Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 58
  1. #1
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596

    Would you class mountain bikes low or high impact for the forest/bush environment?

    I read a lot of talk that mountain biking is high impact for the forest and bush and i dont agree.
    I can see and agree that dirt bikes, quad bikes and 4wd are high impact, but there is no way in my opinion that standard Mountain bikes being ridden along trails is high impact to the environmental side of things.
    I agree that unthoughtful trail building and guys going in ripping up the forest to make a trail is not good and could be classed as high impact, but standard bike tracks cause not alot of damage imo.

    When we have loggers logging virgin forests, companies polluting rivers that run through them, mining, a couple of bike tracks that enable people to get in to the forest and love and appreciate it its hardly high impact, i think horses have a higher impact than MTB riding.

    Id be interested to hear your thoughts to see if you think mountain bikes have a high or minimum impact to your local environment? and whether you think authorities are fair or to harsh in limiting the use of bikes in your local area, in Sydney mountain biking is not allowed in many of our national parks which i dont agree with.

    So fellow bikers, high impact, medium, low, no impact? interested to hear your thoughts?

    Cheers from Oz
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,147
    In the USA, mountain biking is also not allowed in most of the Natl Parks.

    Anything with a motor is going to have more impact than something without. Bike wheels and horse shoes will have more impact than human feet.

    The key is having organizations that periodically go through and repair/maintain the trail systems. Therefore, I believe that bicycle wheels are mostly low impact on the trails systems comparatively.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,543
    Depends on the trail. We have trails here that shut down when a single raindrop falls from the sky, and others that remain open thru out the year, rain or shine.

    Reasons for this are completely legitimate.

  4. #4
    undercover brother
    Reputation: tangaroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    877
    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    Depends on the trail. We have trails here that shut down when a single raindrop falls from the sky, and others that remain open thru out the year, rain or shine.

    Reasons for this are completely legitimate.
    I agree. There are also the a$$hats that leave trash in the woods, scare off any wildlife they encounter, and will tear the hell out of a trail in muddy conditions - all with no regard that they are having an impact on the environment. Of course, luckily, that is most likely a very small fraction of our kind.

    One thing a lot of people do not realize is our sport is an appreciation of the environment (man vs nature). Unfortunately, a few bad apples can really ruin it for everyone.

  5. #5
    Tough Guy Extraordinaire
    Reputation: Shmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    592
    This is a pretty subjective question and your answer depends on who is answering the question. Ask a hiker or bird watcher and I bet they say 'Yes, mountain bikes are hard on the environment.' Ask a moto, and they will say 'no.' Everything we do has some sort of impact, just depends on what you find to be an acceptable level.

    Also depends on the amount of traffic. Here is an example. I used to climb at this local area in college. Three or four days a week. Over a three year period, it exploded as a place to mountain bike. People had riden there for years, but for some reason it was all of a sudden the 'hip' place to ride. Within a year, the place was trashed! Narrow single track evolved into wide rutted trails all everywhere. The point is, the place was fine for a long time, but there was a breaking point as to how much traffic it could heal from.

  6. #6
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    some really interesting thought here guys, and yes my question was pretty general, but you guys have pointed out a few things that i didnt factor in to the thread, cheers n keep the great responses coming
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    I read a lot of talk that mountain biking is high impact for the forest and bush and i dont agree.
    I can see and agree that dirt bikes, quad bikes and 4wd are high impact, but there is no way in my opinion that standard Mountain bikes being ridden along trails is high impact to the environmental side of things.
    I agree that unthoughtful trail building and guys going in ripping up the forest to make a trail is not good and could be classed as high impact, but standard bike tracks cause not alot of damage imo.

    When we have loggers logging virgin forests, companies polluting rivers that run through them, mining, a couple of bike tracks that enable people to get in to the forest and love and appreciate it its hardly high impact, i think horses have a higher impact than MTB riding.

    Id be interested to hear your thoughts to see if you think mountain bikes have a high or minimum impact to your local environment? and whether you think authorities are fair or to harsh in limiting the use of bikes in your local area, in Sydney mountain biking is not allowed in many of our national parks which i dont agree with.

