Mickey Bitsko
Adventurer
Appears to be another human looking for an argument, imho
Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?
- Thread starter NMC_EXP
- Start date
NMC_EXP
Explorer
Are you claiming there are "...many MANY..." peer revied studies which prove: "....studies confirm that Equestrians and hikers (especially with trekking poles) cause more impact on trails that MT bikes..."?
What studies, how were the studies funded and what peers did the reviewing? Try to be specific.
As to your observation RE casual observation vs studies there is truth in that, so far as it goes. The validity of conclusions drawn depends entirely on the quality and quantity of the observations. This applies to both informal and formal studies.
Think about the logical fallacy of "argument from authority". Think about how often this fallacy is used to support or reject emotionally charged topics which have seeped out of the scientific realm and into popular culture and awareness.
The argument from authority and it's bastard child the Woozle Effect are pathetic excuses for the majority of the population on either side of any controversy not to think on their own. It is as simple as that.
I had a career in engineering. It was 30 years of setting up test plans, making observations, running tests, collecting data and drawing conclusions. When I run across (pseudo) scientific claims that do not pass the smell test, I will default to my own observations and conclusions.
FYI - the very foundation of real science is skepticism. The lack of skepticism means faith and church is the place for that.
NMC_EXP
Explorer
Define "DH" and "DH only trails".
sam-aye-am
Member
Hmm, doesn’t look to be a study funded by the bike community
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sam-aye-am
Member
Good arguments- specifically argument from authority.
I too was educated as a mechanical engineer- though I’m just shy of 20 years mostly with nuclear power ops & maintenance.
Someone linked a study in another post- some of the many studies are referenced there.
I’m good with professional questioning attitude. I’m not good with unscientific background folks rejecting data because it doesn’t fit their paradigm. Please note that I am not accusing you of the later. I’d rather say that I disagree with skepticism being foundation of science and instead argue that curiosity is the foundation. That’s just my opinion though.
2 other things I’d offer for you to consider:
1. Earlier I think you suggested skepticism about impact footprints and load on the ground and its contribution to damage as being insignificant between hikers and cyclists. A portion of us that advocate for access to bikes be locally determined as opposed to a blanket ban may not be what you have as an image of a typical off road cyclists. My main trail bike runs 29x2.6 tires at about 15/17 psi front and rear. I haven’t measured the surface area of my hiking boots to compare my body weight in boots vs on bike tires, but given the pressures I run, I don’t think there is as large of a difference than you may have thought. Many cyclists prefer even larger tires with lower pressures.
2. As I eluded to with #1 above, many of us aren’t what tv or magazines make us out to be. I personally want to get away and enjoy the outdoors while challenging myself. Sure, I like speed, but that isn’t what it is all about. When I go bike packing, my average speed is often within 2-3 mph compared to a quick through hiker. Because of arthritis I can no longer access deeper backcountry areas unless I’m on a bike. And I certainly can’t do a multi day self supported trip without the bike. All I want is the same opportunity as a hiker to access and enjoy the back country - with decisions being made by the local land manager.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NMC_EXP
Explorer
Hmm, doesn't look to be a study funded by the bike community
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good point.
I read the first 29 pages and scanned the balance of the 85 or so total. That study collected empirical data on how specific trails changed over time (depth and width). Typically the ruts got deeper and the trails got wider. Especially true on slopes and wet bottom areas.
However, the study did not collect data on the type of use; hiker, bicycle, horse, ATV...etc.
Therefore it could not draw any conclusions as to relative effects of transportation mode.
NMC_EXP
Explorer
First, thanks for the reasoned response. I have learned that mountain bikers tend to be extremely touchy about the issue of trail damage. Enough so to bring to mind "Methinks the [biker] doth protest too much."
--I would be interested in actual contact patch data from typical bicycle tires. I did takes some measurements from my size 13 boots, and made rough estimates for bike tires and horseshoes. Then estimated static contact pressure for 200 lb gross weights for hiker and bike and 1000 lb for an equestrian. Came out similar to the numbers in the report above. The issue of the relative amount of soil displacement seems like it must involve several other factors beside static contact pressure and has to be fairly complicated.
