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.
But hey, read on....
1)
http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politics/doc/conflict/
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.
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.
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.
5. 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."
6. 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"
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.)
7. 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.
8. 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)
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.
9. 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.
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.
<END QUOTE>
There's four varried sources. Can you provide THREE studies showing that biking is more damaging
than hiking?
Any one of the studies I listed would hold up to NEPA standards. (Number 4 not withstanding because
it's an opinion.) your opinion won't. Two and three are examples of good science because they don't
care about the outcome of the study -- only that the results are as accurate as possible. This is
most obvious in the third study I listed. Please provide the same quality support for your side of
the argument when you respond.
>.So far all I have seen here are OPINIONS. It is opinion that biking is .destructive to the
>environment until it is PROVEN otherwise. Hell, no .one here has even been able to tell me what
>'destruction' is.
>
>Is killing plants and animals good enough for you?
How was that salad you had for lunch? Do I really need to illustrate for all your hipocracy here? I
mean, really, that's just excessive abuse for yourself.
>
> My .definition would be something along the lines of '...completely unable .to support life...'
> That's my opinion, however. Like I said, there is .no hard data to go on.
>
>Because it is too obvious to be worth researching. Research is only needed when the facts
>aren't obvious.
>
When the Council on Environmental Quality asks you what support you have for your position, please
use THAT response. You'll save me from having to show up.