    So fellow bikers, high impact, medium, low, no impact? interested to hear your thoughts?

    Cheers from Oz
    Low impact, more than skiing less than hiking.....of course something low impact done be a lot more people increases the impact....

    Cows are really bad, then ATV's, dirt bikes, then ridden horses, than hikers, than bikers.

    I guess big four wheelers in the mud are the worst.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: elcaro1101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    506
    Low - As other have said it depends on the trail and its erosion characteristics. But overall I think biking has a low impact overall.

    This IMO is the most damaging thing people do on the trails where I ride.

    IF YOUR NOT GOING TO PUT IT IN THE TRASH, DON'T BAG THE ****!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Would you class mountain bikes low or high impact for the forest/bush environment?-number2.jpg  


  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    602
    I would consider it low impact. In a natural forest game trails run all over the place. You don't hear the environmentalists complaining that the deer are mucking up their forest. Trash is a problem, but it can be picked up. Trails widening into rutted or sandy areas as Shmack mentioned is also an issue, but it can be mitigated and let's be honest here - if you left it alone for a decade, plants would be growing all over it again. It's not permanent damage.

    jeffscott, I think you meant more than hiking, less than skiing?

  10. #10
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by elcaro1101 View Post
    Low - As other have said it depends on the trail and its erosion characteristics. But overall I think biking has a low impact overall.

    This IMO is the most damaging thing people do on the trails where I ride.

    IF YOUR NOT GOING TO PUT IT IN THE TRASH, DON'T BAG THE ****!
    LOL, Yep its quite unbelievable that people put an organic thing like dog **** in a bag then discard the plastic bag in the bush, the mind boggles
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SpecializedWindsor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    110
    I would consider it low impact, but I agree with others here that it depends on the trail's traffic. The main problem in my neck of the woods comes from hikers - they DON'T give a d@mn about the environment at all - well, at least most of them don't. They litter all over the place despite the numerous trash cans placed throughout the park. And hikers are considered "low impact"! Makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by tangaroo View Post
    ...One thing a lot of people do not realize is our sport is an appreciation of the environment (man vs nature). Unfortunately, a few bad apples can really ruin it for everyone.
    Best line said here.
    Last edited by SpecializedWindsor; 08-27-2012 at 10:06 AM. Reason: typo
    "Be prepared, not scared"
    ~Cody Lundin

    "What is stronger, fear or hope?"
    ~Lance Armstrong

  12. #12
    Trail Connoisseur
    Reputation: RIVER29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by elcaro1101 View Post
    IF YOUR NOT GOING TO PUT IT IN THE TRASH, DON'T BAG THE ****!
    I started a thread about this a couple of months ago, on my ride yesterday I must have saw 25 bags stashed all over the place. What the hell is wrong with people?

  13. #13
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,122
    any conversation about impact is relative.

    you have to have a basis for comparison if you're going to make a comparison.

    what is the basis for comparing the impact of mountain biking?

    impact of mountain bikes on a trail is generally regarded as similar to hiking in degree, but different in type. the studies I've read look at general use trails, not special purpose FR, flow, or DH trails. the construction of a trail is likely to have a greater impact than the continued use of it. but that impact is temporary.

    it's all going to depend on the management goals of the agency. now, in many cases the impact of mountain bikes is poorly understood and land managers have a prohibition in place based on outdated information or incorrect information. showing them the correct information can result in policy changes but depending on the entrenched interests involved, that can take a VERY long time.

