Question:
% A large part of its attraction is the speed. After all, one of the % main reasons for riding up a hill is to ride down it! But I also % enjoy the workout, which is different and in several ways more % beneficial than hiking. I also enjoy the skill-building and % concentration that it takes to ride down a rock-strewn wash or over a % deadfall. It’s like the challenge of rock climbing while on an % otherwise mundane trail. But isn’t this just expressing the thrill of power in mastering a machine? What’s different from the thrill of the fine touch of the back hoe operator, the steam shovel operator, the chunnel borer, the skilled lumberjack? This thrill it seems to me has little to do with the backcountry experience, and could be experienced on an artificial course.
No, it’s not just the thrill of mastering a machine. It is the enjoyment of the environment in a different way than you enjoy it. Is your hiking simply the mastery of your boots? What does this have to do with the backcountry experience? How does this differ from the thrill of mastering golf shoes or bowling shoes? Also, keep in mind that when riding anything near ‘backcountry,’ downhill speeds probably won’t be very high – riding fast far from help is not a survival skill. Raptor: % I also take time to participate in the hiking aspects. When the trail % isn’t too demanding of my attention, I scan the wildflowers, etc. I % also take frequent breaks to appreciate where I’ve gotten myself. Jim Roberts: Oh, ouch! If that’s all, I’d have to say you are biking in the wrong place. You are damaging too much for the little you get out of it. Scanning the wildflowers is a nice touch. Aren’t they prettier at Butchart Gardens?
Yes, and you can go to your local poster shop to see your favorite mountain/canyon/meadow without the threat of bad weather or insects, and without the possibility of strewing trash all over, so why don’t you go to the mall and stay out of my wilderness? Raptor: % In short, I’m not a thrasher, and any discussion of banning mountain % bikes, regardless of the extent of any ban, should take my kind into % account. Jim Roberts: I can’t figure out what this intends to say.
It means he isn’t damaging the evironment when he rides, because he rides responsibly and on maintained trails. I do too. Therefore, you cannot use trail damage as an excuse to throw US out. It would seem that Raptor believes in responsible multiple uses for wilderness as do I. Raptor: % So don’t forget that mountain bike riders are/were young once, too. Jim Roberts: 95%/ 5% ?
I don’t know, Mr. Roberts, what qualifies as young to you? I’m 30; most of my friends who ride mountain bikes are older than I am. Is this young? I’d say the median age at the Canyonlands Fat Tire festival is close to 30, is this too young? What is the median age of other backcountry travelers? Should we ban anyone younger than you? Older than you? Not born on the same day you were? Perhaps those who WERE born on the day you were? Raptor: % From my above comments, there is common ground. I am, after all, a % hiker too, though not hard-core. And my mountain bike is in many ways % simply a faster way of hiking. Jim Roberts: Oi veh! Mall strollers are also hikers in this sense. And my 4WD Subaru is a faster way of hiking. (and how!) I know a person who was hospitalized and had to have an operation to correct damage resulting from too vigorous mall strolling at Christmas.
To quote you: "This statement is an excellent example of a non sequitur." Are you attempting to make a point here? Raptor: % I don’t propose a major widening of mountain bike access. I think, % though, that National Park trails, with their zillions of foot % travellers, would not be damaged by mountain bikes. I don’t want to Jim Roberts: How can you say this? This statement is an excellent example of a non sequitur. National Park Trails, with their zillions of foot travellers, would not be damaged by ATVs, APCs, M-60s, M1A1s. Same argument.
On the other hand, the trails themselves completely destroy the quality of the wilderness experience when I fly over it in my plane, so why don’t you keep your grubby feet off my wilderness! There is a place for mountain bikers in the American wilderness, just as there is a place for hikers, backpackers, cross country skiers, people with physical limitations, and anyone else who wants to experience wilderness. Our goal should be to limit both the method and number of travellers in each area to a level that can be sustained by the ecology in that area. Raptor: % As for trail damage, since a properly-ridden (in every sense of the % word) mountain bike does not have skidding tires, the only way a % mountain bike can damage a trail more than foot traffic is through % widening. I have seen very sorry examples of this, and something Jim Roberts: This just ignores physical reality. Humans walk by falling forward. Horizontal stress at the contact with the ground is very small. However, bikes cannot move by falling forward, but only by applying horizontal stress where the tires meet the earth. It is a simple consequence of physics that this interaction with the earth is more damaging than that of hikers’ boot soles.
Huh? I don’t know about you, but I push off with my feet when I walk; I can’t think of any other way that would work. By the way, unless you have VERY large feet, you will do less damage to the soil surface on a properly ridden mountain bike than on your hiking boots; bicycle tires are made of softer rubber. Face it, Mr. Roberts, multiple use is here to stay. For those of us who participate in multiple outdoor sports, it is a necessity. There are many places I personally wouldn’t be able to see if it weren’t for some of the "Jeep Trails" in the backcountry; I just don’t have the time to walk all the way from Hanksville into the Doll House. I can, however, drive my Toy truck into the Doll House area and then explore some of the canyons and rock formations on foot. Multiple use – a good idea when managed properly. Wes Peters — #include <std/disclaimer.h The worst day sailing My opinions, your screen. is much better than Raxco had nothing to do with this! the best day at work.
Response:
Gee, if MTB’s were so damaging to the environment, then why did the rangers in some Afican park (I forgot the name) recently switch to MTB’s? Are you talking about the Archeologists who decided that Patrols mounted on Specialized Stumpjumpers would be the best way to guard the area. If so, I think they decided that, with the large area they had to cover, bikes allowed the guards to get around quickly, quietly, and with minimal damage to the surrounding area.
is this based on anything but the Specialized add now appearing in magazines? (does anyone know, is it for real?) robert hamilton
Response:
Gee, if MTB’s were so damaging to the environment, then why did the rangers in some Afican park (I forgot the name) recently switch to MTB’s?
