M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
May 31, 1997
Mountain biking is a relatively new sport. According to a mountain
biking (MTB) web page (http://www.mtb-bike.com), "The commercial Mountain Bike
evolution didn't start until 1974 and its first production bikes didn't appear
in stores until about 10 years later". (Lower gearing, fat, knobby tires,
sturdier construction, but particularly the sealed bearing -- which could be
ridden in dirt without getting destroyed -- are what made "mountain" (off-road)
bicycling possible.) Partly for this reason, and partly because the MTB is, from
one point of view, just a special case of an ORV (off-road vehicle),
environmentalists and scientists have been slow to study and recognize the
special threat that the mountain bike represents to wildlife. Although there are
many studies of ORVs, I am not aware of any solid scientific studies
specifically on MTBs and their effects on wildlife.
To most environmentalists, bicycles have always been the epitome of
good. We are so used to comparing bikes to cars, that it never occurred to us
that the bicycle would be ever used for anything bad. Indeed, replacing motor
vehicles with bicycles deserves our adoration. But anything can be used for good
or evil, and using bikes to expand human domination of wildlife habitat is
clearly harmful.
Human beings think they own every square inch of the Earth, and that
they therefore have the right to do what they want with it. This is, of course,
absurd. It is also the reason that we are losing species at an unforgivable
rate: we have crowded wildlife out of its habitat. Even in our parks, where we
have vowed to protect wildlife, it is not protected from hikers, equestrians,
park "managers", firefighters, mountain bikers, airplanes, helicopters, cars,
roads, concessionaires, or biologists. Thus, the primary reason that mountain
bikes are harmful to wildlife is that they, like other technological aids (cars,
skis, rafts, rock-climbing equipment, etc.), make it much easier for people to
get into wildlife habitat.
(Sadly, most people have forgotten that the only thing that makes parks
worth visiting is the wildlife that live there: it is precisely the wildlife
(and paucity of humans) that make a park a park. Without wildlife (i.e., all
nonhuman, nondomesticated species -- plants as well as animals), the parks would
be boring piles of bare rock.)
Biology
First and most obvious, mountain bikes kill organisms that live on and
under the soil: "When it comes to pure recreational destructiveness, ...
off-road vehicles (ORVs) far surpass powerboats. ... It is a rare environment
indeed where a vehicle can be taken off-road without damage. ... Standard ORVs
with their knobby tires are almost ideal devices for smashing plant life and
destroying soil. Even driven with extreme care, a dirt bike will degrade about
an acre of land in a twenty-mile drive. ... Not only do the ORVs exterminate
animals by exterminating plants, they attack them directly as well. Individual
animals on the surface and in shallow burrows ... are crushed. ... One great
problem with ORVs is that they supply easy access to wilderness areas for
unsupervised people who have ... no conception of the damage they are doing"
(Ehrlich and Ehrlich, pp.169-171; emphasis added). (Although mountain bikes were
hardly known when this was written, it is obvious that the same applies to
them.)
Recently, one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (a California threatened
species) ever found was killed by a mountain biker in Black Diamond Mines
Regional Preserve near here. Others have been killed on other East Bay regional
parks. Kathryn Phillips in Tracking the Vanishing Frogs described how ORVs
crossing creeks crush toads and their eggs (both buried in the sand). Bikes are
generally ridden too fast to avoid killing small animals. Obviously, the animals
didn't evolve in the presence of mountain bikes, and can't be expected to deal
very effectively with such quiet, fast-moving objects. Even hikers can kill
small animals, if they aren't careful. The one time I went to look for an
Alameda whipsnake, I almost stepped on one, which was lying in grass growing in
the trail, and didn't move until I had almost stepped on it.
Soils are extremely complex communities of living organisms. They
sometimes are very fragile and once destroyed take decades to be recreated (e.g.
desert cryptogamic soil). Soil destruction is hastened by acceleration (braking,
speeding up, climbing, and turning, which apply horizontal forces to the soil),
by tire lugs, which break the surface, and by water, which softens the soil and
makes it easier to demolish.