  14. #14
    see me rollin, they hatin
    Reputation: NicoleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,618
    lowish i guess. I work for an environmental company, and some of it involves water drainage and erosion. But when i think of a big forest with some single-track snaking through, i have a hard time imagining the actually small area that a trail makes up, strongly affecting an entire forest...unless of course, it affects water drainage in some way. i'm sure in most cases it doesnt. Around here, when a trail gets too messy, they block and divert it.
    fap

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,369
    Already proven that bikes have similar impact to hikers. The only place it's high impact is on crytobiotic soil but a shoe on the same soil does similar damage.
    Some idiots claim bikes are high impact but they won't mention logging, horses or quads.
    Google the Pacific Crest Trail and search mountain biking and see the BS that is on the site, if you wanna get angry. They show a 30' line in the mud that the writer claims is trail damage by a mountain bike but just a few riders or hikers would erase the tiny trench. Of course it doesn't show any hoof prints. Looks more like a cyclocross bike tire to me.
    agmtb

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,891
    It depends a lot on the individual rider. It can be very low impact IMO but can also be the opposite. Generalizations thrown out regarding hikers are the exact same ones I've heard about mountain bikers. One should be careful, glass houses and such.

    Low impact, more than skiing less than hiking....
    I hope you are joking about that, because entire mountain tops are cleared for runs. Fun though

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,814
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post



    I hope you are joking about that, because entire mountain tops are cleared for runs. Fun though
    I was refering to XC skiing, around here the trails are open to horses, bikes, and in the winter skiis....

    Actually the whole area is open to these uses, you can go whereever you want, on XC skiis there is almost no damage at all, once the snow melts.

  18. #18
    Brake. Fix. Repeat.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Medium.

    We fall right in between hikers and horses, but we scare both parties more often than they scare us.

    Cars/SUVs/Quads etc are very high level impact, completely different game and conversation.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,891
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott View Post
    I was refering to XC skiing, around here the trails are open to horses, bikes, and in the winter skiis....

    Actually the whole area is open to these uses, you can go whereever you want, on XC skiis there is almost no damage at all, once the snow melts.

    Sorry about jumping the gun on you. When I think of skiing I think downhill. I used to love XC skiing when I was younger and agree that it is very low impact.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoHeadsBrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,867
    At our local park the trails close to cyclists and equestrians when it rains over a certain amount in a short period. However, the majority of erosion comes from pedestrians. Part of it is that they tromp around when it's wet, make giant mudholes, widen the trail, and make tons of cutoffs to existing trails. But the biggest reason is pure numbers; there are way more people on foot using the trails than cyclists. But still, the local government and "hiker/nature" groups likes to point the finger at mountain bikers.

    Here's an image to illustrate my point:


    That's "Monkey Face" and in my 10 years of mountain biking I've never seen someone ride them. And for good reason, the trails are sh$t, and there are great alternative trails both above and below. But those other trails are a bit more circuitous and walkers tend to take the shortest distance between two points. These trails cuts are made almost 100% from pedestrians, but yet some local groups decry the "negative impact" mountain bikes have on the trails.

    Bikes are very low impact. Just see what happens to a nice bit of narrow singletrack after one full year of closure: it all but disappears. Give it two years and it will be totally gone. People get so bent out of shape about "erosion" they forget what little impact a dirt trail has on the overall environment. They'd be better off spending their time and efforts into removing invasive species.
    "Got everything you need?"

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: swingset's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    344
    It's very low impact, compared to something like a natural occurring fire.

    Conservationists are too extreme, too often.
    "Wait, this thing doesn't have a motor?" - Socrates

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,252
    I think if you stay on the trails you are good. Horses are
    worse and I think hikers are less. However if everyone just
    stays on the trail I think it isn't a problem.

  23. #23
    Flow like water
    Reputation: DavyRay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    711
    If a trail has population pressure, it has to be maintained.

    That is true whether the users are on foot, bikes, horses, or jeeps. The more use, the more maintenance. The more horsepower, the more maintenance.

    I think the IMBA is succeeding because they get it about trail maintenance. Also mountain bikers tend to stay on the trails, and will usually avoid wet trails. That is a big deal. Hikers will hike in all weather. They will widen a trail any time it is inconvenient to stay on the track. Horse people, I just don't get, so can't say.