--Good point about curiosity being a cornerstone of science and I fully agree. However, the scientific method is based on skepticism. For a claim or hypothesis to be accepted it must be falsifiable as well as repeatable & reproducible.
--I agree regarding blindness due to confirmation bias. My direct experience with MBers does color my opinion but I realize this sort of information does not support a conclusion. It is just anecdotal information and I will not bore you with the details.
Thanks again.
NMC_EXP
Explorer
The deep ecologist George Wuerthner is after back country bicycle riders again:
Source: CounterPunch
Date: 02/09/2018
Link: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/09/mountain-biking-and-wilderness/
What follows is from the article.
[begin excerpts]
A small minority of the most aggressive mountain bikers have formed the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC) to sponsor legislation to open designated wilderness to mountain biking. Republican Congressman Tom McClintock of California introduced HR 1349 to Amend the Wilderness Act to allow wheeled vehicles like bicycles and Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced the introduced the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, S.3205 to the same purpose. Both pieces of legislation are aimed at busting open the 1964 Wilderness Act to biking and other uses.
[snip]
Beyond the clear legal mandate to ban mountain bikes, there are ecological reasons to oppose the growing plague of mountain bikes on backcountry trails. Unlike non-mechanical means of access such as hiking, mountain bikes, and their mechanical advantage permits more rapid travel. The distance that a mountain bike can cover in a day means that many previously remote areas of our backcountry and wildlands are intruded upon by human activity.
[snip]
Mountain biking is exemplified by speed and requires concentration. We are separated from nature in so many ways today with cell phones, cars, videos and the like that we seldom have a quiet interaction with the natural world. Speed robs you of the natural interactions.
All you must do is look at the covers of mountain biking magazines where riders are often airborne and careening downhill to understand what is important to the aggressive mountain biker. Indeed, the aggressive mountain bikers do not differ significantly from dirt bikers and other thrillcraft in their appearance and behavior.
Or scan the names of mountain bike brands. There is Cannondale Bad Habit, Cannondale Scalpel Cannondale Trigger, Evil Bikes, GT Aggressor, GT Fury, Marin Attack, Scott Voltage, and Titan Punisher. What kind of behavior do you think these bike manufacturers are promoting?
[end excerpts]
Source: CounterPunch
Date: 02/09/2018
Link: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/09/mountain-biking-and-wilderness/
What follows is from the article.
[begin excerpts]
A small minority of the most aggressive mountain bikers have formed the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC) to sponsor legislation to open designated wilderness to mountain biking. Republican Congressman Tom McClintock of California introduced HR 1349 to Amend the Wilderness Act to allow wheeled vehicles like bicycles and Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced the introduced the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, S.3205 to the same purpose. Both pieces of legislation are aimed at busting open the 1964 Wilderness Act to biking and other uses.
[snip]
Beyond the clear legal mandate to ban mountain bikes, there are ecological reasons to oppose the growing plague of mountain bikes on backcountry trails. Unlike non-mechanical means of access such as hiking, mountain bikes, and their mechanical advantage permits more rapid travel. The distance that a mountain bike can cover in a day means that many previously remote areas of our backcountry and wildlands are intruded upon by human activity.
[snip]
Mountain biking is exemplified by speed and requires concentration. We are separated from nature in so many ways today with cell phones, cars, videos and the like that we seldom have a quiet interaction with the natural world. Speed robs you of the natural interactions.
All you must do is look at the covers of mountain biking magazines where riders are often airborne and careening downhill to understand what is important to the aggressive mountain biker. Indeed, the aggressive mountain bikers do not differ significantly from dirt bikers and other thrillcraft in their appearance and behavior.
Or scan the names of mountain bike brands. There is Cannondale Bad Habit, Cannondale Scalpel Cannondale Trigger, Evil Bikes, GT Aggressor, GT Fury, Marin Attack, Scott Voltage, and Titan Punisher. What kind of behavior do you think these bike manufacturers are promoting?
