# What are common arguments AGAINST MTB trails?



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

I'd like to get feedback from everyone (particularly those with experience establishing or attempting to establish new trail systems) on the most common arguments AGAINST mountain biking trails.

I can easily imagine some in a general way...

- environmental destruction
- noise
- reckless behavior from riders
- conflicts with hunters
- fear that everyone else will want something too
etc.

...but I'd love to hear any _specific_ complaints/concerns any of you have heard from landowners, local governments, etc.

IMBA does a good job citing the benefits/positive things associated with mountain biking...but I think for anyone (or club) thinking of establishing a new trail system, being able to *anticipate* and *counter* the arguments/excuses you know you're going to hear is critically important.

Thanks,
Scott

PS - I've been scouring the IMBA site looking for this kind of information...but so far haven't found any. If anyone knows of good info there, I'd appreciate a point in the right direction!


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Most common excuse I've heard is "mtn. bikes cause erosion".


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

they leave post holes, are easily spooked and crap on the trails... oh wait...:skep:


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Surly29 said:


> Most common excuse I've heard is "mtn. bikes cause erosion".


Okay-there's one good argument against MTBs. That one should be easily countered by explaining sustainable trail building techniques and then showing many excellent examples of it.

Any more?
Scott


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

Are you talking about arguments against building new trails or adding mountain bikes to the existing mix of trail users? Two very different subjects.

Don't fall into the trap that mountain bikers cause erosion, erosion is 90% due to poor trail design. Each user group causes its own unique damage to the trails. For example, I have never seen a mountain biker cut a switchback but hikers do it all of the time.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

SWriverstone said:


> Any more?
> Scott


Yes. I'll leave out the ones where people have mistaken motorcycles for "mountain bicycles" (trying to coin a phrase here for the sake of MTB advocacy).

1. More people will come to ride the trails and scare away the wildlife.
2. Cyclists will ride off the trails and destroy the local fauna.
3. They leave their garbage all over the trails.
4. They scare me, or my dog, or my horse when they come ripping around the corners out of control.
5. Cutting more trails in an area that has enough trails.
6. Walking on mountain bicycle trails is dangerous because they are all skinny ladders built 12 feet in the air.
7. I fall over when I hike on bermed corners. (Just kidding but sooner or later I'm sure I'll hear that one).
8. Specific erosion... Braking bumps, braiding trails to avoid obstacles, widening trails to avoid wet spots, riding through wet spots and creating ruts.
9. Liability concerns. If we allow mountain bicycles and someone gets hurt, they'll sue us.

I am fortunate in that my local; regional government recognizes cyclists as a legitimate user group for local trails. I am unfortunate in that they see a trail as at least 4 feet wide, as close to level as possible and has a compacted gravel surface or pavement.

I'm working on them. I put a trail in a local community park that is none of the above. Most of the government officials like it.

BTW: If you really read through all the research on the IMBA site, you can find reports with arguments against MTB as part of the studies.

http://www.imba.com/resources/research/trail-science


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Thanks *Trail Ninja*...I think a lot of those arguments are more in the category of psychological arguments (like "the bikers scare me when they come down the trail")-which are just as "dangerous" as more factual arguments (like erosion).

*@bweide* - Good point. I guess I'm thinking more about objections to building brand-new trails...but I'm guessing there is overlap between the two (such as "bikers cause erosion" which could be an excuse applied to new trails or existing ones).

And don't worry-I'd never fall into the "erosion" trap...but I want to be ready with a hard-hitting arsenal of facts when/if someone trots out the erosion argument!

Scott


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

I live just outside Cincinnati Ohio. Below is a link to the Cincinnati Park Boards policy on Off Road Cycling. It is a text book example of some land managers argument . The local advocacy organization which I am involved with, Cincinnait Off Road Alliance (CORA) has submitted a formal response. We have recently been invited to sit on an exploratory committee at the request of City Council. City Council is in favor of over turning the ban and allowing a pilot program to take place. Due to the election of some younger type council people, coupled with examples from surrounding trail projects, City Council is starting to see the benefit of having off-road cycling.

Just over the river in Convington, KY, where I live, I am the lead volunteer of the Devou Park Project. It took four years of lobbying to receive permission to break ground. The entire four years we were never told "No", we were most often told, "Sounds great, but..........." The project has been a lot of work yet very rewarding. If I would have known this forum was around when I was trying to figure a lot of stuff out regarding the project, I think I would have had an easier time. It would have helped me avoid some frustrations.

