Mountain bikers pursue trails in Rib Mountain State Park

Posted by Tom Held on Dec. 15, 2011

Mountain biking advocates in the Wausau area have started to build plans for a trail system that would produce long, dowhnhill rides on the slopes in Rib Mountain State Park.

Hansi Johnson, midwest regional director of the International Mountain Bike Association, led a discussion of the proposal Wednesday night, and gathered input from about three dozen people.

One of the first steps will be to amend the master plan for the state park, which currently prohibits mountain biking.

The trail envisioned at Rib Mountain would complement the mountain bike loops in nearby Nine Mile County Forest, according to Johnson.

He envisions a trail that allows riders to "flow" down the hill so that riders can easily ride down without pedaling. The trails also would cater to a variety of riding skill levels, "not necessarily straight down and death-defying," Johnson said.

3 Comments for "Mountain bikers pursue trails in Rib Mountain State Park"

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 .
- Edit
- Delete
- Quote
- Report
mjvande Dec 15, 2011 7:40 PM
Please get a grip, you're clinging onto the fringe by your finger tips. Your argument starts off by saying that cyclists shouldn't be allowed in any nature area but how do you even define a nature area? Is it any place where there is grass or trees? Do you define mountain biking as purely its single track form or the leisurely mixed use, crushed gravel paths? As someone who enjoys a handful of rides in beautiful wisconsin state parks every summer I can assure you that the trails carved out bike bike tires are very narrow (only about 1 square inch of the tire is touching the ground at any given moment) in comparison with that of foot paths which are generally much wider. After years of visiting the same trails, erosion is no more severe than on dedicated foot paths. I have never even heard of a cyclist killing an animal. If that's your worry, you should probably not use motorized transportation to reach any hiking area as you are probably 50,000X more likely to kill or harm an animal than a cyclist is. There is clearly something that bugs you about people who mountain bike and you are grasping for some random "naturalist" approach to justify that emotion and cite seriously obscure references to give the illusion of an argument. I wholeheartedly agree that mountain biking should be contained to designated areas and trails so that perfectly serene sanctuaries can still exist but mountain biking is a fantastic way for people to enjoy nature while getting serious exercise along the way. To claim mountain biking shouldn't be allowed in "nature" is well, patently absurd. The wonders of our states forests belong to us all.
- Edit
- Delete
- Quote
- Report
124eva Dec 15, 2011 8:54 PM
mjvande,

Let me get this straight. More than 1/4th of all Wisconsinites are obese. Wisconsin averages $1.4 Billion annually in obesity related costs. Diabetes among children is skyrocketing. And somehow you feel that bicycles rolling along pre-designated trails as an enjoyable form of exercise in a tiny fraction of our natural areas is a bad thing? Have I summarized your position correctly?

I somehow get the feeling that if you took all the improperly discarded cigarette butts tossed about Wisconsin in any given year, and set them end-to-end, you'd have something that exceeded the total number of miles of mountain bike trails we have here.

There isn't going to be a post-mountain-biking-apocalyptic world that you envision. There's going to be a healthcare crisis when all kids have are video games.

Drop your pointless (and I'd argue damaging) crusade and go pick up some cigarette butts. I, for one, would thank you.

~ Chris
- Edit
- Delete
- Quote
- Report
seekfun Dec 16, 2011 9:28 AM

Post a Comment

[quote=mjvande]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 .[/quote]

Limit of 2000 characters, characters remaining

Preview

Cancel

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Please login to post a comment.

Blogs

${gotBlog.title}