E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"R. Lander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
Many thanks Lander for the extremely intelligent post. You have said it
better than Vandeman or I could have said it. You leave me with the hope
that there are some intelligent and sensitive souls left on this earth who
know how to prize that which is precious.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
news:[email protected]...
> 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
Many thanks Lander for the extremely intelligent post. You have said it
better than Vandeman or I could have said it. You leave me with the hope
that there are some intelligent and sensitive souls left on this earth who
know how to prize that which is precious.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
