isiw@druri.UUCP (10/12/84)
>From **NSC** Thu Oct 11 17:15 MDT 1984 >From **NSC** Thu Oct 11 17:15 MDT 1984 forwarded by **NSC** >From dht Thu Oct 11 17:17 MDT 1984 remote from druxq Status: R > ...there are long, flat trails along river valleys that would be > candidates for such transportation [mountain bikes]. Erosion would > be minimal, foot traffic is low since the trails are pretty darn > BORING [emphasis added] compared to those on more mountainous terrain... 1. "River valleys" - yeah, right. Why do you think they call 'em "MOUNTAIN bikes"? 2. "BORING" - the only assumption one can draw here is that if you were such a dim bulb as to buy a mountain bike in the first place ("Hey, Jim Bob, where's the durn motor on this thang?"), then you won't have enough snap, crackle, pop to realize that it's a "boring" trail ("Yeehah! That shore is some purty mud over thar! An' look at th' size a them skeeters! Shore are a sight fer sore eyes!"). Your prejudices are showing... 3. "Erosion would be minimal" - D+, Failed To Show Work. I have yet to see anything other than conjecture and hearsay on the damaging effects of mountain bikes on the environment. Facts, gentlemen, facts. Just assuming that they're like jeeps and dirtbikes only illuminates an underlying bias. There's an old saying - "Don't knock it 'til you tried it." If you guys spent a day on a mountain bike I think you'd be more understanding and a little less itchy on the trigger. Sigh. Davis Tucker ATT-IS Denver, CO
harris@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/14/84)
I hear this "more study is needed" line far too much these days. It seems to be a common cry among the anti-environment group at the White House, too. While there is rarely any argument that more information would help with a decision, to take NO action until EVERYTHING is known about a subject is utter stupidity. (As used by the White House, it is a deliberate delay tactic). If a semi-trailer is on the verge of running you over, do you jump out of the way, or is more study needed? After all, the precise extent of your injuries, the probability that you will be killed, etc, etc. is not precisely known. Enough is known about the damage that hikers do to fragile mountain environments to warrant action to try to minimize that damage (ie. public education programs that emphasize staying on trails, low impact camping, etc., and wilderness planning efforts that consider the impact of cutting a trail to concentrate foot traffic vs. not doing same, etc.). And that is just for hikers, who have a lot of control over each foot step! Plenty is known about the damage that dirt-bikes (ie. motorized) do, too. To assert that bicycles are so vastly different from either of these two that none of this knowledge is at all relevant is absurd. Instead of doing nothing until someone precisely identifies all aspects of the damage that ATBs do (akin to closing the barn door after the cows have gone), it would seem that the logical thing to do would be to ban ATBs from fragile environments except at selected experimental sites, where their impact could be studied. If, and not until, such studies show that ATBs do not have a significant impact on such environments, or that some method can be devised to reduce that impact to an acceptable level, then they can be allowed in more such areas. In this way, we can protect our fragile areas. Most people don't seem to realize just how fragile some of the mountain environments are. Soil is a precious commodity there, and plant growth is extremely slow. Some plants only grow an inch in a CENTURY, and bloom only every 50 years. This is a far cry from your average back yard garden, and is much of the reason that people are so concerned. Jon Harris harris@uiucdcsb