In the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), "park officials
noted serious erosion problems on certain steep narrow trails and determined
that restricting bicycle use would slow such erosion. [They] noted that on
narrow trails bicyclists passing other users would either leave the trail or
force the other users off the trail to the detriment of off-trail vegetation and
wildlife. ... Downhill bicycle travel on steep slopes is usually accompanied by
braking and often by skidding which tends to push dislodged surface gravels into
ditches, water bars, and drains. Heavy bicycle use on steep trails usually
requires that these ditches, water bars, and drains be cleared more frequently
than those used by hikers and equestrians only. ... Park staff and visitors
reported that bicyclists on these ... trails often skidded to control their
speed, slid off of trails on sharp turns, or cut across off-trail areas at
certain 'switch-backs'" (Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt).
Mud containing seeds and spores sticks to bike tires, thereby often
carrying species of plants into areas where they had not existed (becoming
"exotics"). This is worsened by the fact that bicycles travel long distances,
and are often carried to distant locations (sometimes even foreign countries) by
motor vehicle. It is well known that such exotic species can cause havoc when
introduced into new habitats.
Most of us were raised to believe that "non-consumptive" recreation is
harmless to wildlife. We are taught to enjoy ourselves in nature, guilt-free, as
long as we don't directly harm wildlife. However, recent research, and the huge
scale of current recreation activities, have discredited this idea.
"Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered
to be 'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of animals from their natural
habitats did not occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered
relatively benign in terms of its effects on wildlife; today, however, there is
a growing recognition that wildlife-viewing recreation can have serious negative
impacts on wildlife" (Knight & Gutzwiller, p.257).
In other words, the mere presence of people is often harmful to
wildlife, and the more, the worse. "The notion that recreation has no
environmental impacts is no longer tenable. Recreationists often degrade the
land, water, and wildlife resources that support their activities by simplifying
plant communities, increasing animal mortality, displacing and disturbing
wildlife, and distributing refuse" (ibid, p.3) "Recreational disturbance has
traditionally been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding
season. Recently, it has become apparent that disturbance outside of the
animal's breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p.73) "People have an
impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no matter what the
activity" (p.157); "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced wildlife
populations is through encroachment into wildlife areas" (p.160). "Outdoor
recreation has been recognized as an important factor that can reduce biosphere
sustainability.... Indeed, recreational activities, including many that may seem
innocuous, can alter vertebrate behaviour, reproduction, distributions, and
habitats" (p.169).
Knight & Gutzwiller's book contains numerous specific examples of how
these negative effects are created. We may not know what the organisms are
thinking, but the effect is that they die, are forced to expend extra energy
that may be in short supply, become more susceptible to predation, or are forced
to move to less suitable habitat, losing access to preferred foods, mates,
nesting sites, etc. Since most of us live safely in the midst of plenty, it is
hard for us to understand wildlife's predicament. We are flexible enough to
survive almost anywhere; they are not. Often they have no other place to live.
None of the existing "studies" on mountain biking evaluate its effects on
wildlife. They are usually concerned only with visible effects on the trail. In
Tilden Regional Park, there are three separate, heavily used mountain biking
trails through the middle of supposedly protected Alameda whipsnake habitat
areas!
"Displaced animals are forced out of familiar habitat and must then
survive and reproduce in areas where they are not familiar with the locations of
food, shelter, and other vital resources.... Hammitt and Cole ... ranked
displacement as being more detrimental to wildlife than harassment or
recreation-induced habitat changes.... Densities ... of 13 breeding bird species
were negatively associated with the intensity of recreation activity by park
visitors, primarily pedestrians and cyclists" (ibid, pp.173-4); "off-road
vehicles can collapse burrows of desert mammals and reptiles" (p.176).
