On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:56:31 -0500, Ken B <
[email protected]> wrote:
.On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 01:43:16 GMT, Mike Vandeman <
[email protected]> .wrote: . .>On Sun, 01 Dec
2002 22:37:42 -0500, Ken B <
[email protected]> .>wrote: .> .>.On 1 Dec 2002
12:31:00 -0800,
[email protected] (Muddy) .>.wrote: .>. .>.>> "penny s"
<
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>... .>.>> >
since you are new here. and you've already wasted tons of bandwidth .>.>> > replying to you know
who...here's a hint. Don't bother. You'd be much better .>.>> > off either killfiling or ignoring MV
threads. Read Jonathan Harris' AMB FAQ. .>.> .>.>Yes, MV does talk some bollock! But I only defend
him cause there .>.>really are some thick as sh*t people here that honestly think biking .>.>doesn't
cause destruction. .>. .>.It's not that people are thickheaded. It's called let's see some hard
.>.data. Let's see unbiased work done by qualified scientists that are .>.experts in the field. This
means research performed by scientists not .>.having some agenda or pet cause be it hugging trees or
riding trails. .>.This does NOT mean subjective pseudo-research performed by unqualified
.>.non-scientists (such as MV) that is made up of partially plagiarized .>.targeted (meaning agenda
driven) research. Nor does it mean someone's .>.opinion. .>. .>.So far, MV has NOT provided this to
the group and, therefore, has no .>.credibility. Why does he need to provide this? Because he is the
one .>.making the accusations that mountain biking is destructive. The burden .>.of proof lies with
him. .> .>BS. By law (NEPA), the burden of proof is on the developer: the person who wants .>to add
bikes to trails. Where is the scientific research proving that mountain .>bikiing is harmless? It
doesn't exist! .> .I never said it wasn't harmless. I said it wasn't destructive. There .IS a
difference. What the studies below will prove is that biking does .NOT cause any more damage to the
trail system than hiking and is, in .fact, less destructive than hiking on DOWNHILL grades and that
the .damage caused by biking is more sustainable and shorter lived than .that caused by hiking. .
.That alone, tells me and the Council on Environmental Quality (the .body formed by NEPA) that bikes
have just as much right to be on the .trails as hikers, if not more.
Bikes are inanimate objects, and have no rights, idiot.
.But hey, read on.... . .1)
http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politics/doc/conflict/
That study showed that bikers have greater impacts than hikers.
.2)
http://got.net/~landauer/mtb/Guelph_MTB_study.pdf .Particularly interesting about this study is
that it shows hiking .causing a significantly higher loss of vegitation and species .diversity over
time when compared to biking.
That study showed that bikers have greater impacts than hikers.
.3)
http://www.btceastbay.org/jmpreport.htm .This one was commissioned by hikers in an effort
to prove biking was .causing more damage than hiking. They even voted for the group that .did
the study.
BS. They have no responsibility for the results, which were written to make money, NOT to tell
the truth.
.4) Here's an excript from a newsgroup posting a few years back. Funny, .being almost a decade older
than link #2 (above) the science applied .in the Guelph study seems to bear out the poster's
statements below... . .<BEGIN QUOTE> . .Mountain bicycles have little, if any, more effect on the
environment .and trails than hikers, and much less effect than horses do. There is .little
scientific information available, but what does exist supports .this claim. .
. 1. The Kepner-Trego Analysis (U.S. Forest Service Santa Barbara, .1987, updated 1989): "During
the past 2-3 years of bicycle use, trails .have not shown an increase in the erosion rate."
Oh, yes, the Forest Service is really unbiased!
. 2. The Seney Study ( Joe Seney, Montana State University, Dept of .Earth Science, Bozeman)
(Presented at Assn. of American Geographers, .1990 Toronto, Canada): "Results did not show trail
damage by bikes to .be significant"
That study showed that bikers have greater impacts than hikers.
. This study used trails of different soil types and slopes, wet .and dry. Horses, bicyclists,
hikers, and motorcycles made passes over .the trails. Runoff, sedimentation, compaction, and
micro relief were .measured. Bicycles had no more effect than hikers. Horses, in many .cases,
were worse than motorcycles. (Rototiller like digging up of the .trail, and creating potholes
that fill with water, softening the .surrounding surface.)
That study showed that bikers have greater impacts than hikers.
. 3. A negative declaration of environmental impact done by the Santa .Clara (California) Dept. of
Parks and Recreation (1989) found the .environmental impacts of bicycling on trails to be
generally .insignificant, and easily mitigated.
That study showed that bikers have greater impacts than hikers.
. 4. The Use of Mountain Bikes in the Wilderness Areas of the Point .Reyes National Seashore
(National Park Service, Point Reyes, .California 1984): Flora and Fauna Disturbance: "A few
people assert .that bicyclists are very disturbing to the wildlife and will trample .endangered
plant species. EXISTING EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT BICYCLES .ARE FAR MORE TRAIL ORIENTED THAN THE
OTHER USER GROUPS AND LESS LIKELY .TO TAKE OFF CROSS COUNTRY." (Emphasis is mine)
That study showed that bikers have greater impacts than hikers.
. So, it appears from this study that the excuse of "protecting .the plants and animals" is not
viable. Cycists stay on trails. Hikers .wander around and stomp things.
Of course that is pure BS.
. 5. Finally, there's me. For many years I have built, maintained, .and repaired trails, both as a
volunteer and as a paid professional. I .have worked for State Parks, Open Space Districts,
Water Districts, .etc. I have run trail crews, and inspected the work of contract crews. .I have
hiked for over 30 years, was a ski mountaineering guide, and am .a long time cyclist. I have a
Forest Technology degree, and have .studied soils and geology.
But too bad you don't know how to tell the truth!
. It is my personal and professional opinion that bicycles do .little, if any, more damage to a
trail than hikers. They certainly do .much less damage than the horses we permit on most of
our trail .systems here in California. Any damage they might do is easily .mitigated by
simple, proper maintenance and construction techniques. .The same goes for the impact hikers
have. The main things that cause .trail damage are improper construction, location, and
maintenance.
Thay's pure BS.
===
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