Response:
Excerpts From Captions of netnews.rec.backcountry: Gee, if MTB’s were so damaging to the environment, then why did the
rangers in some Afican park (I forgot the name) recently switch to MTB’s? Are you talking about the Archeologists who decided that Patrols mounted on Specialized Stumpjumpers would be the best way to guard the area. If so, I think they decided that, with the large area they had to cover, bikes allowed the guards to get around quickly, quietly, and with minimal damage to the surrounding area. Long Live the Revolution, Don "…and when I finish, the only fitting exit will be right straight off this fucking terrace and into The Fountain, 28 stories below and at least 200 yards out in the air and across Fifth Avenue." – Hunter S. Thompson
Response:
In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. That is, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that "speeding down a hill" or at least traveling at a high average speed is a crucial part of mountain biking. [Much higher speed than hikers or wildlife creatures.]
As a mountain biker I must admit that I enjoy the thrill of zooming down a hill. And there are places that this is apropiate such as most roads open to autos and not full of hikers. But there are other forms of enjoyment that can be had from mountain bikes that do not require "thrill" speed. I enjoy the feeling of gliding through the forest, seemingly effortlessly and noislessly. On a bike I can cover more ground, through less interesting areas, or just to see a wider varity in one day. And, there is nothing that prevents me from marveling at the beauty of the surrundings as I would if I were on foot. And none of this has anything to do with riding at "thrill" speeds. Most trails in wilderness areas are unsuitable for bikes (or should be unsuitable!). If the trail is too steep, too broken up, or too uneven it is impossible to ride. It doesn’t take a whole lot of obstruction to make riding too awkward to be fun. And I do not want to see the trails improved so I can ride on them. Such supper highways are what are inappropriat in the wilderness. Most hikes I’ve meet are quite friendly. Many are interested or amazed that we are riding our bikes on the trails. Some don’t say anything, perhaps because they don’t think we should be riding our bikes on the trail or road, or perhaps because they just don’t have anything to say. Only one hiker has said I should not bring my bike on the trail. (They were right this time — it was a hiker only trail but I was carrying (over my sholder) my bike along it to bridge between two old logging roads on which bikes were permitted.) Tom Unger.
Response:
[ Hmm, the attack on mountain bikes has expanded today, it seems...] *In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a *"thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. *That is, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that "speeding *down a hill" or at least traveling at a high average speed is *a crucial part of mountain biking. [Much higher speed than hikers or *wildlife creatures.] High speed is not at all crucial to mountain biking. My favorite type of riding is on trails that are so rocky, rough, steep, twisty, etc. that I am not that much faster than someone on foot. Unfortunately these are the types of trails that are getting harder to find (open to mtn bikes). So there are more bikes on the trails that encourage higher speeds and more conflicts between user groups. "higher speeds *Part of this rambling is to try to find some common ground with *mountain biking. Apart from "ego-hiking" [which is fun in the *appropriate times/places], I’m afraid I see none. Ignoring *the physical impact to the trails, mountain bikes in the **real* wilderness (waaay in) disrupt wildlife and are a distraction. *The simple physics of a bike exclude much observing of nature. We like to stop and sit and look around, have a picnic, especially at the tops of hills. A "ride" isn’t all riding. When someone spots something of interest we all stop to check it out. I admit that it isn’t the intense step by step observation that some hikers like to do. *who cite their right to speed will generate little sympathy. I really *have nothing against biking, but it is, at best, a frontcountry exercise. *Using jeep trails and US Forest Service roads is the best *bikers can expect. Unless biking itself loses its characteristic *speed, it is little more than "ecological motocross". I would agree with this for organized races. In the races that I have observed the riders might have well have been racing laps around a quarry pit. But I don’t race, and that’s not the way I ride.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – With some execeptions, I don’t think bikes cause much more damage than hikers when ridden correctly, and certainly cause less damage than horses…. I’ve been hiking some local woods average of once a week for the last 5 years (often there multiple times in a week, so it averages out). I’ve seen mtn. bikes start using the place in the last 2 years. In that time 1) several stretches of muddy trail have been torn to shreds. The "shreds" are distinct linear features — tire treds. The number of hikers has been relatively constant during this period. Not only to bikes do more damage, but bikers ride THROUGH the mud, as they won’t get their toes wet, hikers walk around.
As I said, I think bikes cause somewhat more trail damage than hikers, but much less than horses on the basis of destruction per one use of trail. They are more damaging in muddy conditions. (and walking around the bogs can widen the trail or create parallel trails.) Again, these are strictly antecdotal observations. I’d be stunned if the forest service hasn’t done a study on the effects of bikes on trails by now. After all, it is probably the most significant change in recrational use patterns over the decade. I’ll see if I can hit the stacks this weekend and dig anything more conclusive up… 2) there are half a dozen places where there were barely noticeable old footpaths, barely used. Discovered by bikers, they are now cleared trails, the leaves crushed underneath, an obvious path.
That isn’t a complaint against bicycles per se, but a complaint about overuse. If during the same period hiking had exploded in popularity and the number of foot visitors had doubled, tripled, quadrupled, you’d see a lot of the same damage to your favorite woods. I don’t doubt that in many cases that’s exactly what’s happened, at least near urban areas. Use of a finite number of trails has exploded and the increased traffic causes shorter tempers. The best way to deal with overuse is to reduce access via user fees or a permit system, much as many wilderness areas or national parks have limited foot access in high-demand areas. I don’t begrudge bikers access to the woods, but its simply not being honest to pretend that they don’t wear out trails and make the wilderness smaller.
As hikers wear out trails and make the wilderness smaller. Someone probably hiked in your woods before it had trails made in it, and are not very happy about the increased traffic that the existence of trails has brought. BTW, bikes are banned from all Federal Wilderness areas, an action I think is appropriate. Don McGregor | "When transporting a monkey, don’t let him take
Response:
Mr. Harris, please explain why the St. Helens blast zone is not a great bike ride (but a worthwhile experience) and not an area to hike. I’d be curious. I’ve memories as vivid there as my Tuolumne Meadows experiences (pre- and post-May 25, 1980).