Cool man,

Chad

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/child/Blob/30335.pdf;jsessionid=87E46B66444D10B4E293391178B956B1?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no%3D%27201000805%27


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

If you want facts on erosion due to mtn biking, refer to the last paragraph of the Cincinnatti Parks report. As a biker, some of those are hard to swallow, but they are referenced facts. If I had to give any kind of a talk on the impacts of mountain biking, I think I'd track down those references and read all the relevant reports.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

That entire report was about people riding off trail and building renegade trails.

Building renegade trails is a legitimate concern and requires patrol and bylaw enforcement.

Once again, trail cyclists are taking the heat for someone else's transgressions. Riding off trail and trampling vegetation sounds more like hikers to me. There are tons of studies that show hikers to be way more likely to go off trail than any other users.

Hands up everyone who rides off the trail on purpose through the vegetation where you can't see what you're riding over or into.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

> 7. I fall over when I hike on bermed corners. (Just kidding but sooner or later I'm sure I'll hear that one).


omg, rofl. So right. Some lawyer has probably already heard that.


----------



## smeets1 (Dec 30, 2003)

With respect to parks located in suburban/residential areas, increased auto traffic and/or parking concerns may be an issue. Depending on the area these may be legitimate concerns, but they are not unique to mountain biking.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Trail Ninja said:


> That entire report was about people riding off trail and building renegade trails.
> 
> Building renegade trails is a legitimate concern and requires patrol and bylaw enforcement.
> 
> ...


I personally am about as conscientious and law abiding MTBer as you'll find. I often block braids and renegade trails in an effort to keep folks on designated trails. That said, I have occasionally found myself in places where I shouldn't be. It's easy to do. People riding off trail and making renegade trails is, IMO a very big problem. While I try to stay on legitimate trials, I see no shortage of evidence of people who don't. Everything from shortcutting turns to burnig in DH trails to braiding and widening due to peole ridding around roots, rocks, mud, barking bumps, and so on.

IMO, MTBs on multi use urban trails is a tough sale. People on bikes go further and faster than people on foot and it a recipe for conflict in a crowded area. For something like that to work, the MTB community needs to step up with some aggressive education, design features, peer pressure and enforcement.

With the advance in bikes and the popularization of "freeride" etc riding in bike media, we are seeing more and more MTBers going off trail to search for a more "techy" riding experience. We also see a lot of people going faster which leads to all kinds of issues like braking bumps, turns getting wider because people blow the turn a little bit, user conflicts where a biker traveling fast has to get hard on the brakes for another user, are not courteous, etc. The whole Mtn Dew/Red Bull style of riding does not mix well in a multi use, high use environment

Another solution is to push the bike park concept. A place that is specifically intended for the style of riding that can cause issues in urban parks. Design a place with lots of features, steep (but sustainable) trails, skinnies, drops, berms, jumps, pump tracks, one way trails, etc. The difficulty with this is it's a large investment to build and maintain, but serves a pretty small segment of the population at large. On the plus side, a lot of that kind of stuff can be done in a fairly dense area so you can entertain a fairly large number of people in a fairly small area.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

It's always wise to be prepared for anything and everything. If you are going to (or expect to) face strong opposition during a meeting or presentation, what's your goal, what do you want to accomplish? Everyone has different goals, mine is usually to remain standing and be bombarded with questions. I've found that although it would be nice, I'm not going to be singing KUMbayAH with a new group of friends after the meeting, I'm not changing a room full of minds 180 degrees in a couple hours. If you can make your opposition ask questions, seek info from you, try to descredit you, accuse you of doing nasty things, you will be doing great. Don't let them shut you up. Discussion = progress.

If you're going to a gunfight, a gun is worthless without bullets. 
Gun=argument Bullets=Documented support for your argument.
In my book, emotional arguments without any form of collaboration is an opinion, and I thought we are discussing facts. In order to pull this off, you better have bullets, alot of them, and the right ones. My goal in this situation is to last long enough until one member of the opposition realizes we all ain't gonna make it home early tonight, might as well get something constructive done.


----------



## Seabass (Mar 10, 2005)

SWriverstone said:


> ...but I'd love to hear any _specific_ complaints/concerns any of you have heard from landowners, local governments, etc.


Did you read this?

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/...391178B956B1?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no='201000805'


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

zrm said:


> I personally am about as conscientious and law abiding MTBer as you'll find. I often block braids and renegade trails in an effort to keep folks on designated trails. That said, I have occasionally found myself in places where I shouldn't be. It's easy to do. People riding off trail and making renegade trails is, IMO a very big problem. While I try to stay on legitimate trials, I see no shortage of evidence of people who don't. Everything from shortcutting turns to burnig in DH trails to braiding and widening due to peole ridding around roots, rocks, mud, barking bumps, and so on.
> 
> IMO, MTBs on multi use urban trails is a tough sale. People on bikes go further and faster than people on foot and it a recipe for conflict in a crowded area. For something like that to work, the MTB community needs to step up with some aggressive education, design features, peer pressure and enforcement.
> 
> ...


My idea of riding "off trail" is to actually go cross country where there is no indication of a trail. Once you start kicking sticks out of the way, you're into building renegade trails.

I'm trying to apply my experience in the wilderness to a city park in another country. It doesn't translate well.

Bike parks work and there is money to be made with them. It makes the concept easier to sell. Two local ski resorts have said they make more money from cyclists in the summer than skiers in the winter.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

Seabass said:


> Did you read this?
> 
> http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/...391178B956B1?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no='201000805'


The footnotes to that article aren't attached. Probably a bunch of Mike V. studies. What's painfully obvious is that Cin. Oh isn't providing something the public wants. Perhaps their facilities are inadequate but they're finger pointing the wrong way.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Great posts, zrm and Boulder Pilot in particular.

Seems like the *"speed and distance covered"* issue with mountain biking is one of the biggest, insofar as it relates to the potential for MTBing to impact hikers and to (as often perceived by others) cause erosion over much larger areas.

It really stinks that MTB is no different than most other "xtreme" sports (like whitewater paddling) in that the people who ALWAYS get the most public attention are the adrenaline-junkie, in-your-face, "bad boy" push-it-to-the-limit types.

This stinks because THAT'S the impression the general public always gets of these sports...because that's all you tend to see on YouTube...and that's all magazine publishers put on their covers, etc.

I'm a professional video producer...and I'm getting closer to launching a project to produce a short MTB documentary that focuses exclusively on the "quieter, environmentally-sensitive, more polite and considerate" side of mountain biking. (Seriously.) I'd even give it a peaceful, tree-hugging name like...

"The Peaceful Forest Gliders"

 - Ok, that may be a stupid name...but you get my drift. Names like "The Woods Belong To Us" are confrontative and counter-productive from the start.

Scott


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

*Highly Recommended Reading*

I highly recommend reading the Cincinnati Parks department report linked to in the Seabass posting above. While I don't agree with its conclusions or much of its quoted research, it is an extremely concise summary of the problems land managers fear when dealing with mountain biking use of their land. Things like poor riding technique, aggressive riders, wildcat trails, etc. are all headaches for land managers who deal with mountain bike usage.

It also shows how selective use of statistics can support any conclusion. For example, one quoted statistic is "In a U.S. Forest Service study, 35% of surveyed land managers reported "resource degradation from mountain biking in the areas they managed". My question is, what were the equivalent numbers for hikers and equestrians? My guess is the hiker numbers where over 25% and the equestrian numbers over 50%. ALL usage causes some resource degradation.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

I definitely plan to give that Cincinnati report a good study this weekend. I'm also interested in reading the various papers by a Michael J. Vandeman, who seems to be an "arch enemy" of mountain biking (such as http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/white )

This guy says stuff like...


> I am concerned about a trend I have noticed for advocates of mountain biking to publish articles on mountain biking impacts that purport to be scientific studies, but in fact are designed and intended to promote mountain biking by minimizing its impacts and by drawing conclusions that don't follow from their data.


Scott


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

Trail Ninja said:


> Bike parks work and there is money to be made with them. It makes the concept easier to sell. Two local ski resorts have said they make more money from cyclists in the summer than skiers in the winter.


Where are you located? Would one of those ski resorts happen to be Whistler?


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

ajd245246 said:


> Where are you located? Would one of those ski resorts happen to be Whistler?


I'm on the Island so, yeah, Whistler & Mt. Washington.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

The links to the Cin. report are not working for me. So I'll move on. 1). Encountering arguments against mtb access due to mtb'ers disrespect of park rules, lack of trail etiquette, unauthorized trail building, etc. is one thing. 2). Arguments against mtb access from existing trail user groups that don't want mtb'ers included is another. 3). Anti-mtb arguments from a land manager faced with a proposal for a new mtb'ing trail is also different.

