Bad. Very bad.
11-17-22, 10:33 PM
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Bad. Very bad.
By my calculation, that amounts to 70,000 + 63,000 + 10,600=143,600 acres subtracted from 200,000 acres of existing Inventoried Roadless Lands. All 143,600 acres of small “w” wilderness will be converted to accommodate motorized recreation and mountain biking, including e-bikes — a staggering loss.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/11...rness-in-2022/
11-18-22, 09:43 AM
#2
With a mighty wind
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,583
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1086 Post(s)
Liked 858 Times
in
487 Posts
I think only the most delusional of mountain bikers can straight faced say that it’s an environmentally friendly activity.
Motorized off roaders cover a lot more ground, faster, with wider and heavier vehicles. It’s a little bit misleading to lump bikes together with the massive impact of the atv and motorcycle crew.
Any loss of designated wilderness is a shame. Sometimes, it’s best to see the world on foot.
Motorized off roaders cover a lot more ground, faster, with wider and heavier vehicles. It’s a little bit misleading to lump bikes together with the massive impact of the atv and motorcycle crew.
Any loss of designated wilderness is a shame. Sometimes, it’s best to see the world on foot.
Likes For rosefarts:
11-29-22, 04:20 AM
#3
Newbie
Yes. I can only speak for Italy and Slovenia, and, while it's true that every niche counts and everyone chooses their own battle, it does seem a bit preposterous to blame MTBing for environmental destruction. Downhill riding, if you climb with vans or lifts - yes, that makes sense; but those who only use their own legs play a really marginal role. Yes, they might contribute to erosion, especially in the most popular areas (so maybe it makes sense to have separate trails for hiking and for biking), but aside from that it seems to me that MTB is actually one of the lowest-impact "action sports", not least because it's really easy to find suitable conditions, so there is no need to travel very far (unlike, say, surfing). It also doesn't involve more infrastructure, at least not in my neck of the woods (ha!), as forest roads are almost ubiquitous - for farmers, loggers and forest guards -, and they serve bikers just fine.
12-01-22, 01:14 AM
#4
Full Member
Thread Starter
12-01-22, 04:14 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 700
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times
in
219 Posts
Can someone distill down what is so bad about the proposal? Making MTB and hiking trails that also allow e-bikes?
12-07-22, 02:11 AM
#6
Newbie
AFAIK this type of protected area is very uncommon in Italy (it basically doesn't exist), and I suppose that is because the country has a much higher population density.
12-11-22, 02:20 AM
#7
Full Member
Thread Starter
Wilderness designation helps preserve the natural state of the land and protects flora and fauna by prohibiting development and providing for non-mechanized recreation only.
Likes For tungsten:
12-11-22, 09:04 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 6,859
Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3221 Post(s)
Liked 2,049 Times
in
1,171 Posts
Mt. biking is likely the least environmentally damaging when compared to horse packing, ATV, ORV, 4WD overlanding. Of all the things the OP article is ranting about, having mt. bikers riding high altitude dirt trails and roads is a reasonably benign activity. As well, the mt. bike community is and has been one of the most proactive at building sustainable trails and then helping to maintain them. The article is on the side of maintaining the status quo, likely horse packing is part of that and that's a worse activity for the trails then biking, but let's ignore that. I can understand opening trails and roads to mt. bike use, also horses, maybe not motorized use, but allowing some motorized is a give back to get the bill passed to see some currently closed area's get opened. I personally think there are enough area's of Nat'l Forest and BLM lands not currently designated as wilderness where additional trails can be built, bike or motorized, that there is no need to open up wilderness.
12-20-22, 06:11 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 700
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times
in
219 Posts
12-22-22, 09:48 PM
#11
Full Member
Thread Starter
Often, mountain bikers insist they are no more disruptive to wildlife than hikers and equestrians, Thompson says.
The problem is that riders travel faster and cover much longer distances than hikers; they tend not to make noise; riders while navigating trails are more concerned about avoiding rocks and trees than being fully attentive to their surroundings, and the way they ride makes their presence less predictable, he says.
If a single mountain biker is traveling twice the distance as a hiker, then it could be argued, Thompson says, that the cyclist is having twice the spatial impact in terms of potential wildlife disruption. And, with rising numbers of mountain bikers and local clubs pressuring the Forest Service to let them upgrade and build new trails, the impacts are hardly benign.
The problem is that riders travel faster and cover much longer distances than hikers; they tend not to make noise; riders while navigating trails are more concerned about avoiding rocks and trees than being fully attentive to their surroundings, and the way they ride makes their presence less predictable, he says.
If a single mountain biker is traveling twice the distance as a hiker, then it could be argued, Thompson says, that the cyclist is having twice the spatial impact in terms of potential wildlife disruption. And, with rising numbers of mountain bikers and local clubs pressuring the Forest Service to let them upgrade and build new trails, the impacts are hardly benign.
https://savemtcanobolassca.files.wor...discussion.pdf
01-06-23, 09:43 PM
#12
Firm but gentle
Mountain bikers leave far less poops per mile in the back country than hikers. Look at Nevada City, more mountain bikers than you can shake a stick at, and the wild areas are doing fine. Some of the old trails are still narrow and pristine, despite having been traversed by tens of thousands of bicycles. I did not read any of the links and have no interest to, I can smell the horse manure from here.
01-11-23, 04:51 PM
#13
Newbie
Wasn't before you and your buddies showed up.
https://mountainjournal.org/mountain...pacts-wildlife
https://savemtcanobolassca.files.wor...discussion.pdf
https://mountainjournal.org/mountain...pacts-wildlife
https://savemtcanobolassca.files.wor...discussion.pdf
That’s a bit simplistic, to put it mildly and kindly.
French and other Europeans, Canadians, (surely Americans also ?) have been trying science instead of opinions i.e. MTB impact on fauna and flora and erosion and water, even.
French Alps, Valmorel Study started in 2017 for a five years period of observations, results should be published this year.
MBF - L'impact du VTT? Étude de Valmorel (73) | mbf-france
Preliminary results : no discernible negative impact but riding during the nesting season should be avoided.
At this stage, it’s a recommendation.
This one explicitly mentions US and Australian studies, but limited to Down Hill “circuits” impact.
Quelle surprise, excuse my french, (not) there are studies also, in the US, unsurprisingly.
How comes Thompson hasn’t done his homework ?
https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.dev..._cle274a13.pdf
Switzerland, Freiburg city official website.
https://www.fr.ch/sites/default/file...tiere-2021.pdf
Canada
“However, there is no evidence that mountain bikers cause greater environmental impact than other trail users. The current research suggests that mountain biking impacts are similar to hiking, and less damaging than equestrian and motorized users.”
https://imbacanada.com/trail-science/
