Im writting a research papper on Enviormental impacts caused by MTBS

PB Forum :: USA - West
Im writting a research papper on Enviormental impacts caused by MTBS
Author Message
flag laurie1
Mod
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 8:10 Quote
joshuacp wrote:
laurie1 wrote:
The majority of new erosion comes from manmade effects rather than natural effects.

Manmade erosion is a major problem, but if you think that the erosion we as humans cause is greater than what occurs naturally, you really need to do some research before making a bold statement like this. Get a good university text on geomorphology and give it a read, maybe you will then realize what you are saying is a load of crap!

You guys are all right. The Grand Canyon only took 6 million years to get to the depth it is today. It was mainly caused by water erosion from the Colorado River but wind also helped. However, the human species is able to cause more damage in many places in a shorter amount of time compared to natural causes. If you think about how much erosion happened each day over 6 million years, this is a very insignificant amount! Now, when you look at something like greenhouse gases, you can see how dangerous our species truly is. Although carbon dioxide is in our environment naturally, it was never to this extent. The majority of greenhouse gases are made by humans. Whether it is by direct or indirect causes. Direct causes would be driving cars. Indirect causes include raising cattle somewhere and expropriating the land, cutting down trees so that cattle can graze and then slaughtering them for meat. My point is that none of these problems were created overnight. It has taken several years of neglect to our environment that is causing us to lose our riding locations. We have no one to blame but ourselves and our lack of responsibility. People nailing into trees that are alive and healthy, people cutting or removing small trees that are alive but in the middle of a trail, people removing grass and bushes causing erosion by wind and water so they can build a trail/berm. There is no doubt that this exists in local trail networks. It I very mind-blowing to see this sort of behavior and this sort of behavior generalizes mountainbikers as a whole as irresponsible and as people causing environmental degradation.

nothingbetter wrote:
also, you can cram 7 hikers into a minivan(lets say 27mpg). where as you can fit 4 rider's + 4 horses + tack + other riding stuff into a huge gas guzzling truck pulling a huge trailor(13 mpg). i can fit 5 bikes, 2 dirtbags and all the riding gear you need in my ford ranger(23mpg) add in buddies small car with other dirtbags and tents and food(55mpg). who's got less impact now!

A lot of cars and trucks get nowhere near the consumption written on the window sticker. They are grossly inflated in favor of the car’s manufacturer. I can’t remember the last time the on board computer matched the consumption on the window sticker. Even though I try to drive cautious to save gas (no hard acceleration or braking, make sure the tires are inflated, clean air filter, etc), I still can’t reproduce the numbers on the window sticker! For the most part they test under “ideal” situations with minimum stop and go and traffic on the road or something so they can show these high fuel economy levels. They are all pretty much bullshit. I can cram up to six people in my truck but my horse trailer only fits 5 horses so there are never six people with me unless I am dropping someone off on the way to my riding location. I drive a modified F450 King Ranch edition diesel dually (bigger injectors, chipped, larger exhaust and headers so it can breathe better, and a few other things done to it) so I can get the fully loaded truck towing a trailer on the verge of the maximum towing capacity of the truck going at highway speeds. There is no doubt that diesel burns cleaner for the environment and requires less refining than normal gasoline. The refining process in making light sweet crude (gasoline) releases a ton of carbon dioxide emissions into the air. Gas cars don’t burn nearly as efficiently as diesels. I’m not too sure about real consumption on the truck I drive as it is far from stock and I’m pulling a 45ish foot trailer behind me that has living quarters in it in addition to room for 5 horses, tack/gear, and some extra hay on the roof rack. My point is that consumption and window sticker values are way off.
flag horseonthefly
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 8:54 Quote
[Quote="laurie1"][Quote="joshuacp"]
laurie1 wrote:
A lot of cars and trucks get nowhere near the consumption written on the window sticker. They are grossly inflated in favor of the car’s manufacturer. I can’t remember the last time the on board computer matched the consumption on the window sticker. Even though I try to drive cautious to save gas (no hard acceleration or braking, make sure the tires are inflated, clean air filter, etc), I still can’t reproduce the numbers on the window sticker! For the most part they test under “ideal” situations with minimum stop and go and traffic on the road or something so they can show these high fuel economy levels. They are all pretty much bullshit. I can cram up to six people in my truck but my horse trailer only fits 5 horses so there are never six people with me unless I am dropping someone off on the way to my riding location. I drive a modified F450 King Ranch edition diesel dually (bigger injectors, chipped, larger exhaust and headers so it can breathe better, and a few other things done to it) so I can get the fully loaded truck towing a trailer on the verge of the maximum towing capacity of the truck going at highway speeds. There is no doubt that diesel burns cleaner for the environment and requires less refining than normal gasoline. The refining process in making light sweet crude (gasoline) releases a ton of carbon dioxide emissions into the air. Gas cars don’t burn nearly as efficiently as diesels. I’m not too sure about real consumption on the truck I drive as it is far from stock and I’m pulling a 45ish foot trailer behind me that has living quarters in it in addition to room for 5 horses, tack/gear, and some extra hay on the roof rack. My point is that consumption and window sticker values are way off.

That's the exact opposite of my experience. My family averages about 2 mpg over sticker highway and city with our 4 vehicles. For one I know my mom's car is rated at 29mpg highway, we've gotten 31 on the interstate with 4 people. My 1995 Tahoe is rated 12-14 and I get 14-16 with 232,000 miles on the original engine. I also have a high-flow cat that reduced emissions while also reducing back-pressure. The on-board computer is a guess at best. If you want to know what mileage you're really getting then do the calculation by hand. (fill the tank, drive a while, fill it again, then take (Miles Driven)/(gallons the second time). My dad's truck is the only vehicle we have that has an on-board system in it and it's pretty consistently about 2 mpg off either way. I too have horses and average about 9-10 mpg in my Tahoe towing a 3000lb 2-horse trailer (trailer only 3000lb, close to 6000 loaded). Just fyi as well, all of those mods only make your truck less eco-friendly. By chipping and bigger injectors you make the engine run richer and hotter. That's why they don't come like that from the factory. Don't you think that if you could just put a $100 chip in your $60k truck and give it 200 more horsepower without any consequences that it would be like that from the factory? More power, but also more emissions. Not worth it to me, my friend has a 4-horse head to head with a 16' tack room that she tows with a bone stock 2000 f-350 diesel without a problem even with her 2000lb Irish Draught in the back. It's sorta like removing the catalytic converter and then tuning the engine to compensate, you get more power and better fuel economy, but far worse for the environment.

As to the op, this seems to be a subject that you are very emotional about. Unfortunately emotion does not write a good paper, especially since you're 19 and I'm assuming you're in college. I would pick a subject that I am more neutral towards. You still want to take a stand, but do not let emotion cloud factual evidence. Remember, scholarly articles are going to be your best source. No matter how ridiculous you may consider their claim, a scholar who was able to get his/her work published in a journal is always going to have more credibility than some kid on pinkbike, and will always overrule any amount of anecdotal evidence you could gather.
flag socalshreder
O+
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 9:05 Quote
I can see ive stired up a coiuple conflicts but; Im arguing for the MTB. Yes MTBs cause erosion but come on a hore weighs 1000 pounds. A bike is 40 pounds and the friction of a mtb is not taht much beacuse a mtb is traveling faster thus creating less of a imprint. And yes of course DH/Freeriders travel on narly trails that are un hikeable but; my papper is arguing for othe displines of mtbiking like xc riders.

Thanks for all of your imput guys.
flag DavidMakalaster
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 9:07 Quote
socalshreder wrote:
I can see ive stired up a coiuple conflicts but; Im arguing for the MTB. Yes MTBs cause erosion but come on a hore weighs 1000 pounds. A bike is 40 pounds and the friction of a mtb is not taht much beacuse a mtb is traveling faster thus creating less of a imprint. And yes of course DH/Freeriders travel on narly trails that are un hikeable but; my papper is arguing for othe displines of mtbiking like xc riders.

Thanks for all of your imput guys.

So what evidence do you have to back up your belief?
flag DavidMakalaster
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 9:27 Quote
Here's how you have to do it.

First you present your hypothesis. Next you break it down into several individual points that support your hypothesis. You must support each point with proven citable evidence from legitimate sources. Anecdotal evidence won't cut it. After thoroughly wrapping up your supporting points you give as many opposing points as you can. Then you break these down one by one with further evidence supporting your side. Once again anecdotal evidence and theories won't cut it. Finally you tie it all together with your closing statement. It should be succinct and firm and refer to two or three of your key points. This is the lasting impression of your paper. Make it count.

In order to prove your stance you must fully understand and appreciate the opposing views. I've had several debates and papers where the professor has assigned me to a side I adamantly disagree with only to change my own mind I argued it so well.
flag adreny
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 9:38 Quote
The destructive impact of mountain biking on forested landscapes
Kristyn Ferguson, University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1 Waterloo, ON, Canada
e-mail: kristynferguson[at]hotmail.com
Published in Environmentalist (200 28:67–68
DOI 10.1007/s10669-007-9146-0
Published online: 4 December 2007
 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

It is a beautiful late summer morning in an Ontario forest. Sunlight just barely glints through the thick mat of leaves which create the canopy, and the air is warm, moist and smells of earth. Birds hop about the forest floor, weaving around the clumps of understory vegetation which thrive in clusters and colonies of bright green leaves. The dazzling yellow flowers of Solidago flexicaulus (zigzag goldenrod) are flecked across the landscape and can be seen standing out amongst this sea of emerald. The vibrant blue fruit of Caulophyllum thalictroides (blue cohosh) peeks out amongst the plant's foot-shaped leaves. The air is alight with the buzz of bumblebees and honeybees as they travel from flower to flower, carrying loads of fresh pollen. Here and there a leaf flutters to the ground as a gentle breeze strokes the tops of the tall sugar maple trees. Aside from these noises, the forest is quiet.

Suddenly there is a different sound: the loud snapping and cracking of branches and the distinct rustle of leaves being kicked up. Mountain bikers roar through the forest, disregarding the world beneath their wheels. Birds and wildlife hustle away in flustered terror as this ride continues. Saplings are being taken down with each twist and turn off the bike, and delicate understory plants are wiped out underneath the biker without a murmur of defense. The silent and deadliest effect of this attack is one that does not lament in the form of felled branches and leaves, but merely lets out a gasp of suction and surrender. It is the soil, which is being pressed firmly beneath the heavy weight of the rider and their bike, becoming compacted and compressed. These sounds and sights are those of war; and it is being waged on a forest which has no defense, no strategy, and almost no one to stand up for it.

To some, the effects I have described might seem minimal. Surely to mountain bikers they are just small casualties which are simply expendable for the tradeoff of a great ride. However, what is really happening is complete havoc, and it is being inflicted on this forest with no two ways about it. The soil compaction I described has a plethora of negative effects associated with it, including the creation of an impossible medium for certain native species to grow in. It can also decrease soil permeability which leads to less water being absorbed into the ground for seed germination, soil health, and use by plants. However, the worst consequence of soil compaction has to be the provision of a tough growing environment which can only be exploited by opportunistic invasive exotic species, just looking for their chance to thrive in this forest. Invasive species are one of the fastest growing and most problematic issues Ontario forests are facing today. Freeriding serves simply to create more and more opportunities for these plants to grow and out compete native egetation. With prolific growth and efficient reproductive strategies, coupled with lack of natural predators, invasive species only need a small window of opportunity to push past native species in a natural setting and take off wildly, dominating the forest and decreasing biodiversity.

The aggressive tearing and turning up of soil from the wheels of mountain bikes, most simply described as soil disturbance, also has an abundance of negative effects related to it. When soil is disturbed, the valuable upper layers of the soil become susceptible to erosion (soil loss), which is a dangerous force when juxtaposed with the relatively massive amount of time it takes nature to create just a centimeter of topsoil. Loss of soil from erosion also means a loss of the nutrients contained in this soil which are greatly needed in the balance of forest nutrient cycles. Soil disturbance also allows for the previously described invasion of non-native species, as it creates a soil environment not desirable to some more delicate native plants, requiring specific conditions to reproduce and grow.

Above these problems, the most visible and devastating is that of actual physical damage to plants and trees. Young trees (saplings and seedlings) are without question one of the most delicate entities in a forest setting, and one crushing blow from a mountain bike can be enough to end their short lives. Native understory species, once knocked over or ridden over, may be damaged to the point of nonrecovery in a particular growing season. Any plants which have been purposely placed in the ground for restoration efforts are extremely sensitive to environmental changes; and the risk of a transplant not surviving is greatly increased in the face of damage from recreational biking.

As a graduate student working in the field of restoration ecology, this last point hits home the hardest with me. Working in a section of the Natchez Hills forest tract in Kitchener, Ontario, I have spent a great deal of time carefully transplanting native vegetation into areas which have been destroyed by frequent mountain biking. I have firsthand knowledge of the sensitivity of transplants, that are trying there hardest to make it in a new environment of soil, surrounded by new neighboring species. Basically it is a tough enough life as it is, and if a set of wheels comes near these plants it is almost a guarantee that they will be killed.

In Natchez Hills a previous restoration effort erected fences and signage to help deter mountain bikers from certain highly sensitive sites in the forest which were in the process of being restored. So far this has been an effective means of keeping mountain bikers away from these particular sites, but the bike tracks that traverse the length of hill directly outside to the fence are what really rub me the wrong way, because it shows that the message is simply not getting across. This summer I witnessed one of these riders, plummeting down a hillside covered with thriving native vegetation, taking out plant after plant with a huge smile on his face, completely oblivious to the real damage he was doing. It made my stomach churn.

I want a message to reach recreational riders who think they are ‘outdoorsy' types, simply enjoying nature and experiencing the great outdoors. That message is: you are not enjoying nature, you are destroying nature. The damage done by wheels in forests is so unbelievably vast and far reaching, and the effects can last for years. An invasive species incursion due to unsavory conditions for native growth can last a lifetime, if there is no effort to control these species and they are allowed to take over the majority of a forest floor. The thriving populations of the invasive Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) and Chelidonium majus (greater celandine) in Natchez Hills are an indicator of just how far this damage has gone, and how long it might be before this forest is a properly functioning entity again.

Whether it be by means of legislation to ban mountain bikers from forests permanently, at the cost of major fines or worse, or by means of freeriders getting this message from forest advocates like myself, something needs to change. Restoration efforts are a step in the right direction, but they cannot survive in the face of continued belligerence toward the forest by those who, for the most part, are blissfully unaware of the exact harm they are causing.

An unspeakable amount of effort is pouring out of conservation and restoration disciplines to help save what is left of Ontario's forests. This movement needs all the help it can get, and the first step is removing continuous disturbance. So to all freeriders who insist on habitually riding in forested environments, heed this message: find a trail and don't let your wheels stray from it, even for an instant.
END



Hope that helps a little....
flag nlitworld
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 10:52 Quote
With the article above, it really enforces the need for sustainable trail building in a collaborative effort with environmental agencies. In Washington, this group is the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and they control the state forest land. With the DNR approval and help, places like Port Angeles now have amazing trails and top knotch grassroots DH racing. Other examples are the I-5 Collonade in Seattle, and Post Canyon in Hood River, OR (which was not pre-approved). More often than not, if someone is willing to take the effort to take the legal steps in order to get approval for trail building, then there will likely be support for and grant funding for the building effort. Bonesovermetal.com did a few posts on legal trail building partnership with the DNR a while back.
http://bonesovermetal.com/blog/2008/06/25/save-our-trails-a-conversation-with-the-dnr/
http://bonesovermetal.com/blog/2007/08/31/dry-hill-port-angeles-wa/
flag onterribleftw
O+
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 11:23 Quote
First off, I'm sorry but to whoever wrote that article, what a load of bullshit, get off your highhorse and come back down to Earth. Secondly, that isn't a scientific paper, even though it seems like its presented as one so be wary. And thirdly, they are mountain bikes, not bloody tanks going through the forest!

Although I appreciate her frustration with the transplants, you have to pick the right battles. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of acres in the KW Cambridge Guelph area being torn up for subdivisions and industrial buildings, and planting a few hundred plants in one forest isn't really doing squat to resolve the lack of natural biodiversity and undisturbed habitats. If you want to encourage people to press for more conserved land, they have to be getting something in return. Its the way things work. If people are going to want to support the acquisition of more conservation lands, they need to see why. Singling out bikers (who want more land conserved just like most other people, so they can make and ride rather small and low impact trails though them) alienates a portion of the population that would otherwise be gungho for getting more conservation land.

Add to that many conservation and park woodlands are normally logged to a)generate income for the conservation authority and b)let the forest renew itself like it would after a fire, but without the fire cause that just isn't kosher in Ontario. Have you ever seen what skidders do in a forest? Imagine a double track, except 6-12 inches deep from the wheels, straight through the topsoil and compacting with a weight of a couple of tons. Singletrack is quite literally nothing compared to that.

As for the invasive species, guess what, if they are already in the area you can't really do a damn thing about it unless you want to spend stupid amounts of time and money which could be much more efficiently spent doing other things. Add to that the evidence for colonization by invasive species after disturbance is controversial, with different studies showing completely different results.

Well that's my rant on that.
flag
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 19:37 Quote
adreny wrote:
The destructive impact of mountain biking on forested landscapes
Kristyn Ferguson, University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1 Waterloo, ON, Canada
e-mail: kristynferguson[at]hotmail.com
Published in Environmentalist (200 28:67–68
DOI 10.1007/s10669-007-9146-0
Published online: 4 December 2007
 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

It is a beautiful late summer morning in an Ontario forest. Sunlight just barely glints through the thick mat of leaves which create the canopy, and the air is warm, moist and smells of earth. Birds hop about the forest floor, weaving around the clumps of understory vegetation which thrive in clusters and colonies of bright green leaves. The dazzling yellow flowers of Solidago flexicaulus (zigzag goldenrod) are flecked across the landscape and can be seen standing out amongst this sea of emerald. The vibrant blue fruit of Caulophyllum thalictroides (blue cohosh) peeks out amongst the plant's foot-shaped leaves. The air is alight with the buzz of bumblebees and honeybees as they travel from flower to flower, carrying loads of fresh pollen. Here and there a leaf flutters to the ground as a gentle breeze strokes the tops of the tall sugar maple trees. Aside from these noises, the forest is quiet.

Suddenly there is a different sound: the loud snapping and cracking of branches and the distinct rustle of leaves being kicked up. Mountain bikers roar through the forest, disregarding the world beneath their wheels. Birds and wildlife hustle away in flustered terror as this ride continues. Saplings are being taken down with each twist and turn off the bike, and delicate understory plants are wiped out underneath the biker without a murmur of defense. The silent and deadliest effect of this attack is one that does not lament in the form of felled branches and leaves, but merely lets out a gasp of suction and surrender. It is the soil, which is being pressed firmly beneath the heavy weight of the rider and their bike, becoming compacted and compressed. These sounds and sights are those of war; and it is being waged on a forest which has no defense, no strategy, and almost no one to stand up for it.

To some, the effects I have described might seem minimal. Surely to mountain bikers they are just small casualties which are simply expendable for the tradeoff of a great ride. However, what is really happening is complete havoc, and it is being inflicted on this forest with no two ways about it. The soil compaction I described has a plethora of negative effects associated with it, including the creation of an impossible medium for certain native species to grow in. It can also decrease soil permeability which leads to less water being absorbed into the ground for seed germination, soil health, and use by plants. However, the worst consequence of soil compaction has to be the provision of a tough growing environment which can only be exploited by opportunistic invasive exotic species, just looking for their chance to thrive in this forest. Invasive species are one of the fastest growing and most problematic issues Ontario forests are facing today. Freeriding serves simply to create more and more opportunities for these plants to grow and out compete native egetation. With prolific growth and efficient reproductive strategies, coupled with lack of natural predators, invasive species only need a small window of opportunity to push past native species in a natural setting and take off wildly, dominating the forest and decreasing biodiversity.

The aggressive tearing and turning up of soil from the wheels of mountain bikes, most simply described as soil disturbance, also has an abundance of negative effects related to it. When soil is disturbed, the valuable upper layers of the soil become susceptible to erosion (soil loss), which is a dangerous force when juxtaposed with the relatively massive amount of time it takes nature to create just a centimeter of topsoil. Loss of soil from erosion also means a loss of the nutrients contained in this soil which are greatly needed in the balance of forest nutrient cycles. Soil disturbance also allows for the previously described invasion of non-native species, as it creates a soil environment not desirable to some more delicate native plants, requiring specific conditions to reproduce and grow.

Above these problems, the most visible and devastating is that of actual physical damage to plants and trees. Young trees (saplings and seedlings) are without question one of the most delicate entities in a forest setting, and one crushing blow from a mountain bike can be enough to end their short lives. Native understory species, once knocked over or ridden over, may be damaged to the point of nonrecovery in a particular growing season. Any plants which have been purposely placed in the ground for restoration efforts are extremely sensitive to environmental changes; and the risk of a transplant not surviving is greatly increased in the face of damage from recreational biking.

As a graduate student working in the field of restoration ecology, this last point hits home the hardest with me. Working in a section of the Natchez Hills forest tract in Kitchener, Ontario, I have spent a great deal of time carefully transplanting native vegetation into areas which have been destroyed by frequent mountain biking. I have firsthand knowledge of the sensitivity of transplants, that are trying there hardest to make it in a new environment of soil, surrounded by new neighboring species. Basically it is a tough enough life as it is, and if a set of wheels comes near these plants it is almost a guarantee that they will be killed.