Sociology
Hikers, especially the elderly, have been abandoning their favorite
trails, due to bikers that scare them, hit them, harass them, and destroy the
serenity of the parks. Parks are supposed to be a refuge from the crush of
humanity and the noise, danger, and artificiality of urban areas. Why bring to
our parks the very things that most people go there to escape?! There is
absolutely nothing wrong with bicycling, in its proper setting (on a road). It
is a wonderfully healthful activity. But wildlife is already in danger due to
loss of habitat (worldwide, one quarter of all animals are threatend with
extinction, according to the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources)). It can't afford to lose any more. And people
have very similar needs for being in nature. Our elderly are like wildlife, in
that they have nowhere else to go for the experience of nature that they are
accustomed to.
By definition, hiking trails are the minimum size necessary for a person
to hike (approx. 18 inches wide), since they are supposed to have a minimal
impact on the environment. They aren't wide enough for a bicyclist to safely
pass a hiker or another bicyclist. Mixing bikers and hikers is dangerous for
both. In fact, mountain biking is also dangerous for lone riders, since hiking
trails don't follow a predictable pattern and have very short sight distances
(the distance that one can see ahead on the trail). Emergency room doctors
report that a large percentage of mountain bikers incur serious accidents.
"The record includes hundreds of letters from park users recounting
stories of collisions or near misses with speeding or reckless bicyclists on all
kinds of trails but particularly on steep and narrow trails. Hikers and bird
watchers repeatedly told how they have been forced off of trails by speeding
bicycles and how they have had their peace and solitude on the trails
interrupted by bicycles that -- because they are quiet and fast -- seemed to
appear out of nowhere and be immediately upon the hikers and other users.
Equestrians told how their horses have been startled by speeding or oncoming
bicycles and have become restless, on several occasions even throwing and
injuring experienced riders. Though most users admitted that the great majority
of bicyclists were polite and safety-conscious, letters from hikers,
equestrians, bird watchers, joggers, and other users also repeatedly recounted
incidents of rudeness, threats, and altercations when they have complained to an
offending bicyclist about dangerous conduct. Park staff also reported having
received such complaints. ... NPS's [National Park Service's] finding that user
conflict and visitor danger would be reduced by limiting bicycle trail access in
GGNRA was supported by ample evidence. ... Notwithstanding the responsible user,
bicycles are often perceived by other users as a disruptive influence on park
trails. Although most of the few reported bicycle accidents in the park involve
only single individuals, letters and reports from hikers and equestrians tell of
many close calls and confrontational and unsettling experiences". "No
single-track trails [in the Marin Headlands] were found suitable for bicycle
use" (Bicycle Trails Council v. Bruce Babbitt).
Since bicycles require wider trails, parks now often use bulldozers to
create and maintain those trails, vastly increasing their impacts. In Claremont
Canyon Regional Preserve in Oakland, California, a new trail was created by
means of a "small" (6 foot blade) bulldozer. But it rolled off the trail and had
to be rescued by a much bigger bulldozer. The existence of bicyclists on trails
also forces park rangers to police the trails using motor vehicles (cars or
motorcycles), since it is the only way they can hope to catch them! This also
increases negative impacts on wildlife.
Children learn mostly nonverbally (by watching adults and other
children). Mountain biking is bad role modeling for them, since it teaches them
that human domination and destruction of wildlife habitat is normal and
acceptable.
Mountain bikers like to claim that excluding them from trails
constitutes "discrimination". They say that other user groups (hikers and
equestrians) receive better treatment from land managers. There is no basis for
such a claim, since all users are subject to exactly the same rules. For
example, on a trail closed to bikes, everyone is allowed on the trail -- only
the bikes are excluded! In spite of what they claim, mountain bikers have never
been excluded from any trail! Even if my way of "enjoying" the wilderness is to
race my bulldozer there, I am not allowed to do that. And this is not because
land managers like hikers more than bulldozer racers. I am not being excluded
from the wilderness; I can go there whenever I want, as long as I don't try to
bring my bulldozer with me. It is only the bulldozer that is excluded, which is
due to its effects on wildlife and people.