[end excerpts]
slowtwitch
Adventurer
The hard truth is the mtn bike community has lost its way from the beginnings... lets say early 80's for discussion sake. At that time the sport was much more 'granola' and integrated with nature. It was a fantastic new (to most) way to get out in it and explore. Early ads for Shimano had dudes in jeans and boots. I have a poster here from Specialized that says 'It's a hole new sport' and has a bunch of folks in jeans, flannel, and boots in the CO high country.
I still maintain that the author, although having a stick up his ass, makes good points. Rocky Mountain Fro Riders? Illegal trail building was de rigueur for a number of years there.. plastered all over the magazines. And yes, at least a sizeable portion of Mtn bikers are male and of an age where they do stupid ********. Great that 50 families obeyed the rules. Too bad a group of 3 bad seeds came through and screwed it. And the advocacy groups and manufacturers have moved much more into the motorized camp, than away. Fox, Maxxis, etc etc. the lines are getting more and more blurred. And of course the latest development... electric motors. Bike shops that had no motors in them, do now. And of course there's quite a few growing pains with the technological developments that allow a motorized, fully suspended disc brake equipped 'bike' to exist. Of course all the bike manufacturers are all in with ebikes.
I owned a bike shop, and I lived in the shadow of the Snowy Mountains. The sport lost it's way imo and the chickens are coming to roost.
I still maintain that the author, although having a stick up his ass, makes good points. Rocky Mountain Fro Riders? Illegal trail building was de rigueur for a number of years there.. plastered all over the magazines. And yes, at least a sizeable portion of Mtn bikers are male and of an age where they do stupid ********. Great that 50 families obeyed the rules. Too bad a group of 3 bad seeds came through and screwed it. And the advocacy groups and manufacturers have moved much more into the motorized camp, than away. Fox, Maxxis, etc etc. the lines are getting more and more blurred. And of course the latest development... electric motors. Bike shops that had no motors in them, do now. And of course there's quite a few growing pains with the technological developments that allow a motorized, fully suspended disc brake equipped 'bike' to exist. Of course all the bike manufacturers are all in with ebikes.
I owned a bike shop, and I lived in the shadow of the Snowy Mountains. The sport lost it's way imo and the chickens are coming to roost.
waveslider
Outdoorsman
Listen, I’m all for wilderness. Real, proper, wild and wooly....wilderness.
But what many people don’t realize is that the concept of wilderness - a roadless, structureless and wild place- has been hijacked and bastardized to fit other people’s agenda.
There are wilderness areas that still allow cattle grazing. Complete with a rancher who is free to ride all over the “wilderness” in his atv chasing cows.
Let’s be clear, true wilderness and domestic livestock are incompatible.
If we are going to have wilderness, let’s have it. Where only a person on his/her two feet can travel and the critters are left to compete naturally -complete with predators.
So I guess in summary- if mt bikers are preventing more areas from being designated wilderness, then I’m an overnight fan of mt bikers.
But what many people don’t realize is that the concept of wilderness - a roadless, structureless and wild place- has been hijacked and bastardized to fit other people’s agenda.
There are wilderness areas that still allow cattle grazing. Complete with a rancher who is free to ride all over the “wilderness” in his atv chasing cows.
Let’s be clear, true wilderness and domestic livestock are incompatible.
If we are going to have wilderness, let’s have it. Where only a person on his/her two feet can travel and the critters are left to compete naturally -complete with predators.
So I guess in summary- if mt bikers are preventing more areas from being designated wilderness, then I’m an overnight fan of mt bikers.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
I'm in agreement with you, there is justification for protecting wild lands to be wild. Letting nature do her thing. People have to realize that means no wild fire suppression, no improvements, no biological management, the whole deal. Not a semi-wild conserved state as they've become but truly held as a refuge for the non-human world akin to being a living museum.
With respect to mountain bikes, the original law did not anticipate them in 1964 and the mechanical exclusion itself meant something different I believe. So if we're going to protect lands in this way we must clarify that you either get technology's assistance or you don't. How is a bicycle any different than GPS navigation, ultralight tents, portable stoves, pack saddles, vinyl river rafts (which honestly bare little resemblance to the ones Abbey and Newcomb floated on) or high tech boots? You're using manmade machines and materials to ease your access.
Therefore, I think in the 21st Century the rules needs to be amended to better define the layers of protection and add an intermediate one above Wilderness to allow human-powered endeavors, recognizing the distinction between power source and machine.
True Wilderness should be left for genuine protection, give it real meat to insulate an ecosystem from human effects. Not as a backdoor way to cater to special interests for or against energy extraction, which is ultimately what all the manipulation is about. Livestock, recreation, watersheds, development are impacted preferentially and the problem is just as you mention, exceptions are written and land is swapped to political favor so locals and users get steamrolled by the horse trading of people a thousand miles away that likely never have nor ever will have visited the places they are using as pawns.
Buliwyf
Viking with a Hammer
Horses ruin trails more than mountain bikes. Hoof prints run deep. And they bring in horse flys which absolutely ruins any hikers day. No bikes should mean no horses. Foot traffic only.
I suggest adding single track in places where it has minimal impact. Mtb'ers generally include their own trail maintenance crews. I've never, ever seen equestrian yuppies maintaining any trail, or clearing up their giant piles of crap everywhere.
We need more people in the wilderness, in reasonable areas, on reasonable low impact trail. I'm not saying we should run over eagle eggs or anything, but there are reasonable ways to route trails to minimize impact and maximize fun. No people in the wilderness, equals no people caring about the wilderness. In my experience, mtb and horse trails can be made, well, in crappy areas of the wilderness that are already compromised by fire roads, power lines, gas lines, and such.
Kind off a ''zoo or sea world effect''.
And of course the timeless result of closing trails, without making alternatives. People are going to ride and hike. You can create responsible areas to do it, or they'll do it somewhere else, that you don't want.
Single track takes up hardly any room, and the trails we have in our local wilderness, have pretty much remained unchanged for as long as I've been alive. Big nothing burger, when managed properly. Stopping for a bear, or even a stupid eastern box turtle, has turned many indifferent people into outdoors enthusiasts. And mtb's and kayaks are the most effective means of that. Not boots and horses. I've seen 100 times more wild life from a bike than any other form of travel.
If you close off wilderness completely. No people at all. People like me become outlaws AGAIN. And we'll still be in there anyways.
I suggest adding single track in places where it has minimal impact. Mtb'ers generally include their own trail maintenance crews. I've never, ever seen equestrian yuppies maintaining any trail, or clearing up their giant piles of crap everywhere.
We need more people in the wilderness, in reasonable areas, on reasonable low impact trail. I'm not saying we should run over eagle eggs or anything, but there are reasonable ways to route trails to minimize impact and maximize fun. No people in the wilderness, equals no people caring about the wilderness. In my experience, mtb and horse trails can be made, well, in crappy areas of the wilderness that are already compromised by fire roads, power lines, gas lines, and such.
Kind off a ''zoo or sea world effect''.
And of course the timeless result of closing trails, without making alternatives. People are going to ride and hike. You can create responsible areas to do it, or they'll do it somewhere else, that you don't want.
Single track takes up hardly any room, and the trails we have in our local wilderness, have pretty much remained unchanged for as long as I've been alive. Big nothing burger, when managed properly. Stopping for a bear, or even a stupid eastern box turtle, has turned many indifferent people into outdoors enthusiasts. And mtb's and kayaks are the most effective means of that. Not boots and horses. I've seen 100 times more wild life from a bike than any other form of travel.
If you close off wilderness completely. No people at all. People like me become outlaws AGAIN. And we'll still be in there anyways.
Last edited:
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
But if the designation is changed you can make someone who has done literally nothing different into a criminal overnight.
waveslider
Outdoorsman
Couldn’t agree more. The thing that rubs me raw is people weaponizing wilderness to shut out other users- not just corporations. If they don’t want drilling, then let’s just say “we don’t want drilling here” but still allow roads to stay open, and full public access. This push to make everything wildness but then just list the exceptions you want (cattle, bikes, horses, etc) is bullsh#%