? (and
to be clear, I'm primarily talking about situations where the bikers are going downhill and passing
uphill hikers.)

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > My pet peeves with bikers are similar to those of mountain joggers: My wife and I hike in
> > Southern California and most the trails have a descent drop on one side. If a biker corners a
> > blind turn too fast or a runner is going too fast down hill, then they could easily knock us off
> > the trail. Since my wife is pregnant (and still doing 10 mile hikes at 6 months - brag brag :),
> > I always take the lead and force bikers and runners to take the cliff-edge side of the trail
> > when the pass. I haven't seen one loose control yet, but I really don't want to be there if/when
> > it does happen. To be clear, some of the young runners are more out of control than the bikers.
> >
>
> I agree with your sentiment, but trail ettiquette is to Keep Right.
>
> Your habit of forcing opposing traffic to take the cliff-side route is dangerous to you and your
> wife because this can cause them to Keep Left instead of Keep Right, and the unnatural change
> without notice will eventually lead to a problem for somebody. If you drove the same way, there
> would be anarchy on the highways.
 
Your right that I'm not a biker and probably won't do it, though occasionally I see the appeal. I've
been climbing for years, doing sport-lead, trad-lead (I haven't yet done Yosemite Big Wall which
includes aid-climbing, but I'm confident I know what I'm doing for my level). I'm not sure about the
climbers in your area (are they part suicidal?), but I just don't hear of climbing deaths from our
rangers. I'm sure it happens, but all I hear from rangers is about this or that mountain biker who
went over the edge and died. I was hiking one trail and a ranger told me about three bikers who died
because one followed right after the next.

The main difference between bikers and climbers (at least the climbers I meet) is that climbers see
the need specialized training and so the ones (with a will to live) learn how to setup things
correctly. Even the young guys I take out want to learn how to setup things because they realize the
inherent danger.

I would agree that bikers don't need the same level of training, but that's part of the problem.
When they get on a 2-foot trail heading for hairpin switchback they may not have the ability, and
if they miss the turn, they often die. Climbers who try too hard of a run may end up leaving a
cam or some rappelling gear, but money is most of what they loose. And that the other big
difference: climbers get second chances because they're ON A ROPE. If they fall, they live. They
have to pull out a lot of protection if they're going to die and that only happens if they are
untrained and way over their head (like you said). Bikers aren't on a rope so they're fortunate
if they only are injured.

I'm sure it's different in different areas, but that's what I hear from rangers here AND it matches
my experience in the cases that I see with climbers and bikers. I'm not saying both don't want to be
safe, but climbers are trained in safety. The way that SOME bikers pass me on a trail tells me they
have little regard for my safety or their own.

Of course if you compare the worst climbers with the best bikers (or vise versa) you can always make
your case. I'm just offering my experience of the average climber with what I see of the average
biker (not that it's not refutable and not that I may just by chance have heard more about biker
deaths). I'm also sure that if I were a biker my perspective would change some, but I'm pretty darn
sure that from a safety standpoint, I could make a stronger case for average climbers over average
bikers. I just think mountain biking is more dangerous. That doesn't make it wrong or bad. It just
means that discussions like this and other things should take place to help improve safety.

"Craig Brossman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "SRedford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I also do rock climbing, but everything we do in rock climbing is way safer than the bikers and
> > runners. I hear of more mountain bikers dying every year than rock climbers and hikers combined
> > (don't know about runners). Many bikers and arms-flailing-runners are honestly not
>
> What a stupid statement, I climbed for many years in the Boulder area I can tell you for sure that
> there are plenty of unsafe climbers out there, many of which end up getting hurt or killed.
> Learning how to climb safely is much more difficult than learning how to ride safely, and it is
> significantly easier to remain safe when you are over your head on a mountain bike then whey are
> you are on a rock face. You must not be a very experienced climber and have no experience riding.
>
> > very safety conscious for others and that upsets me more than anything. Any rock climber worth
> > his/her salt is very safety conscious.
>
> They just keep coming. Are you suggesting a biker "worth his/her salt" is not safety
> conscious? Dumb!
>
> >The erosion stuff is a problem too, trails are ruined so much faster because of bikers skidding
> >their tires because their going too fast to start with.
>
> A biker "worth his/her salt" does not skid, and can avoid it in nearly all situations. They don't
> ride out of control or too fast for the situation. I would agree that there are bikers out there
> who do not behave appropriately for the circumstances, but there are hikers and climbers in that
> same boat.
 