Response:
Excerpts From Captions of netnews.rec.backcountry: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – s.com (Raptor) writes: In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. [...] A large part of its attraction is the speed. After all, one of the main reasons for riding up a hill is to ride down it! But I also enjoy the workout, which is different and in several ways more beneficial than hiking. I also enjoy the skill-building and concentration that it takes to ride down a rock-strewn wash or over a deadfall. It’s like the challenge of rock climbing while on an otherwise mundane trail. But isn’t this just expressing the thrill of power in mastering a machine? What’s different from the thrill of the fine touch of the back hoe operator, the steam shovel operator, the chunnel borer, the skilled lumberjack? This thrill it seems to me has little to do with the backcountry experience, and could be experienced on an artificial course.
Unfortunately, nature can not be recreated on an artifical course. The great thing about riding in nature is that it is never the same. A trail 15 miles long will have 15 miles of surprises, 15 miles of things that only nature could have invented. Man just isn’t subtle enough. A man made course will get very tired, very quickly. I also take time to participate in the hiking aspects. When the trail isn’t too demanding of my attention, I scan the wildflowers, etc. I also take frequent breaks to appreciate where I’ve gotten myself. Oh, ouch! If that’s all, I’d have to say you are biking in the wrong place. You are damaging too much for the little you get out of it. Scanning the wildflowers is a nice touch. Aren’t they prettier at Butchart Gardens?
Huh? I don’t understand. Part of mountain biking is seeing where the trail gets you. Whether this is on top of the Mon, or in the middle of a slag heap (I live in Pittsburgh) the effect is the same- you have exploerd a new place, gotten to a location normally inacessable and probably beautiful to boot, and gotten good excercise in the process. And, as I will say later, a properly ridden mountain bike causes no more damage than a hiker. And, for the record, wildflowers are better. In short, I’m not a thrasher, and any discussion of banning mountain bikes, regardless of the extent of any ban, should take my kind into account. I can’t figure out what this intends to say.
I think he means that you have to look at the entire spectrum. Yeah, there are mountain bikers who see trails as a speed contest. And, there are campers who see the woods as a good place to go and have fun, while using mother nature as their own personal trash basket. Any argument for banning bikers from trails can be reversed – if you are going to protect nature, then how about banning hikers too? I have seen groups of people come into a campsite and destroy the place in a night. Trash everywhere, a firepit left, graffiti scrawled on rocks and trees – irresponsible hikers cause more damage than irresponsible bikers, in my experience. So don’t forget that mountain bike riders are/were young once, too. 95%/ 5% ? From my above comments, there is common ground. I am, after all, a hiker too, though not hard-core. And my mountain bike is in many ways simply a faster way of hiking. Oi veh! Mall strollers are also hikers in this sense. And my 4WD Subaru is a faster way of hiking. (and how!) I know a person who was hospitalized and had to have an operation to correct damage resulting from too vigorous mall strolling at Christmas.
Again, I’m confused. How did this substantiate your argument? Part of mountain biking is getting off the roads, away from diesel fumes, and into nature. I have an especially acute sense of this – breathing air pollution while road biking this summer gave me a three-month case of bhronchitis, and, with the help of antibiotics that were supposed to cure the bhronchitis, a suppressed immune system, leading to a virus that kept me in bed for a week (whew – one breath.) I like mountain biking because I don’t have to worry about drivers who see bikers as targets, about holding my breath every time a bus passes. I can relax, spin away, and enjoy a ride better than any road. I don’t propose a major widening of mountain bike access. I think, though, that National Park trails, with their zillions of foot travellers, would not be damaged by mountain bikes. I don’t want to How can you say this? This statement is an excellent example of a non sequitur. National Park Trails, with their zillions of foot travellers, would not be damaged by ATVs, APCs, M-60s, M1A1s. Same argument.
No – different argument. Trails would be no more damaged by _careful_ mountain biking. Tire-skidding yahoos, yes, but by people who control their speed, yield to hikers/pedestrias, and keep the heroics to a minumum, no. At last check, riding an M1A1 carefully was hard. . . As for trail damage, since a properly-ridden (in every sense of the word) mountain bike does not have skidding tires, the only way a mountain bike can damage a trail more than foot traffic is through widening. I have seen very sorry examples of this, and something [...] This just ignores physical reality. Humans walk by falling forward. Horizontal stress at the contact with the ground is very small. However, bikes cannot move by falling forward, but only by applying horizontal stress where the tires meet the earth. It is a simple consequence of physics that this interaction with the earth is more damaging than that of hikers’ boot soles.
