[pct-l] resources on multi-use trails

[abiegen at cox.net]

Ken wrote:

>This page list a lot of resources on "shared use", and gives some of the strategies employed by bikers in making presentations to managers.

>http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/index.html

I understand that Ken posted this link so that we would better understand the strategies used by mountain bikers. My comments are not directed toward him as I appreciate what he is doing. We all need to be aware of the strategies that will be used to get bikes on the PCT. Thanks Ken.

As someone who has been involved with MBers attempting to take over trails here in Santa Barbara, I/ve been exposed to all the tricks and pretzel logic used by these folks, I am fully aware of the bag of tricks they use repeatedly around the world. They pretend to be just a bunch of local guys out having fun (and I believe that most mountain bikers are) but there is a core group centered around IMBA that know all the angles to use to push their way into all trails, in all locations around the world. IMBA was formed when a group of mountain bikers were denied access to trails in northern California. It was started by a lawyer and the main core group is made up of lawyers and those that think like lawyers. My point is that these are people who are smart, well educated and have a sole purpose to prove their clients are innocent.

In respect to the section on "Natural resource impacts from mountain biking" written by one of he core individuals at the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA).

This is very disturbing that IMBA was able to get their interpretation of these impact studies on the National Trails Training Partnership (NTTP) website. These studies are as bad as the worst studies done by pharmaceutical corporations of their own products. The individuals running the studies were mountain bikers, the subjects in the studies were mountain bikers, the studies are poorly formed and controlled, and often the conclusions reached are not supported by the data.

Consider your behavior if you were a mountain biker and were asked to take part in a study of the impacts of mountain biking on a controlled section of trail. You were asked to ride repeatedly over the same section. Would your behavior be different if you knew that the results might make your sport look bad? These were not scientifically controlled studies.

For example, take the study they list as: "Chiu and Kriwoken: No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear." 
You will first notice that this study has not been published. The article says it is 'pending" but that just means it has not been published. We don't' know for sure if it ever will be published. 

Despite the title of this section, the text below states, "They did find significant impact from skidding tires, and they did find that impacts on wet trails were greater than on dry for both types of use." I'll leave it to you to decide which group was wearing the tires. And we haven't even started to look at the data yet. Again, these are mountain bikers knowing that they are taking part in a study being run in most cases by mountain bikers to make their preconceived point. I'm sure they would not have wanted their group  to look bad.

We are in for a fight and it will not be a fair fight. We already know that they have been meeting in secret with the Forest Service. They have already removed that part from their Facebook page since one of the lawyers probably mentioned that that is a violation of the Brown Act here in California.

TrailHacker
--
"When my feet hurt, I can't think straight"
Abraham Lincoln