  24. #24
    Pale Rider
    Reputation: 1of4Horsemen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    240
    I'll say low impact, like others have said it depends on the amount of traffic the trail sees. Far less damage than my quad does. That's why I stick to logging roads when I ride the quad in the forest. TwoHeadsBrewing got it when he said the trails will completely disappear with no use after a year or two. I've seen this first hand in Lassen National Forest after a couple of years even logging roads will be gone.
    With my goldfish shorts swimming around my toes.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    Lower impact than a horse. My bike doesn't crap on the trail.
    And yet horses are allowed in wilderness areas, and my bike is not.
    Things that make you go Hmmmm.
    Your fear of looking stupid is holding you back.

  26. #26
    Suckin wind like a boss
    Reputation: big terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,680
    horses are the worst. regardless of the individual on the horse, its still essentially a "dumb" animal. the rider may be able to coerce the beast into traveling in a certain direction, but i dont believe there is enough control to make the animal avoid wet areas, let alone practice "pack it in, pack it out". horseback riders need to pack some lawn-n-garden bags, a shovel, and saddlebags to carry out the horsesh!t just like a dog owner has to.

    hikers and mtbers are generally, probably equal impact, as far as the educated, experienced members of each discipline. weekend warriors are the ones that do the most damage. hikers that tromp through muddy areas, lazy bikers that cut switchbacks and skid through corners...

    overall i would say mtbers are probably lowest impact, if for no other reason than there are more weekend warriors afoot than there are riding bikes. horses? as long as they stay on the fire roads i really dont care.
    If you arent bleeding, you arent riding hard enough.
    http://about.me/bigterry

    Quote Originally Posted by Hutch3637 View Post
    I don't need sex. My life fvcks me daily.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,252
    After thinking about this for a while I think the mountain bikes are less of a
    impact than hikers for two reasons. First is where I ride I never see bikers
    cutting switchbacks, hikers do it all the time. Second, hikers will widen a trail
    so they won't get their feet muddy.

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation: Mojo Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,095
    It really depends on what part of the country or world you live in as well. In the States. The dessert SW only gets 7" of rainfall for the entire year. A single tire track in the wrong place at the wrong time. Can cause errosion.

    If you live where theres 44"s of rainfall per year. You have to ride some trails when they have wet spots. Otherwise, you'd only get to ride in July/August in 100* humid weather.

    Both parties tend to do about the same amount of trail maint. per year. It's just for different reasons.

    Don't even get me started on the equestrians and hikers who yell "Your not suppost to be riding on the trails after it rains". When it's 80% mtn bikers who are doing the maint and cutting the new multi use trails.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,390
    There was report done about 10 years ago that suggested hiking with packs creates about the same trail damage as bikes (all things being equal). I don't remember who did the study.

  30. #30
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,049
    This topic was analyzed to pieces locally because the Cuyahoga Valley Nat'l Park is considering allowing mountain biking.

    The hikers and eq's came out in force.

    But when all the facts came out, everyone had to agree that mountain bikers have very little impact on a properly designed trail. A trail that, by design, is supposed to be impacted by the users.

    In truth, horses have little impact on a properly designed horse trail. Of course, that trail is wider and requires much more material to be hauled in to reinforce the soil (more construction impact).

    There are pros and cons for bikers and hikers.
    - Hikers move more slowly so they are more likely to disturb local fauna.
    - Bikers seldom linger in an area for longer than any hiker - less impact.
    - A biker's speed may be impactful to other trail users or wildlife - in a bad way.
    - Hiking trails don't often follow current sustainable trail building standards. Some of the older ones can't even be re-routed in such a way (But will they be closed? Don't bet on it.).
    - All new MTB trails have to be perfectly constructed to gain any sort of credibility. Cleveland Area Mountain Bike Association trails have been under a microscope since day one, while other user groups build willy-nilly. Of course this has resulted in some top-quality MTB trails.
    - Hikers go off trail more often and farther than bikers. Can you say geocaching?
    - Apparently all user groups have improvised new (rogue) routes.
    - The hiking and horse groups are not as aware of potential trail damage in bad weather.
    - Some mountain bikers are not aware either, but that group is smaller so their impact is less (but they can travel farther, faster and do more damage).
    - A day use mountain bike trail is necessarily longer than a day use hiking trail because of average user speed. A longer trail has more construction impact.