In Natchez Hills a previous restoration effort erected fences and signage to help deter mountain bikers from certain highly sensitive sites in the forest which were in the process of being restored. So far this has been an effective means of keeping mountain bikers away from these particular sites, but the bike tracks that traverse the length of hill directly outside to the fence are what really rub me the wrong way, because it shows that the message is simply not getting across. This summer I witnessed one of these riders, plummeting down a hillside covered with thriving native vegetation, taking out plant after plant with a huge smile on his face, completely oblivious to the real damage he was doing. It made my stomach churn.

I want a message to reach recreational riders who think they are ‘outdoorsy' types, simply enjoying nature and experiencing the great outdoors. That message is: you are not enjoying nature, you are destroying nature. The damage done by wheels in forests is so unbelievably vast and far reaching, and the effects can last for years. An invasive species incursion due to unsavory conditions for native growth can last a lifetime, if there is no effort to control these species and they are allowed to take over the majority of a forest floor. The thriving populations of the invasive Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) and Chelidonium majus (greater celandine) in Natchez Hills are an indicator of just how far this damage has gone, and how long it might be before this forest is a properly functioning entity again.

Whether it be by means of legislation to ban mountain bikers from forests permanently, at the cost of major fines or worse, or by means of freeriders getting this message from forest advocates like myself, something needs to change. Restoration efforts are a step in the right direction, but they cannot survive in the face of continued belligerence toward the forest by those who, for the most part, are blissfully unaware of the exact harm they are causing.

An unspeakable amount of effort is pouring out of conservation and restoration disciplines to help save what is left of Ontario's forests. This movement needs all the help it can get, and the first step is removing continuous disturbance. So to all freeriders who insist on habitually riding in forested environments, heed this message: find a trail and don't let your wheels stray from it, even for an instant.
END



Hope that helps a little....

Trees aren't cut down! Another turn is added which makes the trail even more fun!! Also mountain bikers are not the only people creating trails, in the case of the Collective's ROAM it was gold prospectors that created the trails in the Sawtooth mountains. I guess in society today it is okay for the earth to be disturbed by people looking for valuable metals rather than people exercising. Digging for earths creations has a much more dramatic effect on the environment than mountain biking ever will!
flag stinkyrider17
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 19:57 Quote
^^^
they are saying like twigs and clumps of dirt have feelings

"the clump of dirt begs for mercy and cries out in terror as the cruel satan worshiping mountain biking extremist rides past it.

People are never happy.
there is people out there doing plenty worse stuff which no one even tries to stop.
The benefits of mountain biking far outweigh a couple of snapped twigs
flag MrPeanut
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 20:04 Quote
Agread man ^^^
OH MY GOD! I have never heard a hippy like that before. Oh no the the birds are scared of the tire wen they are also scared of a falling branch, the weeds and slight grass bits are being pulled up, one person is riding the MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL and having lots of funn, obviously the only reason they are having fun is because they know they are riding over a tiny shrub, NOT! the reason they are having funn is because MTB is their favorite thing to do, what they live for, Oh my goodness MTBers are running over grass when people are tearing down huge sections of trees sections of trees that support more the 1 bird or snail. Holy crap did you know people cut their grass! People trim plants too ma by you should right a full document on it! People like that really push my buttons! f*ck! Really Mad and also I don't know much, that is just what I feel.Salute
flag biking85
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 20:12 Quote
A rambling Southern Illinoisian's perspective:

Responsible trail users (hikers, horsers, bikers, whomever) on a properly built and maintained trail (IMBA standards) have little impact on the environment.

Having experts from fields such as biology, geology, archaeology, agronomy, etc. approve the location of a new trail will alleviate many arguments against building new trails. After all, they are the experts on our environment.

Definitely check out IMBA for bike impact data. I wouldn't hesitate to contact them personally. They love helping out with this sort of thing.

My rant on horseback riders:
The majority of horseback riders in my neck of the woods like technical (rooty, rocky, steep) trails just like we do. They also do little to no trail maintainence and do not concern themselves with things like cutting switchbacks and riding when the trail is wet. I feel because of lack of education in So. Ill., horse riders are not responsible and should be considered in the Forest Service plan as a different kind of user (as of this year, finally, bikers are considered in the FS planning as non-motorized users; horseback riders should not be in this category). I can say, for the Shawnee National Forest in So. Ill., that horseback riders cause considerably more damage than bikers.

As to the "scientific article": This is not science. Science collects data to help contribute to existing theory. Reviews of scientific literature (which is what this most closely resembles as far as science goes) must contain sources from peer reviewed literature to back up claims being made. Having said this, scientific journals will often publish "opinoins," which is most likely what this article is. The article is well thought out, but if you have to write a research paper, I am sure you must include legitimate sources to back your claims.

This forum is not the place to gather information on your topic. Go to IMBA as a first step. Also the Forest Service has policy and some data on this topic. Good luck and keep on fighting the good fight.
flag cmarwood
O+
Posted: Sep 23, 2008 at 20:18 Quote
biking85 wrote:
A rambling Southern Illinoisian's perspective:

Responsible trail users (hikers, horsers, bikers, whomever) on a properly built and maintained trail (IMBA standards) have little impact on the environment.

Having experts from fields such as biology, geology, archaeology, agronomy, etc. approve the location of a new trail will alleviate many arguments against building new trails. After all, they are the experts on our environment.

Definitely check out IMBA for bike impact data. I wouldn't hesitate to contact them personally. They love helping out with this sort of thing.

My rant on horseback riders:
The majority of horseback riders in my neck of the woods like technical (rooty, rocky, steep) trails just like we do. They also do little to no trail maintainence and do not concern themselves with things like cutting switchbacks and riding when the trail is wet. I feel because of lack of education in So. Ill., horse riders are not responsible and should be considered in the Forest Service plan as a different kind of user (as of this year, finally, bikers are considered in the FS planning as non-motorized users; horseback riders should not be in this category). I can say, for the Shawnee National Forest in So. Ill., that horseback riders cause considerably more damage than bikers.

As to the "scientific article": This is not science. Science collects data to help contribute to existing theory. Reviews of scientific literature (which is what this most closely resembles as far as science goes) must contain sources from peer reviewed literature to back up claims being made. Having said this, scientific journals will often publish "opinoins," which is most likely what this article is. The article is well thought out, but if you have to write a research paper, I am sure you must include legitimate sources to back your claims.

This forum is not the place to gather information on your topic. Go to IMBA as a first step. Also the Forest Service has policy and some data on this topic. Good luck and keep on fighting the good fight.
And horses poo on the trail too
flag socalshreder
O+
Posted: Sep 24, 2008 at 17:56 Quote
DavidMakalaster wrote:
Here's how you have to do it.

First you present your hypothesis. Next you break it down into several individual points that support your hypothesis. You must support each point with proven citable evidence from legitimate sources. Anecdotal evidence won't cut it. After thoroughly wrapping up your supporting points you give as many opposing points as you can. Then you break these down one by one with further evidence supporting your side. Once again anecdotal evidence and theories won't cut it. Finally you tie it all together with your closing statement. It should be succinct and firm and refer to two or three of your key points. This is the lasting impression of your paper. Make it count.

In order to prove your stance you must fully understand and appreciate the opposing views. I've had several debates and papers where the professor has assigned me to a side I adamantly disagree with only to change my own mind I argued it so well.

I already wrote an out line but my outline neds more info to be a 4 pg papper.
flag onterribleftw
O+
Posted: Sep 24, 2008 at 18:24 Quote
socalshreder wrote:
DavidMakalaster wrote:
Here's how you have to do it.

First you present your hypothesis. Next you break it down into several individual points that support your hypothesis. You must support each point with proven citable evidence from legitimate sources. Anecdotal evidence won't cut it. After thoroughly wrapping up your supporting points you give as many opposing points as you can. Then you break these down one by one with further evidence supporting your side. Once again anecdotal evidence and theories won't cut it. Finally you tie it all together with your closing statement. It should be succinct and firm and refer to two or three of your key points. This is the lasting impression of your paper. Make it count.

In order to prove your stance you must fully understand and appreciate the opposing views. I've had several debates and papers where the professor has assigned me to a side I adamantly disagree with only to change my own mind I argued it so well.

I already wrote an out line but my outline neds more info to be a 4 pg papper.

The old hamburger analogy works pretty well.
The top bun is your hypothesis (central idea) outlined with your arguments briefly summarized.
The guts of the burger are each argument you are making expanded upon, with detail, examples and sources to back up your arguments.
The bottom bun licks up all the juice and summarizes your hypothesis and how you supported it.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.026811
Mobile Version of Website