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