On 7 Jun 2003 15:40:40 -0700, SRedford wrote:

> I'm not really addressing BB's post about bikers going uphill - that usually isn't as big of a
> problem.

You must have missed my point. Bikers coming downhill too fast is a HUGE problem for bikers coming
uphill. We can't exactly step sideways, obviously. You seem to feel that riders coming down too fast
is a problem only for hikers; it definitely is not! They are a threat to all of us.

> I don't know exactly how to define 'yielding' on a trail, but I (a hiker) am typically moving off
> the path to get out of the way of bikers.

We do appreciate it when you do that - particularly when we're on uphill sections where its
really hard to re-start - though we know its not an obligation. I always make it a point to thank
them for this.

Usually when we "yield", we move to the side so the wheel's on the trail and lean the handlebars out
of the way. Obviously that means stopping. If it looks like the hiker's not going to make the first
move, that's what we should do. That's what I do.

I think you'll find the MTB newsgroup (to which this is cross-posted) has a lot of older riders, and
many are more likely to yield rather than go careening past (so you may be preaching to the crowd).
I've ridden with a few people on this group and know they yield to hikers.

PS: Since this isn't about restricting bikes to roads, I suggest you change the subject (as I did).

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
 
Thanks for the clarification on your message BB. This is a reply to the e-mail below, but I think
it's worth public discussion.

I would agree that there are cases where you can yield and neither party has to stop, but I want to
address yields that require stopping. I never said the bikers needs to dismount – that's
unreasonable. However, I see no reason why hikers should CONSISTENTLY be the ones stopping and
moving aside. In my experience the hikers are almost always stopping and moving aside. To those
bikers who do stop for hikers, I applaud you (I have no interest in preaching to the choir that BB
is talking about).

There has been a long-standing practice of those heading uphill having right-of-way over the
downhill. IMHO the downhill bikers, hikers, runners should stop and let the uphill bound keep
moving/going. That at least allows for a sharing in the responsibility of who stops - not just
always hikers. For cases where the runners, hikers and bikers are traveling the same direction, it
is reasonable for the slower party to stop because the faster party has to pass, but the faster
party has to be responsible (which is where I agree with the e-mail below).

Both parties need to be 'cooperative' and 'nice to each other.' I think anyone would resent it if
they were constantly expected to stop, and the vast majority of bikers (IMHO) seem to expect me to
move when we meet (and are going opposite directions). I usually have to look for a place wider in
the path and then move off to that place (sometimes even reversing my direction) and stay there
until they arrive and pass. There's no reason why hikers should consistently take on the role of
stopping. If bikers want to share the path than they can share in the responsibility of stopping,
and the same goes for runners.

So, in short I think the following would be a good mutually responsible system to determine who
stops (when stopping is needed on narrow trails):
1. In encounters where the parties are traveling opposite directions, the downhill party stops and
the uphill party keeps moving. (In the unusual case where it's flat, the faster party stops).
2. In encounters where the parties are traveling the same direction, the slower party stops and the
faster party slows and passes.

Finally, the 'stopping party' may freely choose to stop on the right or left side of the trail as
suits them best.

Given how this works, the hikers (slower parties) are still going to have to stop more than anyone
else, but at least there will be situations where they do not have to stop. If you have a better
suggestion for yielding that requires STOPPING (that is cooperative, mutually responsible, and nice)
then I would like to hear it.

