Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!harris
From: harris@uiucdcsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikes - One Rider's Reply
Message-ID: <16200064@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 15:23:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.16200064
Posted: Sun Oct 14 15:23:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Oct-84 06:53:01 EDT
References: <945@druri.UUCP>
Lines: 41
Nf-ID: #R:druri:-94500:uiucdcsb:16200064:000:2241
Nf-From: uiucdcsb!harris    Oct 14 14:23:00 1984

I hear this "more study is needed" line far too much these days. It seems
to be a common cry among the anti-environment group at the White House, too.
While there is rarely any argument that more information would help with a
decision, to take NO action until EVERYTHING is known about a subject is
utter stupidity.  (As used by the White House, it is a deliberate delay
tactic).

If a semi-trailer is on the verge of running you over, do you jump out of the
way, or is more study needed?  After all, the precise extent of your injuries,
the probability that you will be killed, etc, etc. is not precisely known.

Enough is known about the damage that hikers do to fragile mountain
environments to warrant action to try to minimize that damage (ie. public
education programs that emphasize staying on trails, low impact camping, etc.,
and wilderness planning efforts that consider the impact of cutting a trail
to concentrate foot traffic vs. not doing same, etc.).  And that is just for
hikers, who have a lot of control over each foot step!  Plenty is known about
the damage that dirt-bikes (ie. motorized) do, too.  To assert that bicycles
are so vastly different from either of these two that none of this knowledge
is at all relevant is absurd.

Instead of doing nothing until someone precisely identifies all aspects
of the damage that ATBs do (akin to closing the barn door after the cows have
gone), it would seem that the logical thing to do would be to ban ATBs from
fragile environments except at selected experimental sites, where their impact
could be studied.  If, and not until, such studies show that ATBs do not have
a significant impact on such environments, or that some method can be devised
to reduce that impact to an acceptable level, then they can be allowed in more
such areas.  In this way, we can protect our fragile areas.

Most people don't seem to realize just how fragile some of the mountain
environments are.  Soil is a precious commodity there, and plant growth is
extremely slow.  Some plants only grow an inch in a CENTURY, and bloom only
every 50 years.  This is a far cry from your average back yard garden, and
is much of the reason that people are so concerned. 


				Jon Harris

				harris@uiucdcsb