    It goes on and on.

    Just build your trails right and be courteous and everyone will enjoy their time in the woods for many years to come.

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  31. #31
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,622
    if it is a poorly built trail and people are skidding down it and eroding it then yea. but in general i dont think biking does any more damage than hiking.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SpecializedWindsor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by elcaro1101 View Post
    Low - As other have said it depends on the trail and its erosion characteristics. But overall I think biking has a low impact overall.

    This IMO is the most damaging thing people do on the trails where I ride.

    IF YOUR NOT GOING TO PUT IT IN THE TRASH, DON'T BAG THE ****!
    People do the same thing in my neck of the woods. Only they'll try to put it in green bags if they can and then throw them in the brush so it won't be seen as easily. That and tying plastic bottles up on tree branches drives me nuts. Stupid f#*&^ing people.
    "Be prepared, not scared"
    ~Cody Lundin

    "What is stronger, fear or hope?"
    ~Lance Armstrong

  33. #33

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    945
    Mountain biking is zero impact. Erosion...trail damage....blah, blah, blah. These effects are minuscule and extremely localized; literally of no consequence to the environment as a whole.

    I ride in the Kisatchie National Forest and the trails account for about 0.0001 percent of the forest by square feet. Some sand washes off a trail and the environazis get their panties in a bunch.

    I realize it's not permitted to say this lest we offend the Pharisees but there it is.

    I don't ride muddy trails because I don't want to ruin the trail, not because I'm worried about the environment. It's just dirt.

  35. #35
    'Tis but a scratch
    Reputation: huffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,770
    The hiking vs. biking impact debate goes on and on. Why can't we all just get along?

    I really feel like hiking groups actively try to educate the world about the negative impact of bikes which makes bikers have to work even harder just to disprove it.

    For example: Why does the American Hiking Society need a policy about Mountain Biking?
    Mountain Bike Policy

    Go check IMBA and see if you find a Hiking policy.

    I bike and I hike. I'm a responsible user in both cases which limits my impact.

    Sorry, needed to get that off my chest.

  36. #36
    ready to ride
    Reputation: mattnmtns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by elcaro1101 View Post
    IF YOUR NOT GOING TO PUT IT IN THE TRASH, DON'T BAG THE ****!
    I saw one of these on the trail today. No lie it was less than 20 feet from a garbage can. WTF????? I could care less if you dog craps in the woods. If it happens to do it on the middle of the trail then take a stick and get it off the trail. Unbelievable.

    Pack it in, pack it out. Plastic bags should just be banned everywhere.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    I read a lot of talk that mountain biking is high impact for the forest and bush and i dont agree.
    I can see and agree that dirt bikes, quad bikes and 4wd are high impact, but there is no way in my opinion that standard Mountain bikes being ridden along trails is high impact to the environmental side of things.
    I agree that unthoughtful trail building and guys going in ripping up the forest to make a trail is not good and could be classed as high impact, but standard bike tracks cause not alot of damage imo.

    When we have loggers logging virgin forests, companies polluting rivers that run through them, mining, a couple of bike tracks that enable people to get in to the forest and love and appreciate it its hardly high impact, i think horses have a higher impact than MTB riding.

    Id be interested to hear your thoughts to see if you think mountain bikes have a high or minimum impact to your local environment? and whether you think authorities are fair or to harsh in limiting the use of bikes in your local area, in Sydney mountain biking is not allowed in many of our national parks which i dont agree with.

    So fellow bikers, high impact, medium, low, no impact? interested to hear your thoughts?

    Cheers from Oz
    Mtn bikes are a no impact item, high impact would be natures erosion, see the grand canyon, badlands, mountains. Medium impact would be civilization, and low Impact would be Mining.

