R
R. Lander
Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
> A Review of the Literature
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> July 3, 2004...
At first glance, based on reactions to Mr. Vandeman's posts and the
fact that mountain bikes do less damage than motorcycles, I was
inclined to think he was a zealot. But many of his arguments are
fundamentally sound when you look at the growing volume of riders, and
the growing number of people in the wild, period. Those who go outdoors
just to "tear it up" are becoming more of a nuisance as their total
numbers climb. More on that below.
The Sierra Club acknowledges that mountain biking isn't so
nature-friendly and gives tips to minimize impact. Observations show me
that these tips are ignored by extreme riders (they can't help but do
so).
http://www.rmc.sierraclub.org/pandp/1998-06/mi-bike.htm
Clearly this isn't just lone wolf Vandeman howling at the moon.
Bicycles in a straight line are fairly benign but braking/skidding
definitely carves up more soil than walking ever could, unless hikers
kept "sliding into base." And it IS annoying to share the trail with
people at radically different speeds. The faster ones disrupt the
slower ones by default. It's like meeting freeway traffic in a
residential neighborhood; also similar to cross country skiers vs.
snowmobilers. There needs to be humility on the part of "aggressors" in
all of those situations.
Having said that, I think the real problem with ALL wilderness
recreation is the never-ending growth of our population. How many of
you are aware that there are three million more Americans every year
via immigration and native births? Those people inevitably take up more
space and many travel to remote areas to escape crowds of their own
making! We live in a shallow NIMBY society. Everyone wants a piece of
the action but there's only a finite amount to go around. Some see
what's really happening but others remain defiant about their "rights."
The average working person seems unaware of physical limits. The more
motorized they are, the less they tend to care about nature, but
everyone plays a role because of the numbers glut. People make
arguments for the inclusion of their sport-of-the-month without
studying _cumulative_ pressure on land. Mountain biking is just one
symptom of too many people jockeying for finite space.
I personally prefer hiking to riding because it's harder to get
injured, and it IS more about enjoying nature. There's not enough real
wilderness left to keep sacrificing it for extreme sports (the need for
extreme-everything is also a symptom of overcrowding; people feel
trapped and bored in cities). I agree with the assessment that people
who thrive on speed and "challenge" often have a weaker land ethic.
Many mountain climbers fall into that category, too. They seem more
interested in "the rush" than their increasingly battered surroundings.
The only solution I can offer is something like this:
http://www.npg.org/pop_policy.html
R. Lander
> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
> A Review of the Literature
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> July 3, 2004...
At first glance, based on reactions to Mr. Vandeman's posts and the
fact that mountain bikes do less damage than motorcycles, I was
inclined to think he was a zealot. But many of his arguments are
fundamentally sound when you look at the growing volume of riders, and
the growing number of people in the wild, period. Those who go outdoors
just to "tear it up" are becoming more of a nuisance as their total
numbers climb. More on that below.
The Sierra Club acknowledges that mountain biking isn't so
nature-friendly and gives tips to minimize impact. Observations show me
that these tips are ignored by extreme riders (they can't help but do
so).
http://www.rmc.sierraclub.org/pandp/1998-06/mi-bike.htm
Clearly this isn't just lone wolf Vandeman howling at the moon.
Bicycles in a straight line are fairly benign but braking/skidding
definitely carves up more soil than walking ever could, unless hikers
kept "sliding into base." And it IS annoying to share the trail with
people at radically different speeds. The faster ones disrupt the
slower ones by default. It's like meeting freeway traffic in a
residential neighborhood; also similar to cross country skiers vs.
snowmobilers. There needs to be humility on the part of "aggressors" in
all of those situations.
Having said that, I think the real problem with ALL wilderness
recreation is the never-ending growth of our population. How many of
you are aware that there are three million more Americans every year
via immigration and native births? Those people inevitably take up more
space and many travel to remote areas to escape crowds of their own
making! We live in a shallow NIMBY society. Everyone wants a piece of
the action but there's only a finite amount to go around. Some see
what's really happening but others remain defiant about their "rights."
The average working person seems unaware of physical limits. The more
motorized they are, the less they tend to care about nature, but
everyone plays a role because of the numbers glut. People make
arguments for the inclusion of their sport-of-the-month without
studying _cumulative_ pressure on land. Mountain biking is just one
symptom of too many people jockeying for finite space.
I personally prefer hiking to riding because it's harder to get
injured, and it IS more about enjoying nature. There's not enough real
wilderness left to keep sacrificing it for extreme sports (the need for
extreme-everything is also a symptom of overcrowding; people feel
trapped and bored in cities). I agree with the assessment that people
who thrive on speed and "challenge" often have a weaker land ethic.
Many mountain climbers fall into that category, too. They seem more
interested in "the rush" than their increasingly battered surroundings.
The only solution I can offer is something like this:
http://www.npg.org/pop_policy.html
R. Lander