Are Mountain Bikes EcologicalArchives.AreMountainBikesEcological HistoryHide minor edits - Show changes to markup Added lines 1-72:
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry From: Alan Goldman Subject: Are mountain bikes ecological correct Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 23:29:21 GMT Eric Durbrow writes: >What do people think about mountain bikes and trail use? Do bikes >really accelerate trail erosion? Are bikes incompatible >with the low-impact approach? Mountain bicycles have little, if any, more effect on the environment and trails than hikers, and much less effect than horses do. There is little scientific information available, but what does exist supports this claim. 1: The Kepner-Trego Analysis (U.S. Forest Service Santa Barbara, 1987, updated 1989): "During the past 2-3 years of bicycle use, trails have not shown an increase in the erosion rate." 2: The Seney Study ( Joe Seney, Montana State University, Dept of Earth Science, Bozeman) (Presented at Assn. of American Geographers, 1990 Toronto, Canada): "Results did not show trail damage by bikes to be significant" This study used trails of different soil types and slopes, wet and dry. Horses, bicyclists, hikers, and motorcycles made passes over the trails. Runoff, sedimentation, compaction, and micro relief were measured. Bicycles had no more effect than hikers. Horses, in many cases, were worse than motorcycles. (Rototiller like digging up of the trail, and creating potholes that fill with water, softening the surrounding surface.) 3: A negative declaration of environmental impact done by the Santa Clara (California) Dept. of Parks and Recreation (1989) found the environmental impacts of bicycling on trails to be generally insignificant, and easily mitigated. 4: The Use of Mountain Bikes in the Wilderness Areas of the Point Reyes National Seashore (National Park Service, Point Reyes, California 1984): Flora and Fauna Disturbance: "A few people assert that bicyclists are very disturbing to the wildlife and will trample endangered plant species. EXISTING EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT BICYCLES ARE FAR MORE TRAIL ORIENTED THAN THE OTHER USER GROUPS AND LESS LIKELY TO TAKE OFF CROSS COUNTRY." (Emphasis is mine) So, it appears from this study that the excuse of "protecting the plants and animals" is not viable. Cycists stay on trails. Hikers wander around and stomp things. 5: Finally, there's me. For many years I have built, maintained, and repaired trails, both as a volunteer and as a paid professional. I have worked for State Parks, Open Space Districts, Water Districts, etc. I have run trail crews, and inspected the work of contract crews. I have hiked for over 30 years, was a ski mountaineering guide, and am a long time cyclist. I have a Forest Technology degree, and have studied soils and geology. It is my personal and professional opinion that bicycles do little, if any, more damage to a trail than hikers. They certainly do much less damage than the horses we permit on most of our trail systems here in California. Any damage they might do is easily mitigated by simple, proper maintenance and construction techniques. The same goes for the impact hikers have. The main things that cause trail damage are improper construction, location, and maintenance. To conclude: This is a very controversial topic. Others will disagree, I am sure, with my statements. Review carefully all the things alleged, and be sure to insist on documentation and evidence. If the mountain bicycle vs. hiker issue is to ever be settled, it must be done on the basis of fact, logic, and reason, not exageration, emotion, and fear. |