Can you prove this? Horizontal stress on the ground, with a 150 lb person, and a 50 lb pack is large. Larger, I would guess, than the same prson with a 25 lb mountain bike. Alright – I’m going to go out on a limb here. If I remember from Physics, there are two ways to decrease the force of a blow. One is to increase the time of the blow, and the other is to increase the distance the struck object travels. Given two blows of the same force, one from a foot, the other from a tire, the tire is in contact with the ground for a much shorter time. If force is not less, I would bet that the force of a mountain bike tire is no more. We need to make a national effort to decide which trails are hiking trails, and which can take the greater abuse delivered by mechanical contrivances like bicycles.–
It has been said before, and I will say it again. A mountain bike, ridden responsibly, is no more damaging than a hiker. When I ride, I control my speed, do not ride through brush, do no skid my tires, etc. I make a conscious effort to try and preserve what is there. Around here, at least, I see much more damage done by hikers – disfugured trees, trash left behind, bush trampeled – then by bikers. So far I have not seen a biker delibrately scrawl his name on a cliff overhang. Spin and Grin, Don "…and when I finish, the only fitting exit will be right straight off this fucking terrace and into The Fountain, 28 stories below and at least 200 yards out in the air and across Fifth Avenue." – Hunter S. Thompson
Response:
[...] seems. I’m talking about large off-diagonal elements of the stress tensor that bike tires apply but walking feet do not. Shear stresses do more damage than pressure in any circumstances I can think of at the moment. Rather than drawing FBDs and playing with stress tensors to discover _theoretical_ damage caused by mountain bikes, why
Not force balance diagrams! Solve the continuum equations with the appropriate boundary conditions. Then see what happens to dirt when you do that to it. It can even be done in the laboratory. The damage isn’t just "theoretical", whatever that may mean. We all agree that both hiking and biking cause trail damage. What no-one knows is the *relative* damage actually caused per person on the average by the two modes of locomotion, on different types of trails under various conditions (wet, dry, etc.). So we need an objective, quantitative measure of trail damage. I don’t think this even exists. Until it does, and is applied uniformly over a period of time, there will be no really credible data. Meanwhile, we have a perfectly good theory based on Newton’s laws and the known mechanical properties of soils. And we know what it says, don’t we? Now lets go out and get the facts to support it! that found no siginicant damage to trails by bikes. So how about it? Anybody have anything more definite than antecdotal evidence or unsupported theory?
See above. My theory is not more unsupported than Newton’s laws or the known properties of materials. I think everyone has pretty good confidence in these. Of course, they have to be applied correctly. That’s all I ask. —
Response:
With some execeptions, I don’t think bikes cause much more damage than hikers when ridden correctly, and certainly cause less damage than horses…. Bikes can cause damage in some conditions, notably in wet and muddy situations (but then so would hikers). They can cause damage through over use (but then so could a few hundred hikers a day using a trail).
I really tired of seeing this argument. It is bull sh*t. (am I not allowed to put the "i" in "shit"?? Is it like Un*x??). I’ve been hiking some local woods average of once a week for the last 5 years (often there multiple times in a week, so it averages out). I’ve seen mtn. bikes start using the place in the last 2 years. In that time 1) several stretches of muddy trail have been torn to shreds. The "shreds" are distinct linear features — tire treds. The number of hikers has been relatively constant during this period. Not only to bikes do more damage, but bikers ride THROUGH the mud, as they won’t get their toes wet, hikers walk around. 2) there are half a dozen places where there were barely noticeable old footpaths, barely used. Discovered by bikers, they are now cleared trails, the leaves crushed underneath, an obvious path. And, there are even horses in this area. But, they go on a few old roads. Not on every inch of trail they can possibly find. I don’t begrudge bikers access to the woods, but its simply not being honest to pretend that they don’t wear out trails and make the wilderness smaller. chris
Response:
You don’t know the difference between shear stress and pressure, it seems. I’m talking about large off-diagonal elements of the stress tensor that bike tires apply but walking feet do not. Shear stresses do more damage than pressure in any circumstances I can think of at the moment.
Rather than drawing FBDs and playing with stress tensors to discover _theoretical_ damage caused by mountain bikes, why not just go out and do some emperical observations? (maybe that’s my engineering background showing). With some execeptions, I don’t think bikes cause much more damage than hikers when ridden correctly, and certainly cause less damage than horses. A few years ago I was in a bike race at Mammoth that had a mile or two of single track. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of bikes going around the course for several laps over a period of a few days. The single track held up remarkably well. Not many trails are going to see that kind of use. Bikes can cause damage in some conditions, notably in wet and muddy situations (but then so would hikers). They can cause damage through over use (but then so could a few hundred hikers a day using a trail). They can skid around corners (but hikers can cut switchbacks). I suppose the Forest Service has studied this by now, and I seem to recall a study by the station in the backcountry near Santa Barbara that found no siginicant damage to trails by bikes. So how about it? Anybody have anything more definite than antecdotal evidence or unsupported theory? Don McGregor |"Books ask difficult questions, but don’t give
Response:
You describe what are called the Plains of Abraham (next to Windy Ridge). And "old" photo in winter is in the Avalanche Handbook (example of a 5K ft slide running horizontally). Know that area well after shooting lasers for ranging. Never really had many trees even BEFORE, and the purmice was just as hard to walk. <In Portland shortly.
Response:
I grabbed my copy of Fletcher (Complete Walker) Good, huge, thick, somewhat expensive reference. Just some points of information: Evidence: photo the Glen Aulin trail, at this point we see one one, but FIVE parallel paths. … Evidence: Shadow Lake in the Sierra, camping no longer allowed, reason: trash. I was under the impression it was closed to camping due to being beat out and over used.
Does anyone know why Bullfrog(?) lake area (on lake where trail from Kearsage Pass meets the Muir Trail) is closed to camping ? I know it’s a relatively easy backpack over the crest from Onion Valley, and it’s on the way to Rae Lakes (so it’s popular). I was there last Labor day, and even some of the old footpaths along the shore are ‘off limits’, and camping is still prohibited. The way I heard it when I was there 15 years ago is that the Sierra Club took a large group (BMTC???) there in the 50’s and it never recovered. Last Labor day there was warm and sunny. Views were beautiful. There were some other people visible across the lake, but my girlfriend and I languished peacefully on the shore for an hour or so, before having to high-tail it out over Kearsage. Ahhhh… the memories. — Neuroprocessing & Analog Computing Devices Group, FAX 818-393-4540 JPL, M/S 302-231, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena CA 91109 USA
Response:
In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. That is, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that "speeding down a hill" or at least traveling at a high average speed is a crucial part of mountain biking. [Much higher speed than hikers or wildlife creatures.]
"I cannot see" says it all. There are people who enjoy mountain biking as a way of experiencing nature much like hiking. Have you ever seen a biker speeding uphill? Clearly speed is a problem when bikes and hikers and equestians use the same trail. The answer it seems to me is to get people on bikes to slow down when necessary. Rambling deleted… Part of this rambling is to try to find some common ground with mountain biking. Apart from "ego-hiking" [which is fun in the appropriate times/places], I’m afraid I see none. Ignoring the physical impact to the trails, mountain bikes in the *real* wilderness (waaay in) disrupt wildlife and are a distraction. The simple physics of a bike exclude much observing of nature.
*People* in the real wilderness disrupt wildlife. I have not read anything that indicates that one person on a bike is any more disruptive of nature than one person hiking. Bikes don’t make much noise, they don’t pollute and they don’t necessarily cause errosion. Do you advocate closing the wilderness to all people? The point is, if you want to convince me that you have a _right_ to wilderness access, you better damn well convince me that this is more to mountain biking that the thrill aspect.
The basic idea of *rights* in this country is that you have them unless there is a good reason to take them away. It doesn’t make any difference why people want to ride bikes on trails, the idea is that if people are allowed on trails, then people with bikes are allowed. Consider this: if we ban packs from the trails there will be less disruption of the environment because hikers will be lighter on their feet and they won’t be able to go as far into the wilderness. A bike is just another piece of equipment that a person may decide to bring along. What say we bad shoes? Especially those ones with the nasty heavy duty tread on them. The original Americans didn’t use shoes and I bet they also had less negative affect on the environment. Posters who cite their right to speed will generate little sympathy. I really have nothing against biking, but it is, at best, a frontcountry exercise. Using jeep trails and US Forest Service roads is the best bikers can expect. Unless biking itself loses its characteristic speed, it is little more than "ecological motocross".
Where I live (Champaign, Illinois) there are no jeep trails and there is no wilderness. There are only parks with trails. The attitude of people who administer these places seems to be that it is easiest to denigh access. Beware, someday it will be easiest to denigh access to everyone. mark — Mark Washburn UofI Center for Supercomputing R&D, 305 Talbot, 104 S. Wright 217/244-0285 Urbana, IL 61801
Response:
I grabbed my copy of Fletcher (Complete Walker)
Good, huge, thick, somewhat expensive reference. Just some points of information: Evidence: photo the Glen Aulin trail, at this point we see one one, but FIVE parallel paths.
I believe this picture was taken in the 70s, and has been corrected, and the damage mostly (if not all) healed due to re-routing to get the trail off the damp meadow. What happens is people will walk the trail until it wears down to the water line and mud, so walkers start walking next to the old trail and start beating that down. Meanwhile, the old tread had not recovered, and when it does, people use that too… This process continues until you had the 5 and 6 lane "highways". Alot of trail work these days is re-routing away from damp fragile meadows. Evidence: Shadow Lake in the Sierra, camping no longer allowed, reason: trash.
I was under the impression it was closed to camping due to being beat out and over used. Trash may well of been the deciding factor. The really overused beat-out places are easy to identify: you cannot find deadfall for miles around. Time to ban fires from the area, and camping for a time. Shadow is a particularly pretty jewel that happens to be at a crossroad of several popular areas: Mammoth, Donahue Pass, PCT, June lake loop, Mineretts trail loop. I will be seeing first hand what the conditions are. I plan on passing through both areas this season.
| "Bully! Bully!" – T. Roosevelt with John Muir at Glacier Point | | If at first you don’t succeed, redefine success. (Pobodies Nerfect) |
Response:
Mr. Harris, please explain why the St. Helens blast zone is not a great bike ride (but a worthwhile experience) and not an area to hike.
I’d be curious. I’ve memories as vivid there as my Tuolumne Meadows experiences (pre- and post-May 25, 1980).
Eugene, gladly. I’m happy to find somebody reads my rambling. IMHO, once in the blast zone it is not a "great" ride because much of the trail is ash/pumice and other loose material. This makes it hard to ride. Also, there are no trees left, this can make it hot and dusty which also distracts from the ride. Conversily, when it rains, it poors and you get wet, there ain’t no place to hide! For these same reasons, it makes it an area _I_ would’nt chosse to hike in. REMEMBER I SAID _I_ would’nt, not to say that you might not enjoy it. Sandy loose trails make my feet hurt! But on my bike, my tires take the punishment. Therefore, since I would’nt choose to hike the trail, I had a great experience riding my bike there. Also, we were able to ride from Lahar Viewpoint to Windy Ridge and back (25-30miles RT ??) in one day. Many miles of this "trail" is along a gated off road (Forest Rangers/Geotech types drive it) and as such is not a place I would choose to hike. Also, I’m not a speed demon and can’t hike that far in one day. Therefore, I would have to invested a weekend to hike the same distance (I know, others have flamed bikers about this point). For the hiking experience, I would choose some of the area’s around on the south side, where the blast damage was less. I would save the Windy Ridge area for a day when I had my 30′ moter home, towing my 4WD with cartop boat and Mountain bikes so I could blend in with the other tens of thousands of visitor’s in high heel shoes who visit this popular area (please laugh)! For me, this is not a hiking experience. I would hike on the trails which have been set aside for hiking which are clearly posted no bikes. John.
Response:
[...] my stuff: This just ignores physical reality. Humans walk by falling forward. Horizontal stress at the contact with the ground is very small. However, bikes cannot move by falling forward, but only by applying horizontal stress where the tires meet the earth. It is a simple consequence of physics that this interaction with the earth is more damaging than that of hikers’ boot soles. Can you prove this? Horizontal stress on the ground, with a 150 lb person, and a 50 lb pack is large. Larger, I would guess, than the same prson with a 25 lb mountain bike.
You don’t know the difference between shear stress and pressure, it seems. I’m talking about large off-diagonal elements of the stress tensor that bike tires apply but walking feet do not. Shear stresses do more damage than pressure in any circumstances I can think of at the moment. Landau & Lifshitz, Continuum Mechanics, is a pretty good introduction to the subject. This would be a good homework problem for an undergraduate physics course – or, even better, an exam question! 
"…and when I finish, the only fitting exit will be right straight off this fucking terrace and into The Fountain, 28 stories below and at least 200 yards out in the air and across Fifth Avenue." – Hunter S. Thompson
As I was saying… Do try this at home, not in the backcountry. If I cought you doing this out there, I’d be inclined to administer to you the same treatment that Hunter administered to the fox whose habits he deplored. —
Response:
The point is, if you want to convince me that you have a _right_ to wilderness access, you better damn well convince me that this is more to mountain biking that the thrill aspect. Posters who cite their right to speed will generate little sympathy. I really have nothing against biking, but it is, at best, a frontcountry exercise. Using jeep trails and US Forest Service roads is the best bikers can expect. Unless biking itself loses its characteristic speed, it is little more than "ecological motocross". Give me a break! Who appointed you the arbiter of backcountry access? Nothing you have written suggests that you are even remotely qualified.
I am in Wisconsin so I’m on what was hiking/sking trials. I’m on dry trails, ride well (not skiding into turns). I enjoy the speed of the downhill as well as the climb up. I have bike an hour and 1/2 to the trails. Have I done less damage to the environment than the person who drove (in a car) the 20 miles to hike the ski trails? -hard rock
Response:
[ Hmm, the attack on mountain bikes has expanded today, it seems...] There have been several people who mention that it is necessary for hikers and mountain bikers to reach some common ground and have some common experiences. For some bikers, this is irrelevant because they *are* "hard-core" hikers. But, in general, I think the split is due to a difference in psychology. In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. That is, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that "speeding down a hill" or at least traveling at a high average speed is a crucial part of mountain biking. [Much higher speed than hikers or wildlife creatures.] This pigeon-hole partly dooms mountain biking. While there are ego-climbers who try to bag, eg, all 14ers in Colorado in a month, or ego-hikers who try to hike the AT more times than anyone else, these people are not the majority. Moreover, as one gains in experience with backpacking, usually they enjoy the suspension of time more than the traveling over large amounts of space. Sometimes both are compatible, but to really observe the environment that you walk in, you need to go slowly, quietly, with eyes and ears open. [This attitude also promotes a desire to "walk softly" in the wilderness, minimizing impact, and should definitely _not_ be underestimated.] Now I remember when I was "younger", I couldn’t understand the idea of hiking slowly and observing as I would hike. To me, then, the important thing was to hike as fast as possible and get to camp and *then* the fun could begin. Who cares about the things I missed seeing on the trail? But when I got the chance to solo hike, after submitting to some "ego-climbing", I realized that I liked the journey, not the destination, and now I take my hikes as slowly or as fast as I wish to hike, succumbing only to an absolute time deadline. Part of this rambling is to try to find some common ground with mountain biking. Apart from "ego-hiking" [which is fun in the appropriate times/places], I’m afraid I see none. Ignoring the physical impact to the trails, mountain bikes in the *real* wilderness (waaay in) disrupt wildlife and are a distraction. The simple physics of a bike exclude much observing of nature. The point is, if you want to convince me that you have a _right_ to wilderness access, you better damn well convince me that this is more to mountain biking that the thrill aspect. Posters who cite their right to speed will generate little sympathy. I really have nothing against biking, but it is, at best, a frontcountry exercise. Using jeep trails and US Forest Service roads is the best bikers can expect. Unless biking itself loses its characteristic speed, it is little more than "ecological motocross". [Sorry to be so negative, but I just realized today how absurd claims of "holier-than-thou" hikers are when directly comparing the activities. There is no comparison, and thus, no hiker-arrogance. ] –Dale
Response:
Dale Mahoney nicely sums up a number of confusions that those who haven’t mountain biked seriously in the backcountry, as I have, are prone to. I’ll address them one by one. [ Hmm, the attack on mountain bikes has expanded today, it seems...] There have been several people who mention that it is necessary for hikers and mountain bikers to reach some common ground and have some common experiences. For some bikers, this is irrelevant because they *are* "hard-core" hikers. But, in general, I think the split is due to a difference in psychology.
Would but life were so simple. In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. That is, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that "speeding down a hill" or at least traveling at a high average speed is a crucial part of mountain biking. [Much higher speed than hikers or wildlife creatures.]
Lest we all forget, not all the backcountry is steep downhill. A lot of it is uphill. A lot of it is flat. Most of the time I’m riding, I’m going pretty darn slow. My bike is pretty darn quiet, and I’ve seen vastly more wildlife on my mountain bike than I have seen on foot. As for the bit about much higher speed than hikers and wildlife creatures, come on! I’m faster than a hiker ok, but faster than a *deer*?? Faster than a bear on the run? Faster than an alligator? Faster than a rabbit? Faster than a falcon or a bat? Christ! Ok, I’m faster than a salamander, I admit. This pigeon-hole partly dooms mountain biking. While there are ego-climbers who try to bag, eg, all 14ers in Colorado in a month, or ego-hikers who try to hike the AT more times than anyone else, these people are not the majority. Moreover, as one gains in experience with backpacking, usually they enjoy the suspension of time more than the traveling over large amounts of space. Sometimes both are compatible, but to really observe the environment that you walk in, you need to go slowly, quietly, with eyes and ears open. [This attitude also promotes a desire to "walk softly" in the wilderness, minimizing impact, and should definitely _not_ be underestimated.]
I say each to his own. Less marxist that way. More variety, deeper gene pool. Now I remember when I was "younger", I couldn’t understand the idea of hiking slowly and observing as I would hike. To me, then, the important thing was to hike as fast as possible and get to camp and *then* the fun could begin. Who cares about the things I missed seeing on the trail? But when I got the chance to solo hike, after submitting to some "ego-climbing", I realized that I liked the journey, not the destination, and now I take my hikes as slowly or as fast as I wish to hike, succumbing only to an absolute time deadline.
We hike slower and slower, and then we die. Believe it or not, I’ve stopped and sniffed the daisys many a time. And then I moved on. I did this even when I was "younger". And when I was younger even. Part of this rambling is to try to find some common ground with mountain biking. Apart from "ego-hiking" [which is fun in the appropriate times/places], I’m afraid I see none. Ignoring the physical impact to the trails, mountain bikes in the *real* wilderness (waaay in) disrupt wildlife and are a distraction. The simple physics of a bike exclude much observing of nature.
Trails disrupt wildlife. Weather disrupts wildlife. Coyotes disrupt rabbits. Snakes disrupt mice. Hiking disrupts wildlife. Actually, living disrupts wildlife. Not to mention seasons, ets. The problem here is the fact that some humans view themselves as outside of nature, rather than a part of it. Once the dichotomy is achieved, it seems to lead to view of nature right out of Dr. Zhivago. You know, bambi and all that. The point is, if you want to convince me that you have a _right_ to wilderness access, you better damn well convince me that this is more to mountain biking that the thrill aspect. Posters who cite their right to speed will generate little sympathy. I really have nothing against biking, but it is, at best, a frontcountry exercise. Using jeep trails and US Forest Service roads is the best bikers can expect. Unless biking itself loses its characteristic speed, it is little more than "ecological motocross".
Give me a break! Who appointed you the arbiter of backcountry access? Nothing you have written suggests that you are even remotely qualified. [Sorry to be so negative, but I just realized today how absurd claims of "holier-than-thou" hikers are when directly comparing the activities. There is no comparison, and thus, no hiker-arrogance. ]
I believe I have a million dollars, and therefore I do. Terrific logic. –Dale
Russell
Response:
I dunno what kind of Raptor this is, but it’s a more thoughtful raptor than usual. Nevertheless, the author should think about a few things a little more carefully. In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. [...] A large part of its attraction is the speed. After all, one of the main reasons for riding up a hill is to ride down it! But I also enjoy the workout, which is different and in several ways more beneficial than hiking. I also enjoy the skill-building and concentration that it takes to ride down a rock-strewn wash or over a deadfall. It’s like the challenge of rock climbing while on an otherwise mundane trail.
But isn’t this just expressing the thrill of power in mastering a machine? What’s different from the thrill of the fine touch of the back hoe operator, the steam shovel operator, the chunnel borer, the skilled lumberjack? This thrill it seems to me has little to do with the backcountry experience, and could be experienced on an artificial course. I also take time to participate in the hiking aspects. When the trail isn’t too demanding of my attention, I scan the wildflowers, etc. I also take frequent breaks to appreciate where I’ve gotten myself.
Oh, ouch! If that’s all, I’d have to say you are biking in the wrong place. You are damaging too much for the little you get out of it. Scanning the wildflowers is a nice touch. Aren’t they prettier at Butchart Gardens? In short, I’m not a thrasher, and any discussion of banning mountain bikes, regardless of the extent of any ban, should take my kind into account.
I can’t figure out what this intends to say. So don’t forget that mountain bike riders are/were young once, too.
95%/ 5% ? From my above comments, there is common ground. I am, after all, a hiker too, though not hard-core. And my mountain bike is in many ways simply a faster way of hiking.
Oi veh! Mall strollers are also hikers in this sense. And my 4WD Subaru is a faster way of hiking. (and how!) I know a person who was hospitalized and had to have an operation to correct damage resulting from too vigorous mall strolling at Christmas. I don’t propose a major widening of mountain bike access. I think, though, that National Park trails, with their zillions of foot travellers, would not be damaged by mountain bikes. I don’t want to
How can you say this? This statement is an excellent example of a non sequitur. National Park Trails, with their zillions of foot travellers, would not be damaged by ATVs, APCs, M-60s, M1A1s. Same argument. As for trail damage, since a properly-ridden (in every sense of the word) mountain bike does not have skidding tires, the only way a mountain bike can damage a trail more than foot traffic is through widening. I have seen very sorry examples of this, and something
[...] This just ignores physical reality. Humans walk by falling forward. Horizontal stress at the contact with the ground is very small. However, bikes cannot move by falling forward, but only by applying horizontal stress where the tires meet the earth. It is a simple consequence of physics that this interaction with the earth is more damaging than that of hikers’ boot soles. We need to make a national effort to decide which trails are hiking trails, and which can take the greater abuse delivered by mechanical contrivances like bicycles.–
Response:
In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. That is, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that "speeding down a hill" or at least traveling at a high average speed is a crucial part of mountain biking. [Much higher speed than hikers or wildlife creatures.]
Mountain biking is a way to combine my favorite activities: biking and being in the wilderness. (That said, I should say that I don’t venture far into the wilderness with my bike. There’re usually too many obstacles to actually riding a bike far into backcountry.) A large part of its attraction is the speed. After all, one of the main reasons for riding up a hill is to ride down it! But I also enjoy the workout, which is different and in several ways more beneficial than hiking. I also enjoy the skill-building and concentration that it takes to ride down a rock-strewn wash or over a deadfall. It’s like the challenge of rock climbing while on an otherwise mundane trail. I also take time to participate in the hiking aspects. When the trail isn’t too demanding of my attention, I scan the wildflowers, etc. I also take frequent breaks to appreciate where I’ve gotten myself. In short, I’m not a thrasher, and any discussion of banning mountain bikes, regardless of the extent of any ban, should take my kind into account. Now I remember when I was "younger", I couldn’t understand the idea of hiking slowly and observing as I would hike. To me, then, the important thing was to hike as fast as possible and get to camp and *then* the fun could begin. Who cares about the things I missed seeing on the trail?
So don’t forget that mountain bike riders are/were young once, too. From my above comments, there is common ground. I am, after all, a hiker too, though not hard-core. And my mountain bike is in many ways simply a faster way of hiking. I don’t propose a major widening of mountain bike access. I think, though, that National Park trails, with their zillions of foot travellers, would not be damaged by mountain bikes. I don’t want to see mountain bikes permitted in the Uinta wilderness, or the Lone Peak Wilderness (which lies immediately east of Salt Lake City and it within easy access of a bike). Well, maybe certain trails. As for trail damage, since a properly-ridden (in every sense of the word) mountain bike does not have skidding tires, the only way a mountain bike can damage a trail more than foot traffic is through widening. I have seen very sorry examples of this, and something should be done by local bike clubs (yes, I recognize my obligation) to minimize/repair the damage. — Lynn Wallace | I do not represent E&S. Salt Lake City, UT 84108 | Compu$erve: 70242,101 Revenge is a dish best not served at all.
Response:
In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. That is, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that "speeding down a hill" or at least traveling at a high average speed is a crucial part of mountain biking. [Much higher speed than hikers or wildlife creatures.]
Well, excuse me (I’m a Mt Biker/Hiker going out on a long limb here) The above statement is dog doo doo! I lead Mt Bike rides for a local club and we have many rides which are offered soley for the "experience" and not for the "thrill". One example is the Mt St Helens area (remember May 1980 and the big eruption??) we have traversed the blast zone on a trail which was opened for Mt biking. As far as the thrill goes, it is a poor ride. But as for the "experience" it is once in a lifetime! An area that I would not want to hike. Another example; while riding on an all but abandoned Historical Wagon road in the Tillamook State forest (completely burned in the ~1930’s) I approached a herd of elk. I was able to quietly ride up to them and they seemed somewhat curious as to what kind of creature I was. Had I been walking, I felt they would have fled! I have seen this herd repeatedly on my rides, this is an experience! One which some netters claim can’t happen on a bike, wrong-o! Thirdly, we once rode our bikes 12 miles up a road which was gated off and closed to motor vehicles (not to entrance) to BEGIN a ride into a beautiful Alpine area. The road was built into the Alpine area for access by certain Indian groups, who still drive trucks up there in the summer. We experienced a wonderful fall day that I’ll remember for years. I would have never hiked up that dusty road. Again, not a great ride but a wonderfull experience full of beautiful Alpine views. And not a another person was seen! I could go on and on…. So, as a mountain biker, I have experienced things I could have not done while hiking. Also, conversely, as a hiker I have experienced things not possible on my bike. You know, I feel sorry for all those people who have such negative additudes about Mt bikes! They will never (and can never due to their additude) experience Mt Biking, so sad! They do not know what they may be missing. Dale recalls when he was young quickly hiking into camp ignoring all along the way. Older and wiser, he now spends time getting there observing all along the way. Could not the same be said for "young/old" mountain bikers? I enjoy riding slowly for the "experience", but I have been labeled a "creep" and nothing more than a "thrill" seeker because I chose to ride a Mt bike. Several people in our club are "senior" citizens who ride Mt bikes off road. Are they high speed devils sent to terrorize the backcountry? I know they arn’t, and so do you. Would you deny them one last "experience"? Please, don’t label mountian bikes by the actions of a few. Perhaps someday you may get to ride one and have an "experience" and get the urge to ride instead of walk. I hope for your sake, there is someplace other than a paved bike path/road left to ride on. What’s important here is EDUCATING users and SHARING our wonderful resource. Bikes DO NOT BELONG IN DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREAS (by definition) but there are places, including many trails, where they can coexisit. I have met hikers on a trail who said to me "…gee, what a great idea riding your bike up here, I never thought of that! Riding sure would be eaisier…." To which I said, "and more fun too". John.
Response:
(Dale Mahoney) writes: [ Hmm, the attack on mountain bikes has expanded today, it seems...] There have been several people who mention that it is necessary for hikers and mountain bikers to reach some common ground and have some common experiences. … But, in general, I think the split is due to a difference in psychology. In my mind, I cannot see mountain biking beyond the realm of a "thrill" activity, as mentioned and described by one poster. That is, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that "speeding comparisons detailing speed, rambling, etc. shortened.
Slight Course Correction for this discussion (all of us). No I don’t think the issue is strictly one of speed. That’s not my position. I walk fairly fast and I won’t say that a bike "appreciates" less because of his speed. "If any man does not keep pace…" — Thoreau. Once I skied into Ostrander and "the can" has this really neat quote by John Ruskin about the pace people walk. [It's gone now. Sigh!] I grabbed my copy of Fletcher (Complete Walker) for the text of his Law of Inverse Appreciation to add to the FAQ. I found a few other little gems I want to add as well (foot notes). No I think I can equally last a few hikers as well. Evidence: photo the Glen Aulin trail, at this point we see one one, but FIVE parallel paths. Evidence: Shadow Lake in the Sierra, camping no longer allowed, reason: trash. I don’t think it was any one group: hikers, horse people, etc. I think it was a few of each. Fletcher expresses grave doubts about some of the people hiking. Those observations and gems to be added in time. No, I think the issue is "separation." That’s why I described Tuolumne grass without shoes. I thank all those who sent mail on my description, it was just from memory, no photography, I used to live there. The issue is an attitude. Hikers can tear up an area as well as climbers bashing pins, horses hooves, 4WD trucks, bikes, etc. That’s also why I use the term "visitor" and "user." [Still inadequate.] Do we need more examples of bad hiker practices? Can we say the things we approve of today will not be the evils of tomorrow? (No, for the tradeoffs.) Those of us who have "outdoored" for some time have ASSUMED that others take in our values by osmosis. That is not the case (witness the split of the mainstream Sierra Club and the Activities sections, witness this group). I know Muir would have wanted integral. [Would Muir have sued? Not random companies, but YES, you bet.] [Sorry to be so negative, but I just realized today how absurd claims of "holier-than-thou" hikers are when directly comparing the activities. There is no comparison, and thus, no hiker-arrogance. ]
This is a good observation. Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene