Bush admin aims to increase mountain-bike access to national parks 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   BlackBear Posted 10:46 pm
   15 Oct 2008

   "mountain bike lobby"!!!Hilarious! What is the mountain bike lobby? 12 guys in flannel looking to "own that mountain"? Come on, people.
   Mountain bikers will indeed make their own trails by riding where they want to, crushing plants all the while, if there aren't official trails to ride. So putting the single track decisions in the hands of people most familiar with the parks seems only sensible to me.
   I'd rather cave to the "mountain bike lobby" than the "motorcross lobby."

   Permalink

2. 

   archigeek Posted 1:15 am
   16 Oct 2008

   Hold on...I've seen alot of trails here in St. Louis that allow mountain bikers, and let me tell ya', not ONE is free of erosion caused by normal or irresponsible cyclists. I was pretty heavily into off-road cycling in the 90's, and I can say with great confidence that all of the trails I frequented at that time have deteriorated, in many cases significantly, from the conditions present during my use of them. Now, considering the limited availability of funds for trail maintanence and improvement, how can the federal government even consider this stupidity? We need more rangers to police trails and funds to maintain the current system. This is essentially a capitulation to the multi-Billion dollar cycling industry. It's another sign of the creeping(heavy emphasis on "creep")influence of corporate wants over the needs of citizens. Bush is probably one of those idiots who slashes on the perpendicular right through a switchback. Or starts a new trail to avoid a natural obstacle or create a shortcut. This idea is a BAAAAD one, no doubt in my mind. Alot of off-road cyclists are responsible individuals. However, there are enough ignorant, moronic male stupids out there to more than offset the good behavior of the riders who practice responsible riding techniques(look around when your on a trail: most of the riders are male). Sorry, the idea of flannel-clad marketing and lobbying whores is a laughable one. And incredibly naive.

   Permalink

3. 

   Zephaniah Posted 4:50 am
   16 Oct 2008

   GreenwashingThis is a greenwashing plan, like Chevron's supposed environmental website, and like the TV ads that show SUVs loving nature, and the magazine ads that claims that an oil company reduces emissions. These public relations gimmicks make it look like the nature wasters actually appreciate nature, while they get on with business as usual, helping corporations make money with no regard to real protections for the ecosystems.
   
   

   Permalink

4. 

   ripter Posted 4:27 pm
   16 Oct 2008

   Really!?OK, Heres an idea.  Lets carve up the woods with individual trails for each interest group (and yes, trail hording hikers are an interest group) so that we dont have to be bothered by other people using "our" trails.  So, the hikers can have their trails, and the horse riders get ones for themselves, mountain bikers will have some, OHV groups get some, four wheeleers get some, hunters can have some, loggers can have some, backbackers can have some...  
   
                          OR!
   
   We can realize that others have a right to enjoy the outdoors too. We can develop a metality of acceptance and stewardship of our natural areas rather than a ME ONLY! protectionist attitude.
   
   I have been a mountain biker since I was a child.  I am also involved in trail maintenance groups that work on the trails that we love.  And yes, you hikers are the beneficiaries of my hard work too.  
   
   Just because someone is on foot does not mean they cant trash a place also.  I have seen plenty of damage from hikers in the form of trash, vandalism and simple trail damage from hikers walking around obstacles rather than get thier $200 gortex boots muddy.  Let face it, none of our activities are impact free.  We all leave some sort of footprint where we play and where we live.  
   
   So next time, before you immediately brand all mountain bikers as...what was it...oh yeah "ignorant, moronic male stupids" you may want to consider your own footprint (4000sq ft house in burbs, SUV, long commute, water from plastic bottles, incandescent light bulbs, lush green lawns in desert climates etc.) What do you think the environments that were pillaged to support that lifsytle look like now.  I can tell you, it aint pretty and the mining and timber harvesting caused more than a fair bit of erosion.

   Permalink

5. 

   DHuntCT Posted 9:27 am
   23 Oct 2008

   mountain bikesI am all for mountian biking against motorcycling but all the areas in my neck of Connecticut that have a significant number of cyclist really get trashed.  So, I have no idea what to do but as the saying goes, "I don't want them in my back yard."
   
   Debbie

   Permalink

6. 

   danhickstein Posted 1:01 pm
   24 Oct 2008

   Mountainbikers like the planet tooOne of the main reasons why I am an environmentalist is because I spend so much time outside rock climbing and mountain biking, activities that I do realize, have an effect on the landscape.  In most cases I feel that these impacts are minimal compared to the benefits.  When we provide mountain bikers with more trails to ride on, we create more people who are going to fight to keep the planet in good condition. Also, opening more trails to mountain bikes spreads out the traffic and makes it less annoying for hikers on the trails. It's certainly not a good idea to open every trail in the national parks to mountain bikes, but that is not the issue here.  This proposal merely allows park managers to make their own decisions about how trails are used.  This will obviously result in a handful of mostly-unused trails being opened to mountainbikes with all the popular trails remaining closed to anything but hiking.  I should think that a proposal to put trail-use decisions into local hands would be widely supported in a forum such as this.  

   Permalink