Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DEC led Mtn. Bike Trail System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The cordial discussion about 'wilderness' and mountain biking is somewhat off topic, recall the topic of this thread is to comment on IMBA's trail design proposal.

    One of my points by posting the photos was to gauge the reaction to the earth moving that IMBA built trails can entail. I'm a mountain biker/dirt road tourist and to me it is excessive and creates too much disruption to the natural landscape. Another thing I'd like to point out is that trails built explicitly for mountain biking are not necessarily interesting for hikers to use (do hikers need banked turns and jumps?) , while many trails that where built for hiking are perfectly suited for mountain biking. (Witness the photos above from the North Country Trail).

    The primitive corridor initiative would be nice option to have, should the ADK mountain bike trails system be centered around multi-day routes, but I can imagine the howls of protest from other outdoor user groups. Wilderness areas and selected bike prohibited trails are things I can live with, assuming there alternatives and bicyclists aren't squeezed out completely.
    Last edited by jhl99; 01-05-2015, 09:45 PM. Reason: 4th last word "aren't" was "are"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post
      I'd love to see some strategic connectors that are bike legal thru wilderness.
      If alternatives could be developed that allow for routes that circumnavigate wilderness but still provide for community connectors, would that be acceptable?

      Originally posted by montcalm View Post
      And clear cutting has been part of Adirondack history but do we want that to continue? There are many poor arguments for banning bicycles, history is just another one to add to the pile.
      This is a topic for a different thread and a different debate, but suffice it to say: Clearcutting is a method of forest regeneration. It has certainly been used to disastrous effect when used in instances where it was not justifiable or it was poorly implemented, but so too have many other methods of regeneration. Clearcutting does have appropriate uses in forestry.

      Originally posted by montcalm View Post
      Shutting bikes out has just historically been a hypocritical rule to human powered recreation in wilderness areas. And FWIW I've never seen a 'human powered' horse.
      I don't think you can equate bicycles with canoes, though, without making some fairly substantial generalizations. How does the impact of a bicycle compare with a canoe? How does the impact of a bicycle compare with a hiker? With a horse? Remember, were not talking about just physical impacts, but social impacts as well. When you really examine each type of use, there are a lot of differences.

      To quote Hammitt and Cole in Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management:

      Both the nature and severity of impacts vary with type of recreational activity. ... Each [activity] is unique in the impacts that result, their spatial distribution, and how they change over time. For example, water pollution is most serious with boating, whereas erosion is most serious on trails and vegetation damage is most serious with camping and picnicking.
      No two modes of recreation are going to be equal in terms of the impact that they inevitably produce. It therefore stands to reason that the lines that get drawn between areas considered appropriate and inappropriate are going to be different for each type of use.

      Originally posted by montcalm View Post
      Bikes belong, whether you like it or not.
      This is a pretty subjective comment. I think that the arguments against bicycle use in wilderness are valid and are at least worthy of consideration. To be successful, any effort to influence a change in the policy against bicycle use within wilderness areas needs to address these concerns.

      Originally posted by jhl99 View Post
      One of my points by posting the photos was to gauge the reaction to the earth moving that IMBA built trails can entail. I'm a mountain biker/dirt road tourist and to me it is excessive and creates too much disruption to the natural landscape. Another thing I'd like to point out is that trails built explicitly for mountain biking are not necessarily interesting for hikers to use (do hikers need banked turns and jumps?) , while many trails that where built for hiking are perfectly suited for mountain biking. (Witness the photos above from the North Country Trail).
      I looked through the photos, and honestly, they look like typical examples of sidehilling. Whenever a trail traverses across a slope, some extent of sidehilling is necessary to minimize impacts. Sidehilling is the process of cutting a bench into the slope that provides a stable, flat surface (with a slight outward slope to facilitate drainage) across which to hike/ride/etc. Without sidehilling, inevitably what happens is that erosion causes the trail to slowly work its way downhill, eventually resulting in a much wider impacted area than just the surface of the trail itself.

      It certainly can involve moving a lot of earth around in the construction of the trail, but the idea is that by creating that stable surface, a lot less earth is going to move around later on due to use and impact.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by montcalm View Post
        Bikes belong, whether you like it or not.
        I think the attempt to create a new mountain bike trail system in the Moose River Plains Wild Forest is an excellent idea. I enjoy mountain biking, as well as many other forms of outdoor recreation. I ride a lot throughout most of the year, but I am of the opinion that bikes do not belong in areas designated as "Wilderness" within the Adirondack State Park. Everything has its place, and some things just don't mix well for some folks.
        I for one think that I'd be taken aback if I happened to be hiking along a Wilderness trail several miles from the trailhead, and all of a sudden a group of mountain bikers came flying by.

