On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:52:54 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]> wrote:
..Dear Mr Vandeman,
..It is not approipriate to write an atricle, then use that article as proof
..of your position. We all know where you stand, but your baseless assertions
..are not proof of anything, except that they may be further proof that you
..are a complete nut case.
..
..You cite, again, the bikes cause ruts on trails, I submit that ruts are
..caused by feet, any feet, as well as by tires. There are no bikes allowed on
..the main trails of the Grand Canyon, yet those trails are rutted as badly as
..any trails one might find. The Park Service is required to perform trail
..maintenance on the most used trails in order to keep them level, or at least
..rut-free. Rutted trails occur as a result of traffic, any traffic not just
..bike traffic.
..
..The fact is, bikes (most of them) will prefer to travel on surfaces that are
..not prone to rutting in the first place. Soft dirt is difficult to ride on,
..hard-pack is the preferred surface. Another fact is that most routes that
..bikes travel on are routes left over from other activities that have long
..sense gone away. For example, bikes travel on old logging roads and mining
..roads, sometimes they will travel on routes left over from the Pony Express
..days.
..
..As with any activity, there are those that participate in the activity that
..are an embarrassment to everybody else. I will not sit here and defend
..behavior that destroys things, but I will sit here and insist that all
..behavior is not harmful. For you to suggest that only bike riding is harmful
..is simply disenginuous, if not an outright lie.
..
..Now to bring some perspective to the issue. I will generously estimate that
..a bike route is 2 feet wide - at the lower points of a bike, the pedals, the
..width is considerably less than that. A trail of this width, 2 feet, that is
..a mile long takes up less than a quarter acre. If this trail is the only
..trail in a square mile, it takes than 0.04% of the habitat. This means that
..if the trail was an environmental wasteland across 100% of its length, the
..impact would be noticed on only 4 tenths of 1 percent of the habitat. The
..truth is that most miles of trail are not any sort of environmental
.."problem" for more than about 30 feet, that is for every 5,280 feet of
..trail, less than 100 feet has enough damage to warrant concern at all, and
..most of that concern can be remedied with normal trail maintenance.
..
..Surely there are more significant environmental concerns for a PhD to be
..looking into.
..
..Now, I will take this opportunity to disect your false assertions.
..
..
..
.."Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:
[email protected]...
..> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
..> A Review of the Literature
..> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
..> July 3, 2004
..>
..> "Every recreationist -- whether hiker, biker, horsepacker, or posey
..sniffer --
..> should not begin by asking, 'What's best for ME?' but rather 'What's best
..for
..> the bears?'" Tom Butler
..> "Will we keep some parts of the American landscape natural and wild and
..free --
..> or must every acre be easily accessible to people and their toys? .
..Mountain
..> bikes' impacts on the land are large and getting worse. . The aggressive
..push of
..> mountain bike organizations to build ever-growing webs of trails poses
..serious
..> problems of habitat fragmentation, increased erosion, and wildlife
..conflicts.
..> As interest in extreme riding continues to grow, as trail networks
..> burgeon, and as new technology makes it possible for ever-more mountain
..> bicyclists to participate, even the most remote wild landscapes may become
..> trammeled -- and trampled -- by knobby tires. . The destruction of
..wilderness
..> and the fragmentation of habitats and ecosystems is death by a thousand
..cuts.
..> Will introduction of mountain bikes -- and their penetration farther into
..> wilderness -- promote additional fragmentation and human conflicts with
..the
..> natural world? Yes." Brian O'Donnell and Michael Carroll
..> "Some things are obvious: mountain bikes do more damage to the land than
..hikers.
..> To think otherwise ignores the story told by the ground. Although I have
..never
..> ridden a mountain bike, I am very familiar with their impacts. For the
..last
..> seven years I have regularly run three to six miles several times a week
..on a
..> network of trails in the Sandia Mountain foothills two blocks from my
..home. .
..> These trails receive use from walkers, runners, and mountain bikers; they
..are
..> closed to motorized vehicles.
..> Because I'm clumsy, I keep my eyes on the trail in front of me. I run or
..> walk in all seasons, in all kinds of weather. I have watched the growing
..erosion
..> on these trails from mountain bike use. The basic difference between feet
..and
..> tires is that tire tracks are continuous and foot tracks are
..discontinuous.
..> Water finds that narrow, continuous tire tracks are a rill in which to
..flow.
..> Also, because many mountain bikers are after thrills and speed, their
..tires cut
..> into the ground. Slamming on the brakes after zooming downhill, sliding
..around
..> sharp corners, and digging in to go uphill: I see the results of this
..behavior
..> weekly. .
..> I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on steep
..> slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the damage
..they
..> cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause damage to
..wilderness
..> trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest that we add another source
..of
..> damage to those trails." Dave Foreman
..>
..> "Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other
..non-motorized
..> trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and member of the board
..of
..> directors of the International Mountain Bicyclists Association)
..>
..> Introduction:
..>
..> I first became interested in the problem of mountain biking in 1994. I
..> had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on wildlife, and
..had
..> come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is entirely
..> off-limits to humans, in order that wildlife that is sensitive to the
..presence
..> of humans can survive (see Vandeman, 2000). But what is the best way to
..minimize
..> the presence of people? Restricting human access is repugnant, and
..difficult and
..> expensive to accomplish. It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the
..> presence and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that they
..are
..> allowed to utilize in nature: e.g. prohibit bicycles and other vehicles
..(and
..> perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as vehicles).
