Conference noted::bicycle

     Abe, while life is not always black and white, one should never
     infringe on some else's rights, period. The general dilema is
     who has the right to what?!! E.g. Smokers rights over non-smokers
     and vise versa, hikers vs. MBT'ers, etc...
    
     Even legislation doesn't evenly reslove the issues, it simply
     chooses a side. While most of us will adhere (legally) to that
     side, some of us will rebel subtly or blatantly.
    
     I think the dilema arise when positions are not treated equally.
     9 out of 10 times both sides could be satisfied, but it's easier
     and often cheaper to deal with one.
    
     The article is just more generalization. Condem an entire population
     for the abuse of some. 
    
     My $.02
    

    	Ya' mean I ain't s'posed to mount up my Panaracer Smokes, an'
    	destroy entire eco-systems every time I ride?
    
    	An' lock up da' rear wheel so's I can pivot da' bike 'round every
    	corner I  "hit"  ??????
    
    	Seems like the knobbies on the market get bigger and gnarlier every
    	friggin' year. The BIGGER the knobby, the better, = the more dirt
    	being flown, even when just rolling down the trail. Never mind
    	locking up the rear wheel whilst "skiing" down steep declines...
    
    	I tried riding with 26" slicks this summer, they caused significantly
    	less damage to the trail. But had virtually no traction either.
    
    	Ride gently on shared trails, go ballastic in designated MTB-only
    	areas (which there ain't be alot of...)

    
    
      Have you noticed the size of the treads on some hiking boots - talk
    about trail erosion!!
    

    
    	This is similar to the arguments that arose when ATV's first
    started out. People driving all over hell in places where they never
    went before causing lots of damage. Then things settled down and you
    don't hear as much about it now. 
    	The real issue isn't what you're doing or even how you're doing it
    (granted- some riding/walking/biking styles are more destructive than
    others); the real issue is how many people are doing it. Overuse causes
    the greatest destruction.
    	On the local trails where I ride, maybe 20 riders a week use them,
    plus a few 4wd trucks, some 4 wheelers and a handful of horses. The
    horses do the worst damage, but even with those, after a good rain, the
    mud washes back into the mudholes and the trail looks the same as it
    has for years.
    	On the other hand, I have a camp up in Moxie, Maine and everything
    up there was stable for years until river rafting became a big business
    up there. You could drive down an old woods road down to a nice path to
    the falls. Then the rafters descended and the tour operators had to
    show them more than a few hour raft trip, so the small trail wound up
    becoming a major footpath until it eroded so bad that they had to put
    wooded stairs in  all over; then "viewing platforms" near the falls,
    and of course the graffiti experts had to declare their undying lust
    for each other all over the railings ("what's you say your last name
    was again Hon?") and another unspoiled place became a trash ridden
    spot on the tour. I used to go to camp to get away, but now there's
    more traffic there than at home, so I go elsewhere. The point being
    that when you get a lot of humans, you get a lot of damage - no way
    around it.  

    ... where every prospect pleases, but only man is vile ...

When I get a question like that in Trivial Pursuits, I always guess Oscar 
Wilde - in 50% of caes it works out right.   Like my old French Master used 
to say " Guessing the word means ELEPHANT may just be correct - no guess will 
ALWAYS be wrong".

    Yes, soon the woods will be open to only the priviledged few who are
    also very politically correct. (Notice that horses, as Mike says, makes
    the worst mess but they are politically correct so they are not
    restricted). The same discussion is in the AMC
    magazine, but they also want to restrict a landowners right to use the
    land. (Very special wood lands etc).
    
    I think one of the solutions is what the NEMB assoc did in the Blue
    Hills outside of Boston. They became involved in trail maintenance and
    set up some patrols to keep people off restricted areas.
    
    We all will be restricted because of the actions of a few, unless we
    all act responsibly.
    
    my $.01 for what it is worth.
    
                                   Bill 

    It seems widely accepted (among cyclist, at least) that horses
    do more damage to the trails than the bicycles.  If I ever try
    to make that claim, how could I support it?  Are you talking about 
    the gouging that the hooves do on uphills? 
    