    Tire tracks? LMFAO

  38. #38
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Mtn bikes are a no impact item, high impact would be natures erosion, see the grand canyon, badlands, mountains. Medium impact would be civilization, and low Impact would be Mining.

    Tire tracks? LMFAO
    I'll make this a bit clearer, im not talking about natures erosion here with no human help, im talking about erosion that has a direct link to humans and MTB falls directly into that category, and to say that mining is low impact imo is not correct at all, go to the amazon and see the devistating affects to the ecosystem its had there, in fact all around the world rivers and environments have been destroyed and changed by different forms of mining..
    And to say that MTB are a 'no impact' item is not correct either, i agree their footstep is very small, but nearly everything humans do in prestine bushland has an impact, and it could be argued all day about what sort of an impact civilisation has, in the cities its very high..
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Mtn bikes are a no impact item, high impact would be natures erosion, see the grand canyon, badlands, mountains. Medium impact would be civilization, and low Impact would be Mining.

    Tire tracks? LMFAO
    Exactly. This is how extreme the environmental movement has become. We're talking about thin tire tracks that, if they have any impact at all, effect an area a foot or two on each side of the track. Unused trails rapidly revert to their natural state; in fact I got seriously lost last week trying to find the Valentine Lake Nature Trail here in Louisiana that sort of peters out and turns into underbrush. If I'd had a machete maybe I could have made an environmental impact but instead it took me two hours to slog it three hundred yards to the road.

    And no, I don't care if I run over a bug. Screw 'em. They're bugs. There's trillions of them. They don't care.

    The only problem with using a trail incorrectly is that it ruins the flow of a trail. That's reason enough to respect the rules without getting all sanctimonious.

    Stop playing the environazi's game by allowing them to control the debate. They already have you arguing from their position that mountain bikes have an environmental impact and now you're just fighting a rearguard action to determine how much.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    945
    And horses? Love them. My ex has 14 of them. Their manure is 100 percent biodegradable, completely natural, and is only unpleasant from an aesthetic point-of-view. They do no harm to the environment but, again, should not be on mountain bike trails because it ruins the flow of a trail, not because they have an environmental impact.

    I enjoy my rare encounters with horses. I get off the bike so as not to startle them and without exception the riders are polite, considerate, and as interested in my expensive bike as I am in their horse.

    With respect, in some ways you folks are pretty stupid. You have let the zealots define environmentally harmless activities as "having an impact."

    Dude, it's a bike. Stop using the term "impact" to describe what it does. It's not a meteor.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    I'll make this a bit clearer, im not talking about natures erosion here with no human help, im talking about erosion that has a direct link to humans and MTB falls directly into that category...
    When it rains here; and when it rains in Louisiana it's like the end of the world, the creeks are torrents of red mud and clay. The little-bitty, teensy, tiny extra erosion from a puddle on the trail probably adds about a pound or two to the three-million pounds heading to the Mississippi. Oh the humanity!

  42. #42
    Flow like water
    Reputation: DavyRay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Mtn bikes are a no impact item, high impact would be natures erosion, see the grand canyon, badlands, mountains. Medium impact would be civilization, and low Impact would be Mining.

    Tire tracks? LMFAO
    Are you drunk?

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    577
    Mountain bikers tend to be more likely to have workdays to repair trails too. Around here, people are quite active in it. Last time I've seen hikers groups organizing trail work days? Um.. I can't remember one.

  44. #44
    Team Livemedium
    Reputation: bamwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    908
    If you just ride a wheelie or unicycle that halfs the impact right there. Seriously though, you want enough riders to keep the trails from being overgrown but not enough to destroy it. I think.
    Low impact is my answer.
    Keep trying to do the awesomest thing you've ever done.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: B-Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    749
    It would take one hell of a good argument to convince me that a 12" stripe of dirt in the middle of the woods is somehow "impact."

    Or that a teensy bit of extra dirt that might be eroded in the middle of a vast landscape subject to erosion is, likewise, "impact." "Don't throw that match in that active volcano, you'll make the volcano HOT!!"

