Force doesn’t give you title to anything. If it did, I could take your things & claim that they were now mine. In some situations nature will overcome man but when man collectively wants to impose its will over a species then man will win out every time. Of course. We are more powerful than any other species. That doesn’t make force RIGHT. You are a hypocrite. You support force when it benefits YOU, but not when it hurts you. Your type is transparent. You are just like a mountain biker. It is the “king of the hill” type of mentality. If another creature can take our land or rights then they have to be able to knock us off the hill. Simple Darwinism, the strongest will survive. I don’t understand why you believe I can’t justify my statements.

Hopefully the above statements will justify me a little more. You haven’t justified anything, only rationalized it. Please take into considerations that what you are requesting is the absolution of a personal freedom. There is no such freedom, just as there is no freedom to kill people. You are deluding yourself. A motorized watercraft is no more destructive to our culture than a group of environmentalists who use a boat to go out and camp in which they use a campfire. We all destroy the earth in one way or another. It is our right as the ruling species. It is also ur responsibility to protect the earth where we can. You contradict yourself. If we have a responsibility to protect the Earth, then we can’t destroy it. One major point that many people forget is that the only thing that we have destroyed is our habitat and that of other wildlife. And many species, driven to extinction.

That is the most valuable resource in the world. We can’t replace any species that has gone extinct. The earth will be here a lot longer than the species of man. I want to protect our habitat and >that of most species but I don’t want to give up some of the luxuries I have. Maybe that is selfish but that is my right. That is force. You have no right to use force. My responsibility is to make sure that my luxuries do not harm other humans and respects the life of other species. Then you have to start by becoming aware of your impacts. You AREN’T! For the record, I have never ridden a jetski. I ride off-road motorcycles (just today I saw a dear on the trail). Same difference. I don’t know which is more destructive. I like the idea of creating a pure habitat. We have zoo’s but they are artificial. However, most habitat is pure. It just involves the human race. Again, I enjoy discussing this issue with you. I hope that I have enlightened you a little. Yes, I understand your rationalizations: “Might makes right”! You have made some good points but so far you have not been able to convince me because you won’t compare your lifestyle to that of a jetski enthusiast. I think that the comparison is important. t only adds fairness to the discussion. I hike. That is FAR less of an impact than jetskiing or motorcycling, which cause much more damage per mile, and take up many more miles.

There’s obviously something very wrong with PhD mentality that thinks just because they have a math degree, it makes them an expert in the destructiveness (or lack thereof, with careful riding) of mountain bikes. Don’t get me wrong, you can be more of an expert in a given field than someone with a degree, but conversely you shouldn’t think you’re an expert BECAUSE of your degree. Go ahead, rip into me for using “conversely” in a mathematically improper fashion. Wilderness, by definition, is nature in a wild state.

There is nothing either wild or natural about mountain bike machines. There’s nothing either wild or natural about MOST of what humans do! Maybe we should impose restrictions–if you travel more than 10 miles from any city, you have to be naked (your “natural” state). We’ve seen your protection: wheel ruts, exposed roots, felled trees, off trail destruction of vegetation, paint sprayed on trees and rocks, vandalism, harassment of non bikers.

Thank you very much, but the wilderness can easily do very nicely without any more of your kind of protection! Replace “mountain bikers” as the object of your hate with just about anyone else who abuses natural settings. There are MUCH bigger problems than mountain bikers! All you seem to pick up on are the few bad apples in the bunch. (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) How’d that work out for you? I still see an awful lot of both auto dependence and road construction. I’m sure you are still dependent on polluting machinery to some degree, unless you live in a little sod shack in Montana and are busy typing your manifesto right now….. I know I shouldn’t feed a troll, but he looked so helpless and ALL ALONE!

A horse will at least render energy back to the environment both during its life and once it is dead, while your bike will only pollute it more. Look at the flabberlip making such pronouncements. What a joke. At least the eunuch has pseudoscience on his side. All you have is unsupported opinion at this juncture. Over populated herds can also *strip* grasslands through over grazing. Now I seem to remember from my elementary geography lessons, that reduced fauna through over grazing can result in excessive wind erosion, removing topsoil and reducing once fertile areas to virtual desert. The horse will stomp around with four hooves.

