Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise,Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers

Mike Vandeman

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
>> >> >between trail users.
>>
>> >> There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
>> >> trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.
>>
>> >How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
>> >bothering you?
>>
>> Because they are destroying the environment...
>
>No more than hikers, according to most real research.

How would you know what "real research" is? LOL
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Wed, 21 May 2008 08:55:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>>> I go
>>> to parks to see nature, NOT large pieces of machinery like bikes.
>>
>> Your preferences are unimportant.
>
>Most users are guilty of bringing machinery into nature. Backpackers
>bring camp stoves, GPS systems, bear proof containers, high tech packs,
>titanium walking sticks, etc. Mountain bikers of course bring their
>bicycles. Horses are not native to most of these areas and do a
>tremendous amount of damage to the trail and to wildlife. The very
>existence of a trail is not natural, as the trail was formed with
>machines, either human powered or powered by fossil fuels.
>
>What really matters is the effect each user has on the wilderness area,
>not that some users would prefer that the other users not be there so
>they can have it all for themselves. Sure, a lot of backpackers would
>like to have the trails all to themselves, but that's not going to
>happen, as mountain biking expands in popularity, while backpacking
>continues to decline.
>
>The one thing no one can legitimately claim is that mountain biking
>damages the trails or wildlife any more than backpacking and hiking.

Yes, we can:

Wisdom, M. J. (mwisdom@fs.fed.us), Alan A. Ager (aager@fs.fed.us ), H.
K. Preisler (hpreisler@fs.fed.us), N. J. Cimon (ncimon@fs.fed.us), and
B. K. Johnson (johnsobd@eou.edu), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004, pp.531-550.

I know it's not fair, using real science.

>There have been numerous studies and they all have reached the same
>conclusion that biking is no more damaging than hiking.

You are LYING again.

There has never
>been a peer-reviewed study that shows mountain biking to have any more
>impact than hiking.

You CONVENIENTLY forgot this one:

Wisdom, M. J. (mwisdom@fs.fed.us), Alan A. Ager (aager@fs.fed.us ), H.
K. Preisler (hpreisler@fs.fed.us), N. J. Cimon (ncimon@fs.fed.us), and
B. K. Johnson (johnsobd@eou.edu), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004, pp.531-550.

>The real threat to the natural areas at this time is not from mountain
>bikes, it's from general lack of use. National Park attendance is way
>down, and in California many state parks are closing due to budget cuts,
>with the justification being that these parks are not being used anyway.
>Mountain biking could be the savior of the natural areas, if trails are
>added and restrictions removed.
>
>What needs to be done is to make visiting the parks more appealing to
>young people, and young people aren't all that interested in hiking and
>backpacking. Mountain biking would really attract more users.

You mean "abusers".

A lot of
>trails in national parks could be opened to mountain bikers, not in the
>heavy tourist areas like Yosemite Valley, but out in the back country.
>There are pilot programs to open national park trails to biking, though
>not yet in Yosemite.

Yes. NEVER!

>Sooner or later, developers will get their hands on unused park land.
>It'll be a desperate move by national, state or local governments to
>raise money by selling land, with the justification being no one uses
>the parks anyway.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:43:21 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:

>
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:xPKYj.4728$7k7.4476@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
>> different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
>> as important as responsible hiking.
>
>I have done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. When
>mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. That
>is simply empirical evidence.

Very true.

>I also know that when a trail is rerouted due to a blow down or land slide,
>in two years you can hardly find the old trail even if you are looking for
>it. Mother Nature has a way of healing itself.

Only in certain areas. In the desert, the damage can last DECADES.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 21, 11:43*am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
>wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:xPKYj.4728$7k7.4476@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
>> > different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
>> > as important as responsible hiking.
>>
>> I have done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. *When
>> mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. *That
>> is simply empirical evidence.
>
>No, it's anecdotal. And not universal.
>
>It may be that in some places, the additional traffic is not good for
>the trails as-built. But that does not imply that all areas are this
>way, or that the trails that exist cannot be reworked to eliminate the
>problem.

BS. The laws of physics aren't going to change.

>E.P.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:03:15 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>the Moderator wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xPKYj.4728$7k7.4476@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
>>> different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
>>> as important as responsible hiking.
>>
>> I have done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. When
>> mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. That
>> is simply empirical evidence.
>
>It's true, but not because of bikes versus boots. When mountain biking
>is introduced to an area, usage goes way up.
>
>Some areas are now doing alternate use, allowing bicycles and hikers on
>different days, to reduce usage on popular trails. OTOH, many areas have
>almost no usage at all from hikers, yet mountain biking is banned. This
>leads to more mountain bikes using fewer trails, increasing impact. What
>needs to be done is to distribute the users, both hikers and bikers,
>over more trails, to lessen the impact on individual areas.
>
>People like Vandeman, if they had any influence, would do tremendous
>harm to the environment by reducing the available mountain biking areas.
>What needs to be done is a massive expansion of trails for mountain
>bikers. This would have several benefits:
>
>1) Reduce the impact on trails by distributing the impact over a much
>larger number of trails.

BS.

>2) Create a constituency for preserving parkland and open space.

BS. Mountan bikers are only a constituency for mountain biking, NOT
for protecting habitat.

>3) Create a huge new pool of volunteers for trail and park maintenance.

Trail maintenance is destructive.

>The problem with people like Vandeman is that they never learned to take
>a scientific, "big picture" view of anything. They get tunnel vision,
>and only think about themselves.

Sounds exactly like mountain bikers.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Ed Pirrero

On May 22, 9:20*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> Because they are destroying the environment...
>
> >No more than hikers, according to most real research.
>
> How would you know what "real research" is? LOL

Because I'm actually published, in real scientific journals.

Heh.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 22, 9:19*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 20, 8:40 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> >I have been riding the same trails locally for about 6 years. *For the
> >> >most part, these trails are limited to MTBers and hikers. *No horses,
> >> >no motos.
>
> >> >The company that owns the land has been very generous to allow us to
> >> >ride there, and we are happy to be able to do so. *I take part in the
> >> >trail maintenance program, and I can tell you that the trails most
> >> >used by MTBs are in much better shape than the trails in a nearby
> >> >state park. *The difference? *No MTBers allowed on the state park
> >> >trails. *The state park trails are rutted and have erosion problems.
> >> >Same geology, similar amounts of users, at least from observing
> >> >trailhead parking and trail occupancy.
>
> >> You are comparing apples & oranges. The trails & number of users are
> >> obviously different.
>
> You just told us they are different trails. DUH! The latter is
> obvious.

Quibbling over the sentence construction and the strict literal
meanings of words doesn't make your argument stronger.

Try again.

> >So, you've been there, and actually compared them? *No? *Didn't think
> >so.
>
> >> Do some SCIENCE, and maybe someone would listen.
>
> >As someone with a degree and career in hard science, "doing science"
> >comes naturally. *Let's just say that in any sort of comparison
> >between your complete lack of knowledge of the trails of which I
> >speak, and my first-hand knowledge over the course of years, I'll take
> >my chances in the court of public opinion.
>
> >Come back when you have some real comparison *data*, rather than mere
> >pulled-out-of-your-ass conjecture.
>
> >E.P.
>
> You are the one making an assertion. PROVE it.

It's already proven, if we use your standard of what constitutes
proof.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 22, 9:27*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 11:43*am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
> >wrote:
> >> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:xPKYj.4728$7k7.4476@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> >> > The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
> >> > different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain bikingis
> >> > as important as responsible hiking.
>
> >> I have done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. *When
> >> mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. *That
> >> is simply empirical evidence.
>
> >No, it's anecdotal. *And not universal.
>
> >It may be that in some places, the additional traffic is not good for
> >the trails as-built. *But that does not imply that all areas are this
> >way, or that the trails that exist cannot be reworked to eliminate the
> >problem.
>
> BS. The laws of physics aren't going to change.

Non sequitur. Nobody is attempting to change the laws of physics, nor
asserting that they can be changed.

E.P.

Mike Vandeman

On Fri, 23 May 2008 09:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 22, 9:20*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Because they are destroying the environment...
>>
>> >No more than hikers, according to most real research.
>>
>> How would you know what "real research" is? LOL
>
>Because I'm actually published, in real scientific journals.