If mountain bikers were actually being discriminated against, they could
sue park managers for access to every trail that others are allowed on. On the
contrary, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Bicycle Trails
Council v. Bruce Babbitt) concluded that the National Park Service has the right
to ban bikes from trails. "All units of the National Parks [are] to be treated
consistently, with resource protection the primary goal". "All bicycle use of
off-road areas [is] prohibited unless local park superintendents [designate]
particular trails to be open" (bicyclists were contesting this rule). "Routes
may only be designated for bicycle use based on a written determination that
such use is consistent with the protection of the park area's natural, scenic
and aesthetic values, safety considerations and management objectives and will
not disturb wildlife or park resources". "The Park Service is empowered with the
authority to determine what uses of park resources are proper and what
proportion of the park's resources are available for each use". "The use of
bicycles is allowed in park areas under the same basic conditions as are motor
vehicles, i.e. on park roads, in parking areas, and on routes designated for
their use. ... certain limitations on their use are necessary and appropriate in
the interest of public safety, resource protection, and the avoidance of visitor
conflict" [emphasis added].
Clearly, bikes are not being banned from trails because land managers
like hikers and equestrians more! As people, mountain bikers are
indistinguishable from other park users. It is the bikes that we object to, and
not even the bikes, but their presence in natural areas. Banning bikes is simply
a humane way of protecting our natural areas, while allowing all users equal
access to enjoy them. Thus, whether bikers or hikers or equestrians are more
harmful to wildlife (they all are, of course) is irrelevant. Restricting bicycle
access is a way of reducing human impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
The Case of Brown's Woods
Brown's Woods, one of the last stands of native forest in central Iowa
(southwest of DesMoines), illustrates these issues. It was saved from logging
and development in 1972 by the S. E. Polk (High School) Ecology Club and their
sponsor, biology teacher, Kirk Brill, for which they won a national award.
Motorized vehicles were banned, "because of the threat they posed to the
environment and to persons walking there" (Wayne Bills, Polk County Conservation
Board (PCCB) Executive Director, 1972). The students worked hard to earn money
to build two miles of bike trails through the preserve.
However mountain bikers illegally built 4 1/2 additional miles of trail
("bikers have gouged more than six miles of trail, up to 30 feet wide and a foot
or more deep in spots" (Loren Lown, PCCB Natural Resources Specialist, 1996)).
Wildlife were disappearing, elderly hikers were driven out, and vegetation was
destroyed. "Already the bikers have caused permanent irreparable damage to this
pristine area" (Ben Van Gundy, PCCB Director). It was called "ecological
vandalism". Last year, once again, Brill and his students were forced to
campaign to save the preserve, this time from mountain bikers, and won, getting
a unanimous vote of the PCCB for a "total and permanent ban on the use of
mountain bikes" in Brown's Woods.
Millions of mountain bikes are being sold every year around the world.
Let's not wait till "bikers have caused permanent irreparable damage" to our
other natural areas! We can't eliminate all environmental damage, but we can
eliminate frivolous, unnecessary damage. True civilization is characterized by
restraint.
"It is expected that outdoor recreational activity will continue to
increase, while the amount of wild land where wildlife may seek refuge from
disturbance will decrease" (Knight and Gutzwiller, p.327); "Recreationists are,
ironically, destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion
of nature.... The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page
with interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing
fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere" (p.340; emphasis added); "Tom Birch ... argues that
wilderness managers, charged with incarcerating wilderness, are more concerned
with the advancement of their careers through achieving quantifiable goals
(number of park visitors, total revenues) and developing park and forest
amenities (roads, 'scenic' turnouts, restrooms, paved trails, maps, campgrounds)
than with perpetuating the land community of which they are a part" (p.344).
Ideally, we should be working to reduce all human access to wildlife
habitat. But at the very least, we should eliminate mechanical access (with the
exception of small compromises for wheelchairs).
References:
Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt, No.C-93-0009,slip op. (N.
Dist. Cal., Sept. 1, 1994) (see also Third Circuit Case 94-16920,
http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/t/9416920o.htm).
Ehrlich, Paul and Anne, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the
Disappearance of Species. c.1981.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists.
Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London, c.1997.
Phillips, Kathryn, Tracking the Vanishing Frogs: An Ecological Mystery. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
Stebbins, Robert, personal communication.
Vandeman, Michael J., Ph.D. http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/,
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande.
===
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
Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
May 31, 1997
Mountain biking is a relatively new sport. According to a mountain
biking (MTB) web page (http://www.mtb-bike.com), "The commercial Mountain Bike
evolution didn't start until 1974 and its first production bikes didn't appear
in stores until about 10 years later". (Lower gearing, fat, knobby tires,
sturdier construction, but particularly the sealed bearing -- which could be
ridden in dirt without getting destroyed -- are what made "mountain" (off-road)
bicycling possible.) Partly for this reason, and partly because the MTB is, from
one point of view, just a special case of an ORV (off-road vehicle),
environmentalists and scientists have been slow to study and recognize the
special threat that the mountain bike represents to wildlife. Although there are
many studies of ORVs, I am not aware of any solid scientific studies
specifically on MTBs and their effects on wildlife.
To most environmentalists, bicycles have always been the epitome of
good. We are so used to comparing bikes to cars, that it never occurred to us
that the bicycle would be ever used for anything bad. Indeed, replacing motor
vehicles with bicycles deserves our adoration. But anything can be used for good
or evil, and using bikes to expand human domination of wildlife habitat is
clearly harmful.
Human beings think they own every square inch of the Earth, and that
they therefore have the right to do what they want with it. This is, of course,
absurd. It is also the reason that we are losing species at an unforgivable
rate: we have crowded wildlife out of its habitat. Even in our parks, where we
have vowed to protect wildlife, it is not protected from hikers, equestrians,
park "managers", firefighters, mountain bikers, airplanes, helicopters, cars,
roads, concessionaires, or biologists. Thus, the primary reason that mountain
bikes are harmful to wildlife is that they, like other technological aids (cars,
skis, rafts, rock-climbing equipment, etc.), make it much easier for people to
get into wildlife habitat.
(Sadly, most people have forgotten that the only thing that makes parks
worth visiting is the wildlife that live there: it is precisely the wildlife
(and paucity of humans) that make a park a park. Without wildlife (i.e., all
nonhuman, nondomesticated species -- plants as well as animals), the parks would
be boring piles of bare rock.)
Biology
First and most obvious, mountain bikes kill organisms that live on and
under the soil: "When it comes to pure recreational destructiveness, ...
off-road vehicles (ORVs) far surpass powerboats. ... It is a rare environment
indeed where a vehicle can be taken off-road without damage. ... Standard ORVs
with their knobby tires are almost ideal devices for smashing plant life and
destroying soil. Even driven with extreme care, a dirt bike will degrade about
an acre of land in a twenty-mile drive. ... Not only do the ORVs exterminate
animals by exterminating plants, they attack them directly as well. Individual
animals on the surface and in shallow burrows ... are crushed. ... One great
problem with ORVs is that they supply easy access to wilderness areas for
unsupervised people who have ... no conception of the damage they are doing"
(Ehrlich and Ehrlich, pp.169-171; emphasis added). (Although mountain bikes were
hardly known when this was written, it is obvious that the same applies to
them.)
Recently, one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (a California threatened
species) ever found was killed by a mountain biker in Black Diamond Mines
Regional Preserve near here. Others have been killed on other East Bay regional
parks. Kathryn Phillips in Tracking the Vanishing Frogs described how ORVs
crossing creeks crush toads and their eggs (both buried in the sand). Bikes are
generally ridden too fast to avoid killing small animals. Obviously, the animals
didn't evolve in the presence of mountain bikes, and can't be expected to deal
very effectively with such quiet, fast-moving objects. Even hikers can kill
small animals, if they aren't careful. The one time I went to look for an
Alameda whipsnake, I almost stepped on one, which was lying in grass growing in
the trail, and didn't move until I had almost stepped on it.
Soils are extremely complex communities of living organisms. They
sometimes are very fragile and once destroyed take decades to be recreated (e.g.
desert cryptogamic soil). Soil destruction is hastened by acceleration (braking,
speeding up, climbing, and turning, which apply horizontal forces to the soil),
by tire lugs, which break the surface, and by water, which softens the soil and
makes it easier to demolish.
In the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), "park officials
noted serious erosion problems on certain steep narrow trails and determined
that restricting bicycle use would slow such erosion. [They] noted that on
narrow trails bicyclists passing other users would either leave the trail or
force the other users off the trail to the detriment of off-trail vegetation and
wildlife. ... Downhill bicycle travel on steep slopes is usually accompanied by
braking and often by skidding which tends to push dislodged surface gravels into
ditches, water bars, and drains. Heavy bicycle use on steep trails usually
requires that these ditches, water bars, and drains be cleared more frequently
than those used by hikers and equestrians only. ... Park staff and visitors
reported that bicyclists on these ... trails often skidded to control their
speed, slid off of trails on sharp turns, or cut across off-trail areas at
certain 'switch-backs'" (Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt).
Mud containing seeds and spores sticks to bike tires, thereby often
carrying species of plants into areas where they had not existed (becoming
"exotics"). This is worsened by the fact that bicycles travel long distances,
and are often carried to distant locations (sometimes even foreign countries) by
motor vehicle. It is well known that such exotic species can cause havoc when
introduced into new habitats.
Most of us were raised to believe that "non-consumptive" recreation is
harmless to wildlife. We are taught to enjoy ourselves in nature, guilt-free, as
long as we don't directly harm wildlife. However, recent research, and the huge
scale of current recreation activities, have discredited this idea.
"Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered
to be 'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of animals from their natural
habitats did not occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered
relatively benign in terms of its effects on wildlife; today, however, there is
a growing recognition that wildlife-viewing recreation can have serious negative
impacts on wildlife" (Knight & Gutzwiller, p.257).
In other words, the mere presence of people is often harmful to
wildlife, and the more, the worse. "The notion that recreation has no
environmental impacts is no longer tenable. Recreationists often degrade the
land, water, and wildlife resources that support their activities by simplifying
plant communities, increasing animal mortality, displacing and disturbing
wildlife, and distributing refuse" (ibid, p.3) "Recreational disturbance has
traditionally been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding
season. Recently, it has become apparent that disturbance outside of the
animal's breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p.73) "People have an
impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no matter what the
activity" (p.157); "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced wildlife
populations is through encroachment into wildlife areas" (p.160). "Outdoor
recreation has been recognized as an important factor that can reduce biosphere
sustainability.... Indeed, recreational activities, including many that may seem
innocuous, can alter vertebrate behaviour, reproduction, distributions, and
habitats" (p.169).
Knight & Gutzwiller's book contains numerous specific examples of how
these negative effects are created. We may not know what the organisms are
thinking, but the effect is that they die, are forced to expend extra energy
that may be in short supply, become more susceptible to predation, or are forced
to move to less suitable habitat, losing access to preferred foods, mates,
nesting sites, etc. Since most of us live safely in the midst of plenty, it is
hard for us to understand wildlife's predicament. We are flexible enough to
survive almost anywhere; they are not. Often they have no other place to live.
None of the existing "studies" on mountain biking evaluate its effects on
wildlife. They are usually concerned only with visible effects on the trail. In
Tilden Regional Park, there are three separate, heavily used mountain biking
trails through the middle of supposedly protected Alameda whipsnake habitat
areas!
"Displaced animals are forced out of familiar habitat and must then
survive and reproduce in areas where they are not familiar with the locations of
food, shelter, and other vital resources.... Hammitt and Cole ... ranked
displacement as being more detrimental to wildlife than harassment or
recreation-induced habitat changes.... Densities ... of 13 breeding bird species
were negatively associated with the intensity of recreation activity by park
visitors, primarily pedestrians and cyclists" (ibid, pp.173-4); "off-road
vehicles can collapse burrows of desert mammals and reptiles" (p.176).
Sociology
Hikers, especially the elderly, have been abandoning their favorite
trails, due to bikers that scare them, hit them, harass them, and destroy the
serenity of the parks. Parks are supposed to be a refuge from the crush of
humanity and the noise, danger, and artificiality of urban areas. Why bring to
our parks the very things that most people go there to escape?! There is
absolutely nothing wrong with bicycling, in its proper setting (on a road). It
is a wonderfully healthful activity. But wildlife is already in danger due to
loss of habitat (worldwide, one quarter of all animals are threatend with
extinction, according to the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources)). It can't afford to lose any more. And people
have very similar needs for being in nature. Our elderly are like wildlife, in
that they have nowhere else to go for the experience of nature that they are
accustomed to.
By definition, hiking trails are the minimum size necessary for a person
to hike (approx. 18 inches wide), since they are supposed to have a minimal
impact on the environment. They aren't wide enough for a bicyclist to safely
pass a hiker or another bicyclist. Mixing bikers and hikers is dangerous for
both. In fact, mountain biking is also dangerous for lone riders, since hiking
trails don't follow a predictable pattern and have very short sight distances
(the distance that one can see ahead on the trail). Emergency room doctors
report that a large percentage of mountain bikers incur serious accidents.
"The record includes hundreds of letters from park users recounting
stories of collisions or near misses with speeding or reckless bicyclists on all
kinds of trails but particularly on steep and narrow trails. Hikers and bird
watchers repeatedly told how they have been forced off of trails by speeding
bicycles and how they have had their peace and solitude on the trails
interrupted by bicycles that -- because they are quiet and fast -- seemed to
appear out of nowhere and be immediately upon the hikers and other users.
Equestrians told how their horses have been startled by speeding or oncoming
bicycles and have become restless, on several occasions even throwing and
injuring experienced riders. Though most users admitted that the great majority
of bicyclists were polite and safety-conscious, letters from hikers,
equestrians, bird watchers, joggers, and other users also repeatedly recounted
incidents of rudeness, threats, and altercations when they have complained to an
offending bicyclist about dangerous conduct. Park staff also reported having
received such complaints. ... NPS's [National Park Service's] finding that user
conflict and visitor danger would be reduced by limiting bicycle trail access in
GGNRA was supported by ample evidence. ... Notwithstanding the responsible user,
bicycles are often perceived by other users as a disruptive influence on park
trails. Although most of the few reported bicycle accidents in the park involve
only single individuals, letters and reports from hikers and equestrians tell of
many close calls and confrontational and unsettling experiences". "No
single-track trails [in the Marin Headlands] were found suitable for bicycle
use" (Bicycle Trails Council v. Bruce Babbitt).
Since bicycles require wider trails, parks now often use bulldozers to
create and maintain those trails, vastly increasing their impacts. In Claremont
Canyon Regional Preserve in Oakland, California, a new trail was created by
means of a "small" (6 foot blade) bulldozer. But it rolled off the trail and had
to be rescued by a much bigger bulldozer. The existence of bicyclists on trails
also forces park rangers to police the trails using motor vehicles (cars or
motorcycles), since it is the only way they can hope to catch them! This also
increases negative impacts on wildlife.
Children learn mostly nonverbally (by watching adults and other
children). Mountain biking is bad role modeling for them, since it teaches them
that human domination and destruction of wildlife habitat is normal and
acceptable.
Mountain bikers like to claim that excluding them from trails
constitutes "discrimination". They say that other user groups (hikers and
equestrians) receive better treatment from land managers. There is no basis for
such a claim, since all users are subject to exactly the same rules. For
example, on a trail closed to bikes, everyone is allowed on the trail -- only
the bikes are excluded! In spite of what they claim, mountain bikers have never
been excluded from any trail! Even if my way of "enjoying" the wilderness is to
race my bulldozer there, I am not allowed to do that. And this is not because
land managers like hikers more than bulldozer racers. I am not being excluded
from the wilderness; I can go there whenever I want, as long as I don't try to
bring my bulldozer with me. It is only the bulldozer that is excluded, which is
due to its effects on wildlife and people.
If mountain bikers were actually being discriminated against, they could
sue park managers for access to every trail that others are allowed on. On the
contrary, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Bicycle Trails
Council v. Bruce Babbitt) concluded that the National Park Service has the right
to ban bikes from trails. "All units of the National Parks [are] to be treated
consistently, with resource protection the primary goal". "All bicycle use of
off-road areas [is] prohibited unless local park superintendents [designate]
particular trails to be open" (bicyclists were contesting this rule). "Routes
may only be designated for bicycle use based on a written determination that
such use is consistent with the protection of the park area's natural, scenic
and aesthetic values, safety considerations and management objectives and will
not disturb wildlife or park resources". "The Park Service is empowered with the
authority to determine what uses of park resources are proper and what
proportion of the park's resources are available for each use". "The use of
bicycles is allowed in park areas under the same basic conditions as are motor
vehicles, i.e. on park roads, in parking areas, and on routes designated for
their use. ... certain limitations on their use are necessary and appropriate in
the interest of public safety, resource protection, and the avoidance of visitor
conflict" [emphasis added].
Clearly, bikes are not being banned from trails because land managers
like hikers and equestrians more! As people, mountain bikers are
indistinguishable from other park users. It is the bikes that we object to, and
not even the bikes, but their presence in natural areas. Banning bikes is simply
a humane way of protecting our natural areas, while allowing all users equal
access to enjoy them. Thus, whether bikers or hikers or equestrians are more
harmful to wildlife (they all are, of course) is irrelevant. Restricting bicycle
access is a way of reducing human impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
The Case of Brown's Woods
Brown's Woods, one of the last stands of native forest in central Iowa
(southwest of DesMoines), illustrates these issues. It was saved from logging
and development in 1972 by the S. E. Polk (High School) Ecology Club and their
sponsor, biology teacher, Kirk Brill, for which they won a national award.
Motorized vehicles were banned, "because of the threat they posed to the
environment and to persons walking there" (Wayne Bills, Polk County Conservation
Board (PCCB) Executive Director, 1972). The students worked hard to earn money
to build two miles of bike trails through the preserve.
However mountain bikers illegally built 4 1/2 additional miles of trail
("bikers have gouged more than six miles of trail, up to 30 feet wide and a foot
or more deep in spots" (Loren Lown, PCCB Natural Resources Specialist, 1996)).
Wildlife were disappearing, elderly hikers were driven out, and vegetation was
destroyed. "Already the bikers have caused permanent irreparable damage to this
pristine area" (Ben Van Gundy, PCCB Director). It was called "ecological
vandalism". Last year, once again, Brill and his students were forced to
campaign to save the preserve, this time from mountain bikers, and won, getting
a unanimous vote of the PCCB for a "total and permanent ban on the use of
mountain bikes" in Brown's Woods.
Millions of mountain bikes are being sold every year around the world.
Let's not wait till "bikers have caused permanent irreparable damage" to our
other natural areas! We can't eliminate all environmental damage, but we can
eliminate frivolous, unnecessary damage. True civilization is characterized by
restraint.
"It is expected that outdoor recreational activity will continue to
increase, while the amount of wild land where wildlife may seek refuge from
disturbance will decrease" (Knight and Gutzwiller, p.327); "Recreationists are,
ironically, destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion
of nature.... The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page
with interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing
fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere" (p.340; emphasis added); "Tom Birch ... argues that
wilderness managers, charged with incarcerating wilderness, are more concerned
with the advancement of their careers through achieving quantifiable goals
(number of park visitors, total revenues) and developing park and forest
amenities (roads, 'scenic' turnouts, restrooms, paved trails, maps, campgrounds)
than with perpetuating the land community of which they are a part" (p.344).
Ideally, we should be working to reduce all human access to wildlife
habitat. But at the very least, we should eliminate mechanical access (with the
exception of small compromises for wheelchairs).
References:
Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt, No.C-93-0009,slip op. (N.
Dist. Cal., Sept. 1, 1994) (see also Third Circuit Case 94-16920,
http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/t/9416920o.htm).
Ehrlich, Paul and Anne, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the
Disappearance of Species. c.1981.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists.
Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London, c.1997.
Phillips, Kathryn, Tracking the Vanishing Frogs: An Ecological Mystery. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
Stebbins, Robert, personal communication.
Vandeman, Michael J., Ph.D. http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/,
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande.
===
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
