• Previous message: Steve Marriott: "Alps highest hut meets highest environmental standards"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

>
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:02:26 -0500
> To: "Mountain Forum" <mtn-forum@lyris.bellanet.org>
> From: mike vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net>
> Subject: The effects of mountain biking on wildlife and people
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-mtn-forum-39071Y@lyris.bellanet.org>
> Reply-To: mike vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net>
> Return-Path: bounce-mtn-forum-39071@lyris.bellanet.org
> X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>
> Please help keep bikes and other vehicles off of our
> trails! Mountain biking GREATLY increases maintenance
> costs, as well as degrading the environment, endangering
> wildlife and other trail users, and driving both of them
> out of the parks. I don't understand why mountain bikers
> can't WALK, just like everyone else? Why would they be
> given special treatment?! There is no justification for
> allowing VEHICLES in recreation areas. They are
> INCOMPATIBLE with the protection of wildlife and wildlife
> habitat, and discriminate against walkers, because they
> make it very difficult and unpleasant to walk on trails.
> They also destroy the experience of wild nature that most
> people go there to enjoy.
>
> The preservation of our scanty remaining wildlife habitat
> is our top priority. Mountain bikes (and other ORV use of
> wildlife habitat) should be restricted to PAVEMENT!
> Wildlife and wildlife habitat are too valuable to be used
> for a frivolous, destructive sport like mountain biking. It
> doesn't belong off of pavement! Here is the Yosemite
> National Park Bike rule, from their web page (in the
> Yosemite Visitor Guide),
> http://www.nps.gov/yose/trip/guide/ :
>
> "Bicycles (including mountain bikes), in-line skates,
> scooters, and strollers must remain on paved roads and
> designated paved bike paths. They are not allowed on hiking
> trails or anywhere off-pavement."
>
> I think that mountain biking is very unfortunate for the
> wildlife, and for anyone who values the land. I don't
> understand why we would want to devote ANY natural areas to
> such a destructive sport as mountain biking, which not only
> drives out the wildlife, but also the elderly and anyone
> else who goes to parks for peace and quiet and the
> enjoyment of un-degraded nature? Alternating hiking and
> biking may help solve the user conflict, but it does
> NOTHING to protect the wildlife from mountain biking.
>
> We do NOT have to accommodate every destructive hobby that
> people are able to think up. If you WERE so obligated, I
> would ask for equal access for my hobby of bulldozer
> racing.
>
> We can all walk (or use a wheelchair). That is the ONLY way
> that we can all have equal access: restrict park use to
> walking and wheelchairs. Not only does that allow everyone
> to use the parks freely, without fear of being injured, but
> it makes the trails MUCH easier and cheaper to maintain!
> Unless you have an endless supply of money and time and
> people to maintain your trails, you should restrict them to
> MINIMAL IMPACT RECREATION ONLY.
>
> Please make sure that our few remaining natural parks don't
> become open to mountain biking and other "industrial grade"
> recreation. Mountain bikers are pressuring land managers
> all over the world to let in mountain bikes. Such
> recreation is a major threat to our scanty remaining
> wildlife habitat. Park after park has come to the
> conclusion that it is too expensive and dangerous to allow
> off-road biking, as well as destructive to the parks, whose
> ecosystems are IRREPLACEABLE. See also
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
> 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 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 threatened 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.
> ...
>
> For the remainder of the article, see:
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb.htm
>
> ===
>
> 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
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> This is a Mountain Forum global <mtn-forum@mtnforum.org> email list message.
> Mountain Forum website <http://www.mountainforum.org>
> To unsubscribe from this list <mailto:leave-mtn-forum@lyris.bellanet.org>
> Need Help? Contact the list administrator <mailto:mfmod@mtnforum.org>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> --------------0F9A96981AD931BEA3167B1E--

• Next message: Steve Marriott: "The effects of mtn biking on wildlife and people"
• Previous message: Steve Marriott: "Alps highest hut meets highest environmental standards"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]