        Comment


        • #34
          The debate has never really been about impact when it comes to bikes. Despite all the brainwashing from the other side of the debate it's always been about comparing hikers (or horses) to bikes. They all cause impact. Campers cause impact. I also don't suggest mixing hiking trails with bike trails. The simple fact is that bikes are a form of non-motorized recreation and are no less a machine than is a ski binding or paddle. Grouping them with motorized recreation is simply wrong. It's some construct that the other side has made based on some anti-bike propaganda started when these wilderness designations came about.

          So what if a group of skiers came flying by on your wilderness hike when you were on snowshoes? It's the same thing and they are allowed. It's just a prejudice you have in your mind based on the current set of rules.

          Those that oppose this will never be swayed. In fact I believe these type of people even want to keep everyone out of the wilderness except themselves. That's not going to happen. The state of NY can't even close a road leading into a wilderness area.

          Bikers have been unfairly treated for some time, and it's about time some change started coming about. Trails and alliances have been cropping up and I believe it's only a matter of time before a trail goes through a wilderness area, be it a 'corridor' or simply a multi-use bike trail.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Justin View Post
            I think the attempt to create a new mountain bike trail system in the Moose River Plains Wild Forest is an excellent idea. I enjoy mountain biking, as well as many other forms of outdoor recreation. I ride a lot throughout most of the year, but I am of the opinion that bikes do not belong in areas designated as "Wilderness" within the Adirondack State Park. Everything has its place, and some things just don't mix well for some folks.
            I for one think that I'd be taken aback if I happened to be hiking along a Wilderness trail several miles from the trailhead, and all of a sudden a group of mountain bikers came flying by.
            I've had mountain bikers 'fly' by a few times - but that has usually been at trail centers. Most overland / backcountry riding is slower. Although, like anything else, people tend to behave like humans. Even in the wild.

            Honestly I'd rather have some MTBs come by that hear a truck or snowmobile or float plane every couple of minutes, hours, etc.

            I think the key thing would be to make specific corridors Mtb legal. Not every trail everywhere. It's just not appropriate.


            But, I'd trade you banning all personal automobiles from the park if you could ride everywhere. Now that would do more good for wilderness than the handful of MTBs that you might encounter.


            I would love to see a connector / corridor from speculator area into MrP. Another out from west end of MrP into woodhull lake area. There are likely more places where long connectors would make sense to connect wild Forest that are landlocked so to speak. I'd trade a couple of those connectors and improving some of the summer snomo trails for all the loops IMbA wants to build.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by montcalm View Post
              So what if a group of skiers came flying by on your wilderness hike when you were on snowshoes? It's the same thing and they are allowed. It's just a prejudice you have in your mind based on the current set of rules.
              That does happen from time to time, and I simply step aside and say hello as they pass. I disagree that skiing and mountain biking are the same thing, and I disagree that biking is the same as paddling. I'm not prejudice against bicycles. As I mentioned, I like to ride too, but I also like the fact that bikes are not allowed in Wilderness areas. If it's ever made legal than so be it, but it won't get my vote. If I want to ride, I'll go where they are allowed. There are plenty of options and I hope that the push for more trails in the Moose River Plains Wild Forest goes through. Just my two cents as someone who enjoys many different types of outdoor recreation.

              Comment


              • #37
                Justin they of course are not the same. And of course we know bikes have more impact than paddling.

                You tried to make a point against bikes in that they move fast and are discourteous. Your point is no different than a skier who could do the same thing.

                The fact about the paddle is that it is a machine. A bike is a machine. A ski binding is a machine. If you want to strip machines from the wilderness areas then please do as bmike-vt said and swim and hike only.

                I actually don't own a mountain bike - but I still believe they have a right to ride and not be grouped with motorized recreation.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Montcalm, I refuse to debate back and forth with you.
                  I never implied that bikers are discourteous, I simply stated that I think that I'd be taken aback, i.e. surprised by something unexpected. Again, if one day it is legal to ride on wilderness trails, then so be it. I will reserve my opinion that they don't belong.
                  Good day to you Sir.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I apologize for reading into your post. I thought of someone running you off the trail as discourteous. We obviously know that not all skiers are that way, and neither are all bikers.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The funny thing to me is that bikes had been tossed off to Wild Forests to trails which in many cases were not any better suited to handle them. Impacts, if they were going to rampant, would have been just as bad.

                      And I think the suggestion that the corridors in the Catskills show little abuse has little to support the argument. The evidence presented was anecdotal with no knowledge of how many bikes actually have used the trails. If anything it supports the counter-argument that a bike trail would not cause mass destruction of the wilderness, be it from little use, or simply low impact riding.

