|
From: Steve Marriott (s.marriott@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 17:20:15 GMT
Next message: Steve Marriott: "the effects of mtn biking on wildlife and people"
>
> Mike,
>
> I shall declare from the start that I am NOT a mountain
> biker and have no burning desire to leap to their defence -
> but I am sure that your discussion on Mountain Bikers (for
> I think this is about bikers and not particularly about
> bikes whatever you say), has a number of flaws.
>
> Firstly, lumping mountain bikes together with ORV's is
> nonsense. The mechanical stresses laid upon the soil by an
> ORV and by a bicycle are not compatible in any way. Some
> simple research into the physical damage of both/either
> would confirm that - and there is excellent work done on
> such - a good place to start would be Liddle's "Recreation
> Ecology" book (Liddle, M.J., 1997, Recreation Ecology : The
> ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism.
> Chapman & Hall, London). A common misconception is to lump
> mountain bikes with ORV's - they both have wheels, but
> there are significant differences between wheel load
> bearings and power, since mountain bikes are lightweight
> and non-motorised.
>
> Ditto for environmental disturbance. To say that mountain
> bikers disturb wildlife to the same extent as a motorised
> ORV (including a motor bike) is unfair. As is the
> assumption that they disturb wildlife MORE than walkers.
>
> There is no evidence, either, that mountain bikers widen
> paths or trails more than walkers. This is not, however,
> true of horse riders. Horse riding does widen tracks. A
> sociological phenomenon is that mountain bikers tend to
> ride in strings - one after the other and horse riders tend
> to ride side by side. Finally, much is written about
> conflicts occurring between bikers and other users - this
> is for the most part anecdotal and more perceived than
> real. There are few documented cases of actual physical
> conflict, (in the UK at any rate!)
>
> Having said all that, I am not saying that Mountain Bikes
> have NO impacts, nor in fact, if I may contradict myself
> slightly, am I saying they have the same impacts as
> walkers. The KEY distinction between the physical impacts
> of mountain biking and other non-motorised trail activities
> (e.g walking, running, horse riding) lies in the unique
> effects of wheels on surfaces, relative to those arising
> from trampling of feet. Many people have done work on
> this,(see for instance; Holmes 1979, Kuss 1983, Quinn 1980)
> - but significantly two pieces of research (Weaver & Dale
> 1978 and Bayfield 1973) both find that walking downhill has
> significantly more impact than riding (mountain bikes) down
> hill. So the impacts of mountain biking are DIFFERENT than
> walking - not necessarily MORE damaging than walking. Thus
> - it is where there are multi-use trails that we have the
> cumulative effects of mountain biking AND walking.
>
> I am not convinced that the argument against mountain
> biking is one which stacks up on the "damage to the
> environment" front. I put forward the idea (as I did at the
> beginning), that this whole issue is a "social perception"
> thing, rather than an "environmental damage" thing.
>
> Conservation by banning Mountain Bikers is the wrong
> answer. Far better to allow enlightened access and promote
> peaceful co-existence - (see Hunn 1991)
>
> Regards
> Howy Wilson
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> 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>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> --------------C59753F3213A468580443D25--
|