The weight is equally distributed on the hooves, which exert minimum compaction forces on the soil. On the other hand, your bike is taken on the so-called trails. Your body exerts a much greater force on the tires, which in turn compact the soil. This is not a valid comparison, unless you assume that the horse and a human(+bike) have the same weight, which is of course not true. Horses are a lot heaier. If you were to visit woodland near to myself in SE England, you will see bridleways that are constantly being churned up by horses, that are virtually impossible to navigate by persons on foot or mountain bike.

You will see hoof prints, not bike prints in the faunaless, hardened, rutted ground. Even other birds will benefit from some of the parasitic pests commonly seen on wild mustangs as well as domestic horses (i.e. ticks, fleas, and flies). Can anyone tell me how wild animals will benefit from a bike? Less pollution (I gave up my car for a bike). And a narrow trail through a piece of woodland which plays host to bikers who exhaust nothing but CO2, I’m sure is a lot less detrimental than a road carrying cars which as we know, exhaust evil stuff. I’d rather see a new cycle path than a new road. I think it is wrong and idiotic of anyone to assume that an animal does harm to the environment. Again, I refer you to many documented cases of large herds stripping vast areas of vegitation

The Trek 520 has: drop bars, 28C tires, 36 spoke rims, LX derailleurs, brakes and hubs; non-MicroDrive chainrings, 11-28 cassette, bar-end shifters, 3 WB mounts, mounts for front and rear racks & fenders. Also has a longer wheel base, lower center-of-gravity, lower seat angle, longer chain stays, etc. And there is plenty of room for wider tires if you think you’ll need them. The cassette is part of the MicroDrive setup, but the chainrings are still the big ones, giving a decent range for the road: 11-28 & 26-36-46.

If you like you can do what I did and swap the 7-spd freehub for an 8-spd, giving you either the same range in finer increments or perhaps a wider range (I don’t know exactly what is available offhand.) I find that HyperGlide chains hold up well until you (manually) break them apart. After that I switch to Sachs – but they’re only $14 mail order in US. I still think that the Specialized Expedition was one of the best stock touring bikes ever produced: sealed bearing hubs, bar-end shifters, full braze-ons (three for bottles + lowrider mounts !), and half-step plus grany gearing (same small steps as 8 speed with out rediculous dish or added weight). If I could build up a pefrect touring bike I would not change much from this design. Sounds great, but where can you find them now?

Aside from the hubs and the gearing the setup is similar. And I think I just read something indicating that the concern about dished wheels not bearing out in actual riding. We’ll see I guess – I intend to do some shorter loaded trips first. Just my ramblings… I think when I can afford it I’m going to get a Bruce Gordon frame and custom speck it. It’ll cost a fortune, but it should last forever. Bruce’s bikes look great. But when you can get the 520 for half the price you have to determine if its worth that much more to you. It wasn’t to me right now.

I agree with you 100%, but the problem happens in an area which is closed to dirt bikes and not mountain bikes. Thats the problem (as you said), complants are made and everyone gets group together because libility BS and everyone is banned. Same old story, a few rouges spoil it for everyone. We should work with the motorcycle clubs (they been fighting this battle for a long time) but that snotty attitude is here I’m sorry to say. I have pushed in the past for the Ontario Mountain Ass. to work with the Ontario Fed. of Trail Riders, but was brushed off as a kook who still rode “gasp” a dirt bike. What to do? What to do? I have a imilar problem.

But I wouldn’t callit a problem. I ride one big hill that is frequented by dirt bikes. hill has one trail for both climbing and downhilling (ie climb, turn around, go down) They are very courtesous, and if they come up behind you while you are climbing they will always turn around and go dawn and wait for you to climb and come back before they take to the hill. But the wear on the trail is outrageous. There are GIANT ruts cut in there that are hellish, and make for easy OTB (over the bars). The dirt bikers ride regarless of conditions, so after a rain they are there.

MTBers are vastly outnumbered here, though, and these trails were carved by dirt bikers, so it is difficult to really make a stink, but at the very least it would be nice if they would stop needlessly spinning their tires and riding right after heavy rains. Best answer I heard so far. I think it is in the anti-mountain bikers interest to get us grouped together with dirt bikes. It is a lot more easier to convice some political bonehead that trail abuse issue will be solved by banning anything on two wheels, think of the pollution, think about the noise, think about the farting, think about the libility, etc (I heard it all). Another issue is, you guessed it, libility. Unfortunately over the years we had a few deaths on public lands involving kids and dirt bikes. There has been lawsuits against the township for permiting this activity to take place on its land. Things like this are not easily forgotten (if we get sued, we’ll have to make up higher insurance costs with increased property tax). Once again everything is blanketed with ban anything on “two wheels”.

Karen did mention that the snake needs to stay under cover, to avoid being seen by predators. That would seem to imply that the roads are harmful, and inhibit the snake’s movement. Indeed, only a few of her sightings were of snakes that had crossed a road (“trail”). I hiked the Quarry Trail Monday and found a young whipsnake in grass that had grown up on the trail. If I had been on a bike, I could easily have killed it (or its prey, a fence lizard), without even knowing it.

Animals need “wildlife corridors” that allow them the same access to the resources they need that we assume is our right. The  areas indicated in the LUDP aren’t large enough to hold long-term viable populations of whipsnakes. In fact, the area of Tilden studied by Ms. Swaim isn’t even one of your designated areas, although it is prime whipsnake habitat. Clearly, you don’t even know where the snakes are, so there is no way you can protect them! And without monitoring the snakes, you have no way of knowing whether their population is increasing or declining, nor whether your (“non”) management is helping or harming them.

There are no corridors designated, and there is no way for the snakes to safely cross Wildcat Canyon Road or South Park Drive. The “human playground” theory of park management currently in vogue in the EBRPD, that believes the parks exist only to pleasure humans, is moving in exactly the wrong direction. It teaches people (nonverbally — the most powerful form of education) the false idea that we are not dependent on other forms of life, and that treating them like property is okay. The Steam Train and its huge parking facilities teach children that a train is a toy that you drive to. Allowing visitors free rein throughout the entire park, even in the habitat of threatened species, teaches them that wildlife really don’t matter. If bicyclists are bored with riding on roads, just give them the habitat of our threatened species! Of course! The logical conclusion of this policy is a park without wildlife, containing only species that we choose to allow to be there. Such a place would be totally predictable, and hence of no value as a park. The reason we have set aside pieces of nature is

The general conclusion from the material reviewed here is that the focus of attention on mountain biking impacts should be on the social perception aspects. Although mountain bikes clearly do have physical impacts on tracks, these did not appear to be of any greater significance than those from other track users, despite the general perception to the contrary. And, although safety concerns were also commonly highlighted, the problem related more to apprehension about what might happen rather than concern based on any inherent danger, or an established record of incidents.

The real difficulty faced by managers making provision for mountain biking opportunities, lies in addressing the recreation conflict issues that arise. Based upon this general conclusion, assuming that managers are considering what opportunities for mountain biking may be available, and recognising that some tracks will not be suitable for mountain biking, a number of more specific suggestions for management and research consideration can be proposed.

These are noted briefly below. (i) Managers should note that when considering making opportunities available for mountain biking, rider preferences for riding conditions are diverse. As riders gain in experience, their setting and experience preferences appear to move more towards opportunities characterised by natural settings, challenge, variety, and single-track riding. Rides characterised by these features are likely to be more difficult, and use numbers correspondingly lower. (ii) The significance of assessing use-impacts on tracks needs to be reconsidered, as it is not established that mountain bikes have any greater impact on tracks than do any other non-motorised activities (e.g., walking, running, tramping, horses etc,). Also, actual impacts upon tracks represent more of a management maintenance concern than a significant impact on the environment.