Different in the sense meaning there is usually an underlying factor or motive in these 3 scenarios. In #1, a % of mtb'ers have behaved in a way to warrant these arguments. Unless 100% of mtb'ers are causing these problems, any argument used to ban ALL mtb'ers is a false argument. "We cannot catch individual mtb'ers breaking laws, therefore, we will ban all mtb'ers". There's no apparent logic in that statement, so other arguments get tacked on to justify their action.

But if you look beyond the words of the statement, do a little research, you may find that Ranger staff and budget just got slashed, or their overworked, resources spread to thin, etc. I'm not justifying the action, I'm pointing out an underlying reason, that may be the real reason. If this were to be "the real reason", which, by the way still is not fair nor acceptable, it would give you an angle to strengthen your argument. In this case, offering to create a volunteer patrol; post trail etiquette signs, etc.

#2 usually deals with user groups fearing the worst if mtb'ers are included where they have not been previously. Worst case scenarios are presented as what to expect on a daily basis. Whatever argument(s) used in this scenario are usually a cover for "We like the trails to ourselves and don't want to share". It's based on fear of change, self entitlement. Take 'em head on with your case studies "bullets". Use nearby areas as evidence that with proper management, shared use trails work.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

SWriverstone said:


> I definitely plan to give that Cincinnati report a good study this weekend. I'm also interested in reading the various papers by a Michael J. Vandeman, who seems to be an "arch enemy" of mountain biking (such as http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/white )
> 
> This guy says stuff like...
> 
> Scott


Mike V is a so far out of it that the loonys won't listen to him. Word is he's been discredited at multiple speaking venues. He was recently charged for assaulting 2 mt bikers with a hand saw....


----------



## cjohnson (Jul 14, 2004)

*this is what I hear*

1. You love that trail more than me.
2. I'm tired.
3. Again?
4. Midwest trails broke my mountain bike (ironic, isn't it).
6. The lawn needs mowing.
7. Again?
8. You went last week.
9. Can you clean the cat box first?
10. Again?


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

cjohnson said:


> 1. You love that trail more than me.
> 2. I'm tired.
> 3. Again?
> 4. Midwest trails broke my mountain bike (ironic, isn't it).
> ...


  

I don't think the OP meant arguments heard _in your house_


----------



## Howley (Nov 23, 2005)

We now have a legal case that identified MTB users who affect the "solitude and serenity" of other "Wilderness" users. This is going to be a long battle...The messgage is "They" do not want to see "us" there.


----------



## cjohnson (Jul 14, 2004)

*airplanes?*

Just wait until an airplane flies overhead.

I have to admit though, when I am in a wilderness area, whether hiking canoeing or napping. My solitude and serenity is disturbed if I encounter other hikers, canoers or nappers.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

Take a different approach by using these two documents to show the people you are talking to that you know what you are talking about. Why reinvent the wheel?

http://www.whistler.ca/images/stori...Committee/Recreational Cycling Plan FINAL.pdf

http://www.whistler.ca/images/stories/PDF/Resort Experience/Cycling_Committee/MTB Master_V9.pdf

TD


----------



## TunicaTrails (Jun 29, 2009)

The erosion problem and trail widening issues, let's face it, it happens on popular trails. It happens on IMBA-grade trails.

It happens on the gravel roads around my house too. Our group of neighbors grades the road regularly, and it'll sure need it after the downpours we're getting this week.

I would counter the erosion argument with a statement that a properly-maintained trail will minimize erosion and have repairs made (i.e. "hardening") where necessary in sensitive areas.

Natural areas left completely natural will be prone to erosion as well. It's true that a trail will be a small strip of land through that natural environment that is devoid of life, but I'd counter that mountain bikers _prefer_ that trail to be as narrow as possible.

Most singletrack in my area of the country will be invisible after two years of neglect. The city's conception of trails as wide, levelled, gravelled paths will have actually imposed a much more permanent, destructive degree of alteration to the landscape.

Instead of allowing for more hypotheticals to be brought up, get into specific case studies. Visit a popular trail and take photos of high-traffic areas. Be honest with yourself and you'll be prepared for any argument.



Seabass said:


> Did you read this?
> 
> http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/...391178B956B1?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no='201000805'


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

*Awesome*



traildoc said:


> Take a different approach by using these two documents to show the people you are talking to that you know what you are talking about. Why reinvent the wheel?
> 
> http://www.whistler.ca/images/stori...Committee/Recreational Cycling Plan FINAL.pdf
> 
> ...


Sweet docs, read through most of the first and it's perfect.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Add the Sea to Sky Mountain Biking Economic Impact Study (2006) to your reading list too.

You can find that and a few other useful tidbits here:

http://www.mbta.ca/Resources/Sustainable_MTB_Tourism/


----------



## schaarschmidt (Aug 20, 2007)

NEVER approach a land manager and ask permission to build a mountain bike trial. 

Simply request permission to build a "multi-use trail", which will be opened to hiking and biking. This is probably exactly what you plan to do when you request to build a mountain bike trail, but for some reason the words "multi-use" is easier to stomach then a mountain bike trail that will also allow hikers. It is all about word choice in the initial meeting.

If asked why you want to build a multi use trail there are all sorts of reasons but one the land manager is sure to understand is: trails designated "multi-use" earn additional points towards being awarded RTP grants over single-use trails, at least in Tennessee.

If I had to do it all over again I wouldn't have helped form a mountain bike club, I would have formed the Chattanooga Area Hiking and Biking Trails Association or some other inclusive name. The thought process is that everyone hikes so non-members, including park staff are more likely to identify with you and your group. And, lets face it... we all hike so this would be an accurate description of your membership base.

I think it also helps you out if you go before a county parks and rec board and you have an old school hiker that is anti-mountain bike. When he attempts to oppose you as the self appointed representative from the hiking community they will listen to him. The best way to undermine what he is claiming is to voice the fact that the hike/bike club disagrees with the crusty hateful person. Your organization instantly becomes the voice of reason who is willing to work with different groups, not like that lone hateful hiker.


----------



## schaarschmidt (Aug 20, 2007)

MOUNTAIN BIKE IMPACT STUDIES

Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradations: Results from Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, by Dr. Jeffrey L. Marion of Virginia Tech University

A recent study of the trails at Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area in Tennessee and Kentucky determined that Mountain Biking has a minimal trail impact. The report examines several trails and notes each trail's primary user(s). Many trail receive close to 100% of trail from a single user group. The report on the West Bandy Creek Bike Trail (90% mountain bike, 10% hiking traffic) was one of the most positive in the report, for both trail condition and recommendations. In part the report states,

"The [West Bandy Creek Bike] trail is narrow, and peripheral impacts are minimal. The trail is clear of blow-downs and other barriers. Although an isolated stretch is located on an abandoned road, the old width has naturalized and a current narrow path persists. The trail receives maintenance from a local bike club. This low use bike trail varied little in tread width (15-33 inches). Mean incision (1 in) and cross section area (6 in squared) *measures were slightly lower than the average hiker trail, and considerably lower than the average of all trails combined*."

Quick Reference, suggested pages - 22 (trail erosion by user group) & 78 (special study on West Bandy loop)

Click here to download the study. (2.3MB pdf file)


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2010)

I feel the Marion study is one of the better studies available. Also I am partial because I enjoy visiting the Big South Fork. We have referenced findings from the Marion Study when meeting with the Cincinnati Park Dept. Their response was that the control areas used in the study were too small and therefore not indicative of trail erosion over the entire off road cycling trail or trail system.

There was a meeting yesterday with the Cincy parks department heads, some city council members and a representative from our advocacy group. Our internal report concluded that the parks department main argument against off road cycling is that the trails will ruin the forest because the erosion from the bike trails will be very high. The report included that the council members were not buying into their arguments and that the council members wanted a pilot program to be thoroughly investigated and eventually implemented. 

I think one of the early lessons of the Cincy story which is going to be a very long story with many long chapters is; Trail building is political. It is not always what you know, but who you know.

I have enjoyed reading everyone's comments. Tons of good info.

Thanks

Chad


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

cjohnson said:


> 1. You love that trail more than me.
> 2. I'm tired.
> 3. Again?
> 4. Midwest trails broke my mountain bike (ironic, isn't it).
> ...


No cat box here and my wife does the lawn mowing.


----------



## sambs827 (Dec 8, 2008)

One complaint that was brought up in my Trail Design & Construction class (3 credits to play in the dirt twice a week) was "When mountain bikers build trails, those trails are ill-suited for hikers." Our professor solves this problem buy building "singletrack" wide enough for hikers to walk two abreast. However he still says he is building singletrack for mountain bikers. It's fun trail, but if two hikers can walk abreast, a 4-wheeler can rip through. 

Hmmmm...since he claims to be designing trails suitable for mountain bikers, and therefore hikers as well (not too steep, nice flow, etc) then one opposed to mountain bikers might say that in this case building mountain bike trails opens up the woods for unauthorized ATV use.


----------