..>
..
..Mike claims to have become interested in the impacts of bikes in 1994. His
..sigline says (today), "I spent the previous 8
.. years fighting auto dependence and road construction." Mike has not spent
..the "previous" 8 years doing anything. He has been using this sigline since
..1992 that I know of.
..
..Mike claims to be against all forms of transportation technologies, yet his
..attacks have consitistantly been directed solely towards bicycles.
..
..
..
..
..
..> Having been a transportation activist for eight years (working on
..> stopping highway construction), and having a favorable view of my fellow
..> bicyclists as environmentalists, I turned to them to help me campaign to
..keep
..> bicycles out of natural areas. Was I ever surprised! I discovered that
..many
..> bicyclists (e.g. many mountain bikers) aren't environmentalists at all,
..but are
..> simply people who like to bicycle -- in the case of mountain bikers, many
..of
..> them just use nature, as a kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium! (Of
..course,
..> there are also hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who fall into
..this
..> category.) To my suggestion to keep bikes off of trails in order to
..protect
..> wildlife, they reacted with hostility! (There is a degree of balkanization
..among
..> activists, where some transportation activists ignore the needs of
..wildlife, and
..> some wildlife activists eschew bikes and public transit.)
..>
..
..This part is apparently true. I can not dispute the claim he makes here, so
..I will accept it. It appears that he did work for 8 years fighting auto
..dependence, he has only not worked for the previous 8 years. His 8 years is
..at some nebulous period in the past. Since he claims to have become
..interested in bikes in 1994, I will assume he worked reduce auto dependence
..from 1982 to 1994.
..
..Of course they react with hostility! You are trying to take away an
..important recreational activity that has no benefit should it be taken away.
..All you will do is take away bikes, you will not protect or preserve
..anything. Of course they are hostile towards you.
..
..
..
..
..> In 1994 I attended a public hearing held by the East Bay Municipal
..> Utility (water) District to decide whether to allow bikes on their
..watershed
..> lands. Mountain bikers were there asking for bike access, and the Sierra
..Club
..> was there to retain the right to hike, while keeping out the bicycles. I
..said
..> that I had no interest in using the watershed, but that I wanted to ensure
..that
..> the wildlife are protected -- hence, I asked that bikes not be allowed.
..> Afterward, the EBMUD Board of Directors took a field trip to Marin County,
..the
..> birthplace of mountain biking, to see the effects of mountain biking
..there.
..> While they were hiking along a narrow trail, a mountain biker came racing
..by,
..> swearing at them for not getting out of his way fast enough. That helped
..them
..> decide to ban bikes. Today bikes are still restricted to paved roads, and
..EBMUD
..> is still one of the public agencies most protective of wildlife.
..>
..
..It is astounding to everybody that you use the experience of one instance to
..extrapolate that all experiences must be the same. I guess it isn't that
..astounding, you caught one bike rider in a lie once, and now all bike riders
..are liars. At least you are consistant. (That was not a compliment.)
..
..
..
..
..> It is obvious that mountain biking is harmful to some wildlife and
..> people. No one, even mountain bikers, tries to deny that. Bikes create
..V-shaped
..> ruts in trails, throw dirt to the outside on turns, crush small plants and
..> animals on and under the trail, facilitate increased levels of human
..access into
..> wildlife habitat, and drive other trail users (many of whom are seeking
..the
..> tranquility and primitiveness of natural surroundings) out of the parks.
..Because
..> land managers were starting to ban bikes from trails, the mountain bikers
..> decided to try to shift the battlefield to science, and try to convince
..people
..> that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. But there are two
..problems
..> with this approach: (1) it's not true, and (2) it's irrelevant.
..>
..
..Nobody disputes that visiting the back country is harmful on some level to
..habitat and species. What we dispute is the degree to which you claim the
..harm is done, and the solutions you propose to combat the harm. Of course,
..there is much disagreement with your tendency to blame all harm on a single
..activity.
..
..Have you ever stopped to consider that people clogging the trails drives out
..mountain bikers that are simply out to enjoy a peaceful afternoon? Of course
..you haven't! Why would you try and make us believe that just because one is
..on a bike that the government should look upon that person as somehow being
..a second class citizen that can be denied access to public lands? Your
..entire thesis is that we can limit access to public lands to one class of
..citizen based soely on that citizen's selection of technology. If that
..position is true, then we can also limit access to public highways to people
..that refuse to adopt your version of correct technology. Of course, we have
..limitations to the highways, but those limitations are based on being able
..to keep up or not, that is we do not want bikes on the freeway because they
..go too slow. Maybe we don't want hikers on the trail because they go too
..slow.
..
..
..
..
..> I will examine (1) in a moment. But first, let's look at relevance:
..> whether or not hiking (or All Terrain Vehicles or urban sprawl or anything
..else)
..> is harmful really has no bearing on whether mountain biking is harmful:
..they are
..> independent questions. Such a comparison would only be relevant if one
..were
..> committed to allowing only one activity or the other, and wanted to know
..which
..> is more harmful. In reality, hiking is always allowed, and the question is