> -----Original Message----- From: IMBA Jim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003
> 11:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Bikes should be restricted to paved roads!
>
> FYI, the 1994 negotiations between IMBA and the Sierra Club agreed on a definition of yielding as:
>
> "Slow down, be prepared to stop, establish communication, pass safely."
>
> "Yield" does not mean "stop and dismount." It means taking the responsibilty for the safe pass.
> Often, once communication has been established, it is most comfortable and makes the most sense
> for the hiker, equestrian, slower bicyclist, whomever, to actually be the one who steps aside,
> maybe even stops. That doesn't mean there wasn't a yield.
>
> When I appraoch slower moving trail users from behind and I slow down, am prepared to stop and
> signal with my bell or a greeting, I'm 3/4s into yielding. When they step aside, make room or wave
> me by, I complete the pass, but also complete the "yield".
>
> Essentially, we're talking about cooperative behavior here. It actually takes two nice people to
> play. Jim Hasenauer
>
> Sredford wrote:
> >I don't know exactly how to define 'yielding' on a trail, but I (a hiker) am typically moving off
> >the path to get out of the way of bikers. The bikers typically slow down but they don't yield to
> >hikers.

BB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 7 Jun 2003 15:40:40 -0700, SRedford wrote:
>
> > I'm not really addressing BB's post about bikers going uphill - that usually isn't as big of a
> > problem.
>
> You must have missed my point. Bikers coming downhill too fast is a HUGE problem for bikers coming
> uphill. We can't exactly step sideways, obviously. You seem to feel that riders coming down too
> fast is a problem only for hikers; it definitely is not! They are a threat to all of us.
>
> > I don't know exactly how to define 'yielding' on a trail, but I (a hiker) am typically moving
> > off the path to get out of the way of bikers.
>
> We do appreciate it when you do that - particularly when we're on uphill sections where its really
> hard to re-start - though we know its not an obligation. I always make it a point to thank them
> for this.
>
> Usually when we "yield", we move to the side so the wheel's on the trail and lean the handlebars
> out of the way. Obviously that means stopping. If it looks like the hiker's not going to make the
> first move, that's what we should do. That's what I do.
>
> I think you'll find the MTB newsgroup (to which this is cross-posted) has a lot of older riders,
> and many are more likely to yield rather than go careening past (so you may be preaching to the
> crowd). I've ridden with a few people on this group and know they yield to hikers.
>
> PS: Since this isn't about restricting bikes to roads, I suggest you change the subject (as I
> did).
 
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Actually, followed through... he would even close the paved roads as
> well.
> > Then would come industry, utilities, etc.. et al... Eventually,
> everything
> > would get in his way..
> >
>
> Yes, followed through to the extreme limits, his agenda is to erase all evidence of human
> existance from the Earth
>
>
>
> > Maybe we will get lucky and the nurses will not allow him computer time
> this
> > Saturday.
> >
>
> We can only hope ...

Jeff, others,

Why do you, and other MTB proponents, persist in perpetuating these MV threads. Do you think the
overwhelming logic in your writngs will finally convince him. Do you argue with the street preacher
ranting on the corner. Does it matter. Do you think even 1% of the people reading this group care
about his, yours, my, or anyone's opinion?

He comes and he goes, and always there is someone new to argue with. Shun him like a quaker. Stop
arguing, as that is what he lives for. I doubt he really believes in any cause other than inane
arguements. Certainly, for many readers here, he is a good reason to *support* MTB. He is our
resident netkook, not even unique, many usenet groups have their own resident netkook(s). Of course,
surely you must know this.

Stop responding and he will wither away for a few months. But there are always new victims to be
reeled in I guess. See sentence 1 in the last paragraph.

Consider that you will *never* have the last post. The issue has been discussed ad naseum here for
years. You are wasting your time, and doing little more than adding to the newsgroup cruft. Your
time would be better spent talking to the rocks. Or riding whatever you'd care to.

Fester

PS I can hardly wait to be called an idiot liar or have this diverted to some other tangential
topic. It'll be special, as I've never had troll boy post in response to me.

PP It occurs to me the ill people are more fun to see than to read. It makes me wonder. Does MV
post from public libraries.....
 
> The trails RULES are that bikers yield to hikers and furthermore that those going uphill have
> right-of-way over those going downhill. It occasionally happens, as I mentioned in my first post,
> that a biker will stop, but it's very rare -- and by the way, when a biker stops, they almost
> always choose the non-cliff side because it's safer and easy to stay upright. The trails I'm on
> are 2-3 feet wide. If a bikers stops or a runner walks, I'm more than happy to pass on the
> cliff-side or whichever side they don't want, and my wife has no problem handling that either.
>

Be that as it may, it is proper to Keep Right. Any other self-described rules may/will eventually
lead to a serious injury. The likelihood od injury is directly proportional to the speed of the
parties involved, obviously a low speed encounter will never be as dramatic as a high speed one.

When a party is already stopped and in place, the party in motion can easily adjust to the
situation, but when two moving parties are suddenly forced into an unnatural passing situation, then
accidents are bound to happen.

I am not a bicycle operator, so I am not going to take sides in the debate on who the better
citizen(s) is(are). I do have an interest in seeing that no trails are lost to lunatics such as
Vandeman. This is not entirely true, there are certain, limited, instances where we need the types
of closures that Vandeman is calling for, but I see these instances as very rare where he sees them
as needed for every trail in the inventory.
 
> The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate
> erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be > on or under the trail.

That is such bullsh*t.

> The tires create V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on. The presence of
> bikes ruins the experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are seeking.

Move to Sibir. (Siberea, as it's known here). You can walk for 700 miles without meeting another
person. There's the "experience of real,un-artificial nature" for ya. Try not to get bitten by dogs
size mosquito or eaten by a bear.

> The bikes force everyone to watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature,
> peace, and quiet. And, more subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it
> much easier for more people to get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers
> advertize their rides as being from 15 to 60 miles long -- >FAR farther than a hiker normally
> travels. That represents a lot of disturbed wildlife habitat!
>

More bullsh*t.

> Bikes should be restricted to paved roads

You should be restricted to a treadmill.
 
"Igor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby
tires,
> > greatly accelerate erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen
to be > on or under the trail.
>
> That is such bullsh*t.
>

You are right, theis statement is ********. What amazes me is that the very definition of trail is a
narrow strip where plants do not grow, most frequently caused by animal paths that people also
travel. There are hundreds of animal species that use the same routes repeatedly day after day, and
this act creates a trail. People will follow this trail to make use of an existing resource instead
of create a new one. The fact that there is a trail tends to mean that there are no plants.

I use vehicle routes in our local National Forest that have been in the inventory for over 100
years, and erosion is the least of the problems they face. I, personally along with a group of
friends, have adopted a trail in the forest that we go out and perform volunteer maintenance upon so
that all forest visitors can then enjoy. All of the trails in the forest have been adopted by
various groups so that the rangers can spend precious dollars on areas where the general population
is likely to visit. Basically, 80% of visitors go to 20% of the forest while 20% of the visitors go
the remaining 80% of forest. Our volunteer work keeps the forest open to all that wish to visit, and
I encourage everybody that visits backcountry areas to do something on a volunteer basis to keep
these areas open. If you visit and do not volunteer, eventually you will not be able to visit.
 
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:

> I use vehicle routes in our local National Forest that have been in the inventory for over 100
> years, and erosion is the least of the problems they face. I, personally along with a group of
> friends, have adopted a trail in the forest that we go out and perform volunteer maintenance upon
> so that all forest visitors can then enjoy. All of the trails in the forest have been adopted by
> various groups so that the rangers can spend precious dollars on areas where the general
> population is likely to visit. Basically, 80% of visitors go to 20% of the forest while 20% of the
> visitors go the remaining 80% of forest. Our volunteer work keeps the forest open to all that wish
> to visit, and I encourage everybody that visits backcountry areas to do something on a volunteer
> basis to keep these areas open. If you visit and do not volunteer, eventually you will not be able
> to visit.

As a hiker I appreciate your volunteer effort, and I believe you about the importance of volunteer
trail maintenance.

I have a question about the 80%/20% - 20%/80% claim you made: How hard are these numbers? I know
they're 'guesstimates' but how much confidence would you put in them in general? I wonder what the
distribution of these breakdowns might be in various environmental places around the country.
 
"David Kritzberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I use vehicle routes in our local National Forest that have been in the inventory for over 100
> > years, and erosion is the least of the problems
they
> > face. I, personally along with a group of friends, have adopted a trail
in
> > the forest that we go out and perform volunteer maintenance upon so that
all
> > forest visitors can then enjoy. All of the trails in the forest have
been
> > adopted by various groups so that the rangers can spend precious dollars
on
> > areas where the general population is likely to visit. Basically, 80% of visitors go to 20% of
> > the forest while 20% of the visitors go the
remaining
> > 80% of forest. Our volunteer work keeps the forest open to all that wish
to
> > visit, and I encourage everybody that visits backcountry areas to do something on a volunteer
> > basis to keep these areas open. If you visit
and do
> > not volunteer, eventually you will not be able to visit.
>
> As a hiker I appreciate your volunteer effort, and I believe you about the importance of volunteer
> trail maintenance.
>
> I have a question about the 80%/20% - 20%/80% claim you made: How hard are these numbers? I know
> they're 'guesstimates' but how much confidence would you put in them in general? I wonder what the
> distribution of these breakdowns might be in various environmental places around the country.

I'll be the first to admit that they are guestimates at best. I didn't mean to state them as hard
facts, but rather to illustrate the point that the vast majority visitors go to the main areas, and
a minority of visitors to go what we term as backcountry areas. Park resources (dollars) being what
they are, it makes sense that the minority take an active role in helping to keep those areas open.
The question becomes, should the forest service expend resources (dollars) to keep areas open that
the vast majority of visitors never see? To put the same question another way, should the majority
of resourses be spent on the minority of the visitors?

I think that for the purposes of this conversation, the breakdown that I cite is very useful, but I
have heard the number reported as a 90/10 split, which even makes volunteerism all the more
important. I don't see much point in "alarmism", so I used the more moderate figures.

I fall into the enviro-rapist category because I drive my Jeep on the old mining roads that
criss-cross the mountains and deserts in my area. The trail that I have adopted with my friends was
an old mine road that has been on the map for over 120 years, and all of the roads in the area are
similarly aged, so citing a single road will generally reflect the roads in the entire forest. I can
confirm from first hand experience that erosion is not the main problem in my region, it could be
the problem in other areas, and it can be a very localized problem even in my area, but it is not a
serious or widespread problem.

The largest environmental issues in my area are caused bulldozers followed by minimalls, condos, and
asphalt (developement generally, not these specifically). It is my humble opinion that forest
visitors, hikers, bikers, drivers, do not pose the threat that the alarmists like to shout about.
Certainly there are instances where there are serious conflicts between these various user groups,
but the solution to these problems is more of a policing matter, not a matter to be resolved by a
network of gates and fences. Oddly enough, I support seasonal closures of some routes because I can
accept the problems that visitation might present for some species, but I categorically reject the
notion that we need total and permanant closers on any but a very small handful of routes. For
example, I found a closed route in the High Sierras that was identified as an area under
rehabilitation efforts. We got out of our Jeeps and walked in (hiking on the trail was allowed --
even encouraged) to see what the area looked like. It was wonderful and the rehabilitation was
coming along fine. It is good that we inform visitors of this special status, and the vast majority
of visitors respect the efforts and follow the rules. Where I live, there is a route through the
desert that was used by the settlers on their westward migration. The route passes through a habitat
for Big Horn Sheep, so the route was closed for summer for several years, but now the route is
closed year-around. I support the seasonal closure, but not the year-around closure. There is
historical significance to the and Federal rules for closures support the idea that this route
should remain open all the time. The enviro-alarmists have made enough noise that the State Park
Service went ahead and closed the route for no other reason than to get the enviros to

route that Federal rules say sshould remain accessable to the public. The general population will
never use this route (the 80/20 rule we are talking about), so the small number of visitors each
year (probably less than 1500, or 30 per weekend) are not a significant problem for the Big Horn
Sheep, meaning that the total closure has no real benefit, or to put it another way, keeping the
trail open presents no real harm. Remember, I have already agreed that a seasonal closure is a
reasonable idea; mostly because the route follows the only water source for miles around and the
lambs will be frightened by the vehicles. The irony of the situation is that the vehicle ban has
resulted in the trail becomong so overgrown that the lambs can't get to the water anyway. The very
protective measures brought on by the enviros has resulted in more harm to the animals than the
passing of the vehicles.
 
Thanks Jeff for giving your perspective. I don't have any strong views about these issues right now
but what you wrote sounded pretty reasonable.

My understanding is that park management lack good tools to measure, the benefits and costs of
keeping trails open. Like you suggested there are questions about who deserves the funds -- the
casual visitors v. the more intrepid users, and then also a tension between the ecosystem and human
use, played out as a battle between activists and some of the visitors. I don't have any strong
feelings about this other than to say it should be possible to build better tools to gauge how
scarce budget resources should be spent, and which trails should be open and when.

The way I see it, a forest has a constrained ability to provide an array of services to humans and
other inhabitants of the ecosystem. Constrained by a monetary budget, and constrained by nature, and
by our technology or knowledge of what plants and animals need and so on.

I would expect that over time, environmental economists and various scientists will develop better
advice for the management of places like your forest, and some of your concerns will be given more
attention.
 
"David Kritzberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks Jeff for giving your perspective. I don't have any strong views about these issues right
> now but what you wrote sounded pretty reasonable.
>
> My understanding is that park management lack good tools to measure, the benefits and costs of
> keeping trails open. Like you suggested there are questions about who deserves the funds -- the
> casual visitors v. the more intrepid users, and then also a tension between the ecosystem and
> human use, played out as a battle between activists and some of the visitors. I don't have any
> strong feelings about this other than to say it should be possible to build better tools to gauge
> how scarce budget resources should be spent, and which trails should be open and when.
>
> The way I see it, a forest has a constrained ability to provide an array of services to humans and
> other inhabitants of the ecosystem. Constrained by a monetary budget, and constrained by nature,
> and by our technology or knowledge of what plants and animals need and so on.
>
> I would expect that over time, environmental economists and various scientists will develop better
> advice for the management of places like your forest, and some of your concerns will be given more
> attention.

The idea behind Adopt-A-Trail is that the forests and parks suffer fromt he
80/20 Rule, 80% of visitors visit 20% of the space, and the remaining 20% of visitors go to the 80%
that is commonly called backcountry. The issue before the rangers is, how do we justify spending
budget dollars on areas where the vast majority of the public never goes? The Adopt-A-Trail
Program has the uses of these backcountry areas get together once a year to perform a day of
maintenance activity under the supervision of a single ranger. This approach leaves the other
rangers to patrol the areas where the most visitation takes place, instead of deploying those
rangers to the remote sections of the park or forest to do stuff that benefits a small number of
visitors. This is not really about knowledge of what the plants and animals like, in most cases
the rangers already know this. It is primarily about funding and puting public dollars to work in
the publis arean where the public is most likely to be. If the rangers spent the dollars and
manhours provided by the volunteers, the main visitation areas would suffer significantly.

The way I see it is that I am a backcountry visitor to nearly every park of forest that I enter, so
I am compelled by my ethics to perform volunteer services somewhere so that the areas I like to
visit can remain open, and not be closed due to budget contraints. It makes me happy to do work on a
trail that you might want to visit, my work keeps that trail open and without me you would be denied
entry to my part of the forest. I appreciate the volunteer work of the others like me because I can
then visit the trails they work to keep open.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Bikes Should be Restricted to Pavement!
Replies
51
Views
3K
Mountain Bikes
Bob
B
L
  • Locked
Should mountain bikes be allowed on hiking trails?
Replies
4
Views
701
Mountain Bikes
Ipaytaxesalso
I
BikesReviewed
Schwinn Mountain Bikes
Replies
1
Views
1K
Mountain Bikes
TourDeTony
T
zipp2001
Picked up some demo bikes
Replies
0
Views
771
Mountain Bikes
zipp2001
zipp2001
H
Why do mountain bikes all have thin tires?
Replies
16
Views
3K
Mountain Bikes
Ceci
C
Top Bottom Back