                      And although this is not the proper way to do it - bikers could be just like those who build illegal structures on the forest preserve and just ride illegally. We all know the DEC does not have the resources to chase down every biker that could potentially break these rules... yet there is very little evidence to suggest that bikers are doing this. In fact they seem to be using the proper channels to try to bring forth a change.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by montcalm View Post
                        And I think the suggestion that the corridors in the Catskills show little abuse has little to support the argument. The evidence presented was anecdotal with no knowledge of how many bikes actually have used the trails. If anything it supports the counter-argument that a bike trail would not cause mass destruction of the wilderness, be it from little use, or simply low impact riding.
                        I wasn't attempting to make (or suggest) any point with my question. I was genuinely curious as to how much bicycle use the bicycle corridors in the Catskills are getting. The purpose of my question was to solicit more information so as to make a better, more informed decision for myself.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DSettahr View Post
                          Does anyone actually use the corridors in the Catskills? I was somewhat in favor of them on the grounds that they would provide community connector routes via old roads suitable to mountain bike use that did not traverse any particularly remote locations. But the few times I've hiked them since the designation, I've not seen any evidence that they were being used by bicyclists.
                          Originally posted by DSettahr View Post
                          I wasn't attempting to make (or suggest) any point with my question. I was genuinely curious as to how much bicycle use the bicycle corridors in the Catskills are getting. The purpose of my question was to solicit more information so as to make a better, more informed decision for myself.
                          I understand that you were inquiring, but you also made a statement that you've seen no evidence of bikes on those trails. I'm not going to read into what you said, but simply point out that it does not mean that those trails are not used by bicycles.

                          My point was that regardless of whether or not they are being used, they aren't causing a problem... as suggested by your observations.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by montcalm View Post
                            I understand that you were inquiring, but you also made a statement that you've seen no evidence of bikes on those trails. I'm not going to read into what you said, but simply point out that it does not mean that those trails are not used by bicycles.
                            I think it really depends on the amount of use the trails are getting. The idea that even a moderate level of bicycle use wouldn't leave some tell-tale signs of impact clearly indicating the source is, I think, unrealistic. We've all seen tire tracks and know what they look like. It's the same with hikers or any other type of recreational use.

                            The example I'm thinking of specifically is the Dutcher Notch Trail. When I hiked it a few years ago (after the bicycle corridor designation), it was completely devoid of any evidence of bicycle use- even in the wet and muddy stretches of trail where tire ruts would be obvious (and would last for some time). I distinctly remember finding it to be an interesting observation, as I was curious to see what effect the designation of the corridors may have had.

                            I'm not saying that I'm definitely opposed to the idea of mountain biking trails in wilderness areas. All I'm saying is that I think that there are some valid concerns that would need to be addressed before it could happen. And I think that the question of whether a bike is in itself an unjustifiable affront to the idea of "wildness" in what is an area that is supposed to be subject to the maximum possible protections is worth asking.

                            No type of recreational use is justifiable everywhere. Certainly, not all of it may be constrained by regulation, but ethics dictate even that there are places where we shouldn't tread even on foot (such as much of the alpine zone in the High Peaks).

                            (As an interesting aside, Russia has taken the wilderness concept a step further with the establishment of the Zapovedniks, biological and wildlife preserves that exist primarily for ecological protection and not for recreational use. Many of the Zapovedniks are accessible only for scientific and educational use, and are not open to the public for recreation.)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              [QUOTE=DSettahr;226064Many of the Zapovedniks are accessible only for scientific and educational use, and are not open to the public for recreation.)[/QUOTE]

                              I guess the Zapovedniks don't have any waterways that are "navigable in fact."

                              In all seriousness, I like the Zapovednik idea. I think it's already in use in the US via the "Research Natural Area" program. And I think there are places for that in the Adirondacks.

                              But for most places, common sense assessment of recreational impact (both physical, like erosion, and aesthetic, like loud noises and bright colors) is possible. But an awful lot of user groups strain credulity with their positions (such as the "my wheels are OK, your wheels are not OK" argument for canoe carts vs. bikes).

                              And I agree with montcalm; I think many folks are somehow knee jerk opposed to bikes, and automatically (perhaps unconsciously) classify them with motorized vehicles.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I'm not doubting that the observation was that there was no evidence of bicycles but just because a trail is designated as bike trail (or ski, snowmobile, etc) doesn't mean it will be used as such. It's also possible that there were riders there and their tracks were trammeled by boots later on or that they rode in dry conditions. Some riders even carry their bikes over big mud pits.

                                Now the thing on my mind is why a trail was designated for bikes that had wet and muddy stretches of trail? This isn't appropriate whether the trail goes through wilderness or wild forest. Impacts on bike trails could be greatly reduced if the trails were consciously designed and located. I alluded to this before but it's much more of an issue in my mind than whether or not it is in a wilderness area or wild forest.

                                Also, perhaps as is with roads, such trails should be closed during mud season.

                                Obviously all this takes some sort of education, or enforcement, but seen as how the wilderness areas aren't overrun with illegal mountain bikers, I don't see it as a big risk. I think they will listen.

                                If anything hikers are more at fault for not respecting mud season. I hate to point the finger and use the argument that hikers ruin the wilderness, but they are certainly the only ones the finger can be pointed at right now. Even so I think amount of damage they do is very minimal in relation to the amount of land conserved.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X