    My skepticism is based on this:  On the same rainy day, a cyclist and a
    horse go out.  The bicycle makes a long groove in the mud, chanelling
    water/runnoff until erosion sets in.  The horse "holes" that may fill
    up with water, but don't transport soil.
    
    I've jogged on trails for years and haven't noticed the impact of
    either that much -- unless you consider social impact.  
    
    Please, I'm trying to understand, not argue...
    
    Robert   

    How many horses are there compared to cyclists in the woods
    nowadays?

    Horses are surely more expensive than a mountain bike (I've been
    advised not to get interested in horses unless I want to get poor
    quickly :-)

    - Jim

    Many trails in Santa Barbara were closed to mtn. biking before the
    local University did a comprehensive trail study.  They found that
    hiking boots and horse hoofs in fact do more damage to the trails than
    bikes tires.  Keep in mind it doesn't rain much in Santa Barbara most
    of the year.  Consequently a lot of trails have been re-opened to
    bikes.
    
    Don

    I would like to have a horse to ride the trails, it seems like a very
    enjoyable way to spend time in the woods. So I am not against horses,
    just expressing my observation.
    
    Saturday I was in Lincoln woods, riding the many enjoyable trails. I
    went thru a number of frozen mud holes, where both bikes and horses had
    gone through previously. The bikes seem to have less impact then the
    horse prints. Also, it seems once horses have gone through the trail
    always seems to retain the hoof print. Just my perspective.
    
    I think the real issue is ALL groups being responsible, and sharing the
    resource. One group going against another is futile. We really need to
    work together to ensure the trails continue to exist, and to increase
    the number of trails.
    
    The latest issue of the conservation magazine has two interesting
    articles. One about bison on a ranch who were runing up the side of a
    hill and then sliding down ripping up the ground. It turned out that
    this was "natures" way of setting up a seed bed for a certain flowers to
    take root.
    
    Another article was about the futility of setting up apposing forces in
    the conservation fight. The famous snail darter issue related to a dam
    was reviewed. It turned out the dam has actually caused the snail
    darter population to increase.
    
    Bottom line, IMHO is, rideing responsibly, respecting others rights, are
    most important in the use of natural resources.
    
                        Bill
    
     

    I posed the question of horse impact vs. bike impact to the owner
    of the bike shop I frequent.  He stated that it had alot to do with the
    Sierra Club.
    
    It seems that, at one time, there were completely opposed to trail
    riding on bicycles.  Their position softened up as more Sierra Club
    members began bicycling in the woods rather than horseback riding. Now,
    they don't seem opposed to bicycling in the woods at all.
    
    
    R�

     They shoot horses, don't they?
    
                :-)

    City park trail use is a hot topic right now in Colorado Springs. 
    Various options are being considered to address the problems of
    multipurpose use.  Unfortunately, NO-BIKE markers have sprung up on
    select trails.  This just frustrates the bikers.  
    
    It's really the trail users attitude that makes the difference.  If a 
    hiker/biker/runner/horse rider/X-country skier thinks others should 
    always yield to them, then confrontations are inevitable.  Every day I 
    run, hike, and bike trails and find that most people are considerate of 
    others. 
    
    Regarding trail damage, the significant factor here is caused by
    the weather.  Record Spring & Summer rains have eroded the trails.
    Once gully's form, they only grow larger unless action is taken to
    re-route water drainage.  Human/horse/tire footprints are specks in
    the equation.
    
    Does anyone have some ideas on how to educate the decision makers, who
    are quick to listen to special interest groups and "solve the problem"
    by restricting  trail access ?

    RE: educting the decision makers....
    
    Vote them out of office.  That might learn them :-).  Barring the
    ability to do that, gathering enough folks with like minds and going to
    or asking for hearings on the issue might work.  There is power in
    numbers.  When the state holds hearings on topics of interest to
    recreational fishing out here, Trout Unlimited usually shows up in
    strength and they most often get their way.  Not because ther are
    always correct but because their viewpoints carry more weight due to
    the turnout.  Fortunately, they also seem to be reasonably responsible 
    in preserving access and useage.  A similar approach might work
    regarding access for bikes.  Mountain bikers especially, seem to have
    gained a stigma not unlike skate and snowboarders when it comes to
    access.  Not that they are all squeaky clean but all useage groups have
    their share of irresponsible members.