I got an email from Mike Vandeman today! For those that don't know him is the most vocal of the anti mountain bike community in WA. He is usually very forceful in his words and not willing to talk about any solution other than stop ALL off road riding. He will be a big fight for the current work being done o create a trail building guideline with DNR and anyone involved in that effort should know his tactes so you can respond. Here is what he had to say with my response. Not the first time I have talked to him.

Mike:

Can't you tell the difference between using bikes beneficially (to replace motor vehicle use), and using them destructively (replacing hiking with mountain biking)?! It really isn't that difficult!

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the
area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

For more information: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbfaq .

--

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

Me:

I do agree with you in some very limited respects Mike. But your email presentation is not very inviting to interest someone into seeing your view and having an open debate to allow you to get your point across with more impact.

I do feel that certain areas are not appropriate for maintain bikes, that area being huge regions of currently undeveloped lands. I am very much a follower of Aldo Leopold, Michael Dombeck, Mark Benedict, and the vision Florian Schultz has for the Y2Y project. Even different forms of cycling have different levels of impact and certain high intensity uses such as racing can have positive or ill effects depending on the area.

The simple fact is that mountain biking exist and will not be going away and it seems that the better approach is for all stakeholders in the environment to get together and identify how life can go one while reducing or when possible eliminating the impact on the world.

The flaws in impact research you pointed out done by riders has just as many flaws on the opposite side. It is true that many mountain bike riders can walk/hike in and that is much more appropriate for certain areas just as it is better for other areas that no one go in at all. But mountain bikes and derivatives of the sport like off road wheel chairs to afford opportunity in the right settings to allow people with debilitating health issues access the outdoors that is unavailable otherwise.

Your opening lines "Can't you tell the difference between using bikes beneficially (to replace motor vehicle use), and using them destructively (replacing hiking with mountain biking)?! It really isn't that difficult!" work very effectively to close others off from your message. Might I suggest. "How can we reduce the impact on our natural resources and wildlife? Let's talk about setting aside our nature lands for tomorrows generations"


Joseph (Jody) Ott
Mountain Bike Captain
Capital Bicycling Club
Olympia WA
soulbikes@...
www.capitalbicycleclub.org