    Locally, our advocacy organization has been fighting with the feds for over a decade to gain access to a national park (Cuyahoga Valley) which is in a RIVER VALLEY! The entire landscape is the product of erosion, which the river continues in earnest every second of every day. While I think trails should be built sustainably - so they're there from one season to the next - I find it kinda laughable that there's all this handwringing and brow-furrowing about letting people walk and/or ride across the ground without getting government permission in advance.

    BTW: Nothing in the foregoing should be interpreted as support for equestrians or atvs.
    Check out my You Tube Channel

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoHeadsBrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,867
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Mac View Post
    It would take one hell of a good argument to convince me that a 12" stripe of dirt in the middle of the woods is somehow "impact."

    ...
    Exactly! Close off a trail for a year and see what is left. In two years it will be completely gone.

    I heard someone say when this debate sparked up a few months ago that catering to the idea that mountain bikes have negative impact on the environment is a mistake. They have an impact, for sure, but it is not negative especially on a properly designed and maintained trail. If anything, properly designed trails discourage rogue trail building and cutting across existing trails.

    What some people fail to realize (especially in the government), is that increased usage due to mountain bikers nets a positive income. More trail users results in more $$$ spent locally, more volunteers for trail work days, and a greater valuation of nearby property. This provides more money for local and state governments, lowers the work burden to maintain trails, and in general improves people's view of an area where trail work has been done.
    "Got everything you need?"

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SpecializedWindsor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    And horses? Love them. My ex has 14 of them. Their manure is 100 percent biodegradable, completely natural, and is only unpleasant from an aesthetic point-of-view. They do no harm to the environment but, again, should not be on mountain bike trails because it ruins the flow of a trail, not because they have an environmental impact.

    I enjoy my rare encounters with horses. I get off the bike so as not to startle them and without exception the riders are polite, considerate, and as interested in my expensive bike as I am in their horse.

    With respect, in some ways you folks are pretty stupid. You have let the zealots define environmentally harmless activities as "having an impact."

    Dude, it's a bike. Stop using the term "impact" to describe what it does. It's not a meteor.
    Well, I'm probably the only MTBr who doesn't mind horse cr@p (you could even say I like it) because it's great for the soil - it's a wonderful fertilizer. I agree - and I certainly wouldn't want to startle a horse or the rider when coming around a turn at speed.
    Excellent point. I'm an environmentalist (big fan and supporter of the Arbor Day Foundation), but I wouldn't use the term "impact". And yeah, it almost sounds like comparing MTBing to a meteor.
    Last edited by SpecializedWindsor; 08-29-2012 at 11:18 AM.
    "Be prepared, not scared"
    ~Cody Lundin

    "What is stronger, fear or hope?"
    ~Lance Armstrong

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecializedWindsor View Post
    Well, I'm probably the only MTBr who doesn't mind horse cr@p (you could even say I like it) because it's great for the soil -.
    So the next time you have a scratch that gets gas gangrene, and you lose a finger, you'll hug a horse?
    Your fear of looking stupid is holding you back.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,044
    Ailuropoda is right. The supposed negative effects of mountain biking are similar to the arguments about the negative impacts of allowing bolts on rock faces for climbing safety in wilderness areas. Neither issue is one to get worked up about. I say that as a hardcore granola crunching tree hugger. A real environmentalist would be more concerned with adding wildlife habitat than whether or not mountain bikes should be allowed.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SpecializedWindsor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
    So the next time you have a scratch that gets gas gangrene, and you lose a finger, you'll hug a horse?
    Perhaps.
    But good point. Still, I wouldn't just leave an open wound contaminated with cr@p untreated.
    Dog $h*t is was gets me. I despise the stench, the people who walk their dogs and don't clean up after them, getting the stuff flying up in my face and backside, all over the derailleurs, chain, tires, etc. It's as bad as stepping in the stuff and not knowing it until you've walked throughout the house.
    "Be prepared, not scared"
    ~Cody Lundin

    "What is stronger, fear or hope?"
    ~Lance Armstrong

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •