Re: The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
> Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> May 31, 1997
>
> Mountain biking is a relatively new sport. According to a
> mountain biking (MTB) web page (http://www.mtb-bike.com), "The
> commercial Mountain Bike evolution didn't start until 1974 and its
> first production bikes didn't appear in stores until about 10 years
> later". (Lower gearing, fat, knobby tires, sturdier construction, but
> particularly the sealed bearing -- which could be ridden in dirt
> without getting destroyed -- are what made "mountain" (off-road)
> bicycling possible.) Partly for this reason, and partly because the
> MTB is, from one point of view, just a special case of an ORV
> (off-road vehicle), environmentalists and scientists have been slow to
> study and recognize the special threat that the mountain bike
> represents to wildlife. Although there are many studies of ORVs, I am
> not aware of any solid scientific studies specifically on MTBs and
> their effects on wildlife.
>
> To most environmentalists, bicycles have always been the
> epitome of good. We are so used to comparing bikes to cars, that it
> never occurred to us that the bicycle would be ever used for anything
> bad. Indeed, replacing motor vehicles with bicycles deserves our
> adoration. But anything can be used for good or evil, and using bikes
> to expand human domination of wildlife habitat is clearly harmful.
>
> Human beings think they own every square inch of the Earth,
> and that they therefore have the right to do what they want with it.
> This is, of course, absurd. It is also the reason that we are losing
> species at an unforgivable rate: we have crowded wildlife out of its
> habitat. Even in our parks, where we have vowed to protect wildlife,
> it is not protected from hikers, equestrians, park "managers",
> firefighters, mountain bikers, airplanes, helicopters, cars, roads,
> concessionaires, or biologists. Thus, the primary reason that mountain
> bikes are harmful to wildlife is that they, like other technological
> aids (cars, skis, rafts, rock-climbing equipment, etc.), make it much
> easier for people to get into wildlife habitat.
>
> (Sadly, most people have forgotten that the only thing that
> makes parks worth visiting is the wildlife that live there: it is
> precisely the wildlife (and paucity of humans) that make a park a
> park. Without wildlife (i.e., all nonhuman, nondomesticated species --
> plants as well as animals), the parks would be boring piles of bare
> rock.)
>
> Biology
>
> First and most obvious, mountain bikes kill organisms that
> live on and under the soil: "When it comes to pure recreational
> destructiveness, ... off-road vehicles (ORVs) far surpass powerboats.
> ... It is a rare environment indeed where a vehicle can be taken
> off-road without damage. ... Standard ORVs with their knobby tires are
> almost ideal devices for smashing plant life and destroying soil. Even
> driven with extreme care, a dirt bike will degrade about an acre of
> land in a twenty-mile drive. ... Not only do the ORVs exterminate
> animals by exterminating plants, they attack them directly as well.
> Individual animals on the surface and in shallow burrows ... are
> crushed. ... One great problem with ORVs is that they supply easy
> access to wilderness areas for unsupervised people who have ... no
> conception of the damage they are doing" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich,
> pp.169-171; emphasis added). (Although mountain bikes were hardly
> known when this was written, it is obvious that the same applies to
> them.)
>
> Recently, one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (a California
> threatened species) ever found was killed by a mountain biker in Black
> Diamond Mines Regional Preserve near here. Others have been killed on
> other East Bay regional parks. Kathryn Phillips in Tracking the
> Vanishing Frogs described how ORVs crossing creeks crush toads and
> their eggs (both buried in the sand). Bikes are generally ridden too
> fast to avoid killing small animals. Obviously, the animals didn't
> evolve in the presence of mountain bikes, and can't be expected to
> deal very effectively with such quiet, fast-moving objects. Even
> hikers can kill small animals, if they aren't careful. The one time I
> went to look for an Alameda whipsnake, I almost stepped on one, which
> was lying in grass growing in the trail, and didn't move until I had
> almost stepped on it.
>
> Soils are extremely complex communities of living organisms.
> They sometimes are very fragile and once destroyed take decades to be
> recreated (e.g. desert cryptogamic soil). Soil destruction is hastened
> by acceleration (braking, speeding up, climbing, and turning, which
> apply horizontal forces to the soil), by tire lugs, which break the
> surface, and by water, which softens the soil and makes it easier to
> demolish.
>
> In the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), "park
> officials noted serious erosion problems on certain steep narrow
> trails and determined that restricting bicycle use would slow such
> erosion. [They] noted that on narrow trails bicyclists passing other
> users would either leave the trail or force the other users off the
> trail to the detriment of off-trail vegetation and wildlife. ...
> Downhill bicycle travel on steep slopes is usually accompanied by
> braking and often by skidding which tends to push dislodged surface
> gravels into ditches, water bars, and drains. Heavy bicycle use on
> steep trails usually requires that these ditches, water bars, and
> drains be cleared more frequently than those used by hikers and
> equestrians only. ... Park staff and visitors reported that bicyclists
> on these ... trails often skidded to control their speed, slid off of
> trails on sharp turns, or cut across off-trail areas at certain
> 'switch-backs'" (Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt).
>
> Mud containing seeds and spores sticks to bike tires, thereby
> often carrying species of plants into areas where they had not existed
> (becoming "exotics"). This is worsened by the fact that bicycles
> travel long distances, and are often carried to distant locations
> (sometimes even foreign countries) by motor vehicle. It is well known
> that such exotic species can cause havoc when introduced into new
> habitats.
>
> Most of us were raised to believe that "non-consumptive"
> recreation is harmless to wildlife. We are taught to enjoy ourselves
> in nature, guilt-free, as long as we don't directly harm wildlife.
> However, recent research, and the huge scale of current recreation
> activities, have discredited this idea. "Traditionally, observing,
> feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered to be
> 'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of animals from their
> natural habitats did not occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife recreation
> was considered relatively benign in terms of its effects on wildlife;
> today, however, there is a growing recognition that wildlife-viewing
> recreation can have serious negative impacts on wildlife" (Knight &
> Gutzwiller, p.257).
>
> In other words, the mere presence of people is often harmful
> to wildlife, and the more, the worse. "The notion that recreation has
> no environmental impacts is no longer tenable. Recreationists often
> degrade the land, water, and wildlife resources that support their
> activities by simplifying plant communities, increasing animal
> mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and distributing
> refuse" (ibid, p.3) "Recreational disturbance has traditionally been
> viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season.
> Recently, it has become apparent that disturbance outside of the
> animal's breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p.73)
> "People have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it,
> no matter what the activity" (p.157); "Perhaps the major way that
> people have influenced wildlife populations is through encroachment
> into wildlife areas" (p.160). "Outdoor recreation has been recognized
> as an important factor that can reduce biosphere sustainability....
> Indeed, recreational activities, including many that may seem
> innocuous, can alter vertebrate behaviour, reproduction,
> distributions, and habitats" (p.169).
>
> Knight & Gutzwiller's book contains numerous specific examples
> of how these negative effects are created. We may not know what the
> organisms are thinking, but the effect is that they die, are forced to
> expend extra energy that may be in short supply, become more
> susceptible to predation, or are forced to move to less suitable
> habitat, losing access to preferred foods, mates, nesting sites, etc.
> Since most of us live safely in the midst of plenty, it is hard for us
> to understand wildlife's predicament. We are flexible enough to
> survive almost anywhere; they are not. Often they have no other place
> to live. None of the existing "studies" on mountain biking evaluate
> its effects on wildlife. They are usually concerned only with visible
> effects on the trail. In Tilden Regional Park, there are three
> separate, heavily used mountain biking trails through the middle of
> supposedly protected Alameda whipsnake habitat areas!
>
> "Displaced animals are forced out of familiar habitat and must
> then survive and reproduce in areas where they are not familiar with
> the locations of food, shelter, and other vital resources.... Hammitt
> and Cole ... ranked displacement as being more detrimental to wildlife
> than harassment or recreation-induced habitat changes.... Densities
> ... of 13 breeding bird species were negatively associated with the
> intensity of recreation activity by park visitors, primarily
> pedestrians and cyclists" (ibid, pp.173-4); "off-road vehicles can
> collapse burrows of desert mammals and reptiles" (p.176).
>
> Sociology
>
> Hikers, especially the elderly, have been abandoning their
> favorite trails, due to bikers that scare them, hit them, harass them,
> and destroy the serenity of the parks. Parks are supposed to be a
> refuge from the crush of humanity and the noise, danger, and
> artificiality of urban areas. Why bring to our parks the very things
> that most people go there to escape?! There is absolutely nothing
> wrong with bicycling, in its proper setting (on a road). It is a
> wonderfully healthful activity. But wildlife is already in danger due
> to loss of habitat (worldwide, one quarter of all animals are
> threatend with extinction, according to the IUCN (International Union
> for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources)). It can't
> afford to lose any more. And people have very similar needs for being
> in nature. Our elderly are like wildlife, in that they have nowhere
> else to go for the experience of nature that they are accustomed to.
>
> By definition, hiking trails are the minimum size necessary
> for a person to hike (approx. 18 inches wide), since they are supposed
> to have a minimal impact on the environment. They aren't wide enough
> for a bicyclist to safely pass a hiker or another bicyclist. Mixing
> bikers and hikers is dangerous for both. In fact, mountain biking is
> also dangerous for lone riders, since hiking trails don't follow a
> predictable pattern and have very short sight distances (the distance
> that one can see ahead on the trail). Emergency room doctors report
> that a large percentage of mountain bikers incur serious accidents.
>
> "The record includes hundreds of letters from park users
> recounting stories of collisions or near misses with speeding or
> reckless bicyclists on all kinds of trails but particularly on steep
> and narrow trails. Hikers and bird watchers repeatedly told how they
> have been forced off of trails by speeding bicycles and how they have
> had their peace and solitude on the trails interrupted by bicycles
> that -- because they are quiet and fast -- seemed to appear out of
> nowhere and be immediately upon the hikers and other users.
> Equestrians told how their horses have been startled by speeding or
> oncoming bicycles and have become restless, on several occasions even
> throwing and injuring experienced riders. Though most users admitted
> that the great majority of bicyclists were polite and
> safety-conscious, letters from hikers, equestrians, bird watchers,
> joggers, and other users also repeatedly recounted incidents of
> rudeness, threats, and altercations when they have complained to an
> offending bicyclist about dangerous conduct. Park staff also reported
> having received such complaints. ... NPS's [National Park Service's]
> finding that user conflict and visitor danger would be reduced by
> limiting bicycle trail access in GGNRA was supported by ample
> evidence. ... Notwithstanding the responsible user, bicycles are often
> perceived by other users as a disruptive influence on park trails.
> Although most of the few reported bicycle accidents in the park
> involve only single individuals, letters and reports from hikers and
> equestrians tell of many close calls and confrontational and
> unsettling experiences". "No single-track trails [in the Marin
> Headlands] were found suitable for bicycle use" (Bicycle Trails
> Council v. Bruce Babbitt).
>
> Since bicycles require wider trails, parks now often use
> bulldozers to create and maintain those trails, vastly increasing
> their impacts. In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve in Oakland,
> California, a new trail was created by means of a "small" (6 foot
> blade) bulldozer. But it rolled off the trail and had to be rescued by
> a much bigger bulldozer. The existence of bicyclists on trails also
> forces park rangers to police the trails using motor vehicles (cars or
> motorcycles), since it is the only way they can hope to catch them!
> This also increases negative impacts on wildlife.
>
> Children learn mostly nonverbally (by watching adults and
> other children). Mountain biking is bad role modeling for them, since
> it teaches them that human domination and destruction of wildlife
> habitat is normal and acceptable.
>
> Mountain bikers like to claim that excluding them from trails
> constitutes "discrimination". They say that other user groups (hikers
> and equestrians) receive better treatment from land managers. There is
> no basis for such a claim, since all users are subject to exactly the
> same rules. For example, on a trail closed to bikes, everyone is
> allowed on the trail -- only the bikes are excluded! In spite of what
> they claim, mountain bikers have never been excluded from any trail!
> Even if my way of "enjoying" the wilderness is to race my bulldozer
> there, I am not allowed to do that. And this is not because land
> managers like hikers more than bulldozer racers. I am not being
> excluded from the wilderness; I can go there whenever I want, as long
> as I don't try to bring my bulldozer with me. It is only the bulldozer
> that is excluded, which is due to its effects on wildlife and people.
>
> If mountain bikers were actually being discriminated against,
> they could sue park managers for access to every trail that others are
> allowed on. On the contrary, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
> Circuit (Bicycle Trails Council v. Bruce Babbitt) concluded that the
> National Park Service has the right to ban bikes from trails. "All
> units of the National Parks [are] to be treated consistently, with
> resource protection the primary goal". "All bicycle use of off-road
> areas [is] prohibited unless local park superintendents [designate]
> particular trails to be open" (bicyclists were contesting this rule).
> "Routes may only be designated for bicycle use based on a written
> determination that such use is consistent with the protection of the
> park area's natural, scenic and aesthetic values, safety
> considerations and management objectives and will not disturb wildlife
> or park resources". "The Park Service is empowered with the authority
> to determine what uses of park resources are proper and what
> proportion of the park's resources are available for each use". "The
> use of bicycles is allowed in park areas under the same basic
> conditions as are motor vehicles, i.e. on park roads, in parking
> areas, and on routes designated for their use. ... certain limitations
> on their use are necessary and appropriate in the interest of public
> safety, resource protection, and the avoidance of visitor conflict"
> [emphasis added].
>
> Clearly, bikes are not being banned from trails because land
> managers like hikers and equestrians more! As people, mountain bikers
> are indistinguishable from other park users. It is the bikes that we
> object to, and not even the bikes, but their presence in natural
> areas. Banning bikes is simply a humane way of protecting our natural
> areas, while allowing all users equal access to enjoy them. Thus,
> whether bikers or hikers or equestrians are more harmful to wildlife
> (they all are, of course) is irrelevant. Restricting bicycle access is
> a way of reducing human impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
>
> The Case of Brown's Woods
>
> Brown's Woods, one of the last stands of native forest in
> central Iowa (southwest of DesMoines), illustrates these issues. It
> was saved from logging and development in 1972 by the S. E. Polk (High
> School) Ecology Club and their sponsor, biology teacher, Kirk Brill,
> for which they won a national award. Motorized vehicles were banned,
> "because of the threat they posed to the environment and to persons
> walking there" (Wayne Bills, Polk County Conservation Board (PCCB)
> Executive Director, 1972). The students worked hard to earn money to
> build two miles of bike trails through the preserve.
>
> However mountain bikers illegally built 4 1/2 additional miles
> of trail ("bikers have gouged more than six miles of trail, up to 30
> feet wide and a foot or more deep in spots" (Loren Lown, PCCB Natural
> Resources Specialist, 1996)). Wildlife were disappearing, elderly
> hikers were driven out, and vegetation was destroyed. "Already the
> bikers have caused permanent irreparable damage to this pristine area"
> (Ben Van Gundy, PCCB Director). It was called "ecological vandalism".
> Last year, once again, Brill and his students were forced to campaign
> to save the preserve, this time from mountain bikers, and won, getting
> a unanimous vote of the PCCB for a "total and permanent ban on the use
> of mountain bikes" in Brown's Woods.
>
> Millions of mountain bikes are being sold every year around
> the world. Let's not wait till "bikers have caused permanent
> irreparable damage" to our other natural areas! We can't eliminate all
> environmental damage, but we can eliminate frivolous, unnecessary
> damage. True civilization is characterized by restraint.
>
> "It is expected that outdoor recreational activity will
> continue to increase, while the amount of wild land where wildlife may
> seek refuge from disturbance will decrease" (Knight and Gutzwiller,
> p.327); "Recreationists are, ironically, destroying the very thing
> they love: the blooming buzzing confusion of nature.... The recreation
> industry deserves to be listed on the same page with interests that
> are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing fertile
> topsoils into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse
> gases into the atmosphere" (p.340; emphasis added); "Tom Birch ...
> argues that wilderness managers, charged with incarcerating
> wilderness, are more concerned with the advancement of their careers
> through achieving quantifiable goals (number of park visitors, total
> revenues) and developing park and forest amenities (roads, 'scenic'
> turnouts, restrooms, paved trails, maps, campgrounds) than with
> perpetuating the land community of which they are a part" (p.344).

Quads should be very restricted to use in state and national lands.

ted
>
> Ideally, we should be working to reduce all human access to
> wildlife habitat. But at the very least, we should eliminate
> mechanical access (with the exception of small compromises for
> wheelchairs).
>
> References:
>
> Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt, No.C-93-0009,slip
> op. (N. Dist. Cal., Sept. 1, 1994) (see also Third Circuit Case
> 94-16920,
> http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/Circu.../9416920o.htm).
>
> Ehrlich, Paul and Anne, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the
> Disappearance of Species. c.1981.
>
> Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
> Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
>
> Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London, c.1997.
>
> Phillips, Kathryn, Tracking the Vanishing Frogs: An Ecological
> Mystery. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
>
> Stebbins, Robert, personal communication.
>
> Vandeman, Michael J., Ph.D.
> http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/,
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande.
>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

tedorn44@hotmail.com wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
<<Snip>>

>
> Quads should be very restricted to use in state and national lands.
>
> ted


See that word Ted? "Snip"

Try using it next time.