Then you are LYING. It's the only possible alternative.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:03:15 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>the Moderator wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xPKYj.4728$7k7.4476@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
>>> different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
>>> as important as responsible hiking.
>>
>> I have done a lot of hiking and a little bit of mountain biking. When
>> mountain biking is introduced to an area the trail erodes much faster. That
>> is simply empirical evidence.
>
>It's true, but not because of bikes versus boots. When mountain biking
>is introduced to an area, usage goes way up.

Yes, and MILEAGE, which is where the biggest impacts arise. Mountain
bikers travel from 2 to 10 times as far as hikers. Or MORE.

>Some areas are now doing alternate use, allowing bicycles and hikers on
>different days, to reduce usage on popular trails.

That's unfair to hikers and equestrians, who are the VAST MAJORITY of
park users.

OTOH, many areas have
>almost no usage at all from hikers, yet mountain biking is banned. This
>leads to more mountain bikes using fewer trails, increasing impact.

Nonsense. Whether you ride on one trail or another, the total impact
is the same.

What
>needs to be done is to distribute the users, both hikers and bikers,
>over more trails, to lessen the impact on individual areas.
>
>People like Vandeman, if they had any influence, would do tremendous
>harm to the environment by reducing the available mountain biking areas.

If we ban bikes, the impacts would go way down, because bikes with
knobby tires greatly increase erosion, and bikes allow a person to
travel much farther than they can on foot. Most mountain bikers are
too lazy to walk, so the number of visitors would also go way down.

>What needs to be done is a massive expansion of trails for mountain
>bikers. This would have several benefits:
>
>1) Reduce the impact on trails by distributing the impact over a much
>larger number of trails.
>
>2) Create a constituency for preserving parkland and open space.

BS. Mountain bikers are a constituency for more mountain biking,
period. They don't know the first thing about preserving parkland.

>3) Create a huge new pool of volunteers for trail and park maintenance.

Trail maintenance, like trail construction, is very destructive.
Mountain bikers ONLY do it in order to "brown nose" for more access.
They also build trails that are designed only for more thrills for
mountain bikers (e.g. with lots of unnecessary bumps and twists), and
hence are totally inappropriate for other trail users.

>The problem with people like Vandeman is that they never learned to take
>a scientific, "big picture" view of anything. They get tunnel vision,
>and only think about themselves.

Have you ever heard of "projection"? That describes mountain bikers
perfectly.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Siskuwihane

On May 26, 8:34*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<Babbling Envirotard Rant Snipped>

Mike spent his whole holiday weekend on the computer.

Ed Pirrero

On May 23, 11:27 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 09:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 22, 9:20 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Because they are destroying the environment...
>
> >> >No more than hikers, according to most real research.
>
> >> How would you know what "real research" is? LOL
>
> >Because I'm actually published, in real scientific journals.
>
> Then you are LYING. It's the only possible alternative.

As usual, you are wrong.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 28, 6:01*am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 22:22:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 23, 11:27 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 May 2008 09:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 22, 9:20 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Because they are destroying the environment...
>
> >> >> >No more than hikers, according to most real research.
>
> >> >> How would you know what "real research" is? LOL
>
> >> >Because I'm actually published, in real scientific journals.
>
> >> Then you are LYING. It's the only possible alternative.
>
> >As usual, you are wrong.
>
> "No more than hikers, according to most real research." As usual, you
> provide zero evidence, proving that you are LYING.

The evidence has already been provided. That you choose to ignore it
or dismiss it has nothing at all to do with how truthful I am.

When you can reason, using logic, get back to me.

E.P.

Mike Vandeman

On Wed, 28 May 2008 08:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 28, 6:01*am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 22:22:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 23, 11:27 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 23 May 2008 09:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 22, 9:20 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> >> >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On May 20, 8:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Because they are destroying the environment...
>>
>> >> >> >No more than hikers, according to most real research.
>>
>> >> >> How would you know what "real research" is? LOL
>>
>> >> >Because I'm actually published, in real scientific journals.
>>
>> >> Then you are LYING. It's the only possible alternative.
>>
>> >As usual, you are wrong.
>>
>> "No more than hikers, according to most real research." As usual, you
>> provide zero evidence, proving that you are LYING.
>
>The evidence has already been provided.

BS. Unless you can provide some real evidence, you are just LYING
again.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande