|   i wonder if those anti-mtb people would ever read this..... | weather
Oct 3, 2002 5:13 PM | | when i was doing research for my project i ran into this dissertation:
Title: AN EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACTS OF HIKING AND MOUNTAIN BIKING ON DECIDUOUS FOREST VEGETATION AND SOIL
Abstract: Hiking and mountain biking were experimentally applied in a deciduous forest near Orangeville, Ontario to compare the impacts of each activity, at a variety of use intensities (0-500 passes) on vegetation and soil in 4 m by 1 m treatment plots. Measurements were made before and two weeks after treatment application. Following 500 passes of both activities, 100% of above-ground vascular plant stems were dead or damaged, and all species were observed as dead or absent. In addition, the amount of mineral soil exposed increased by 54%, and trail depth increased by 1.7 cm. In most cases, there were no significant differences between the effects of hiking and biking activity on the measured variables. These results imply that, at similar use intensities, the short-term impacts of hiking and mountain biking should not be expected to differ greatly in a deciduous forest habitat.
ISBN: 0-612-33283-7 |
| The Art of interpetation... | JmZ
Oct 3, 2002 6:25 PM | | First I want to state that I'm a biker, and I'm firmly in this camp.
Now... the environmental groups will do one of several things to such a study. It's a lot in how stuff is read.
Much like political campaigns. (We've locally got one contender saying the incumbent voted for all sorts of trivial bills. He's making his points assuming that no one is going to research the house bills and see that the real bills were to keep the government running, get road improvement funds for the state, etc and the others were riders.) But I digress, back to topic.
1) Ignore it.
2) Claim that it is propaganda from a researcher who is a mountain biker first then a scientist. Much like studies from the oil industry in ANWAR.
3) Use it as support that we should reduce the amount of traffic to that 4m X 1m patch and the best way to do that is to eliminate biking, since those users are there in greater numbers, and can travel further.
4) Claim that it is flawed logic. Just because X causes damage, and Y causes the same, or less, we should allow both. We really shouldn't allow hiking or biking, but since that isn't going to happen we should make sure that bikes don't get any new access and this PROVES that bikes DO have an impact.
On a per instance case on a well designed trail a bike will not have any more impact upon a trail. The problems start when there are limited areas to access thus conjesting traffic (foot, horse, bike, bulldozer, whatever...) on a small area that can't handle the overall stress. I think that's one of the best arguments for increasing available trail open to biking, but I doubt many of the HOHA's are going to agree.
JmZ |
| |
