# A new anti mt bike angle?



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

I had a land manager tell me yesterday that mt biking brings foriegn vegitation into riding areas, as a reason for not allowing access. Anyone have any info to dispute this? It sounds crazy to me and I've never heard of this issue before.


----------



## Inconsiderate Dan (Jan 12, 2004)

Fattirewilly said:


> I had a land manager tell me yesterday that mt biking brings foriegn vegitation into riding areas, as a reason for not allowing access. Anyone have any info to dispute this? It sounds crazy to me and I've never heard of this issue before.


Yeah all those pot smoking hippy mountain bikers grow/smoke weed in the woods.


----------



## Frank Tuesday (Jan 12, 2004)

Fattirewilly said:


> I had a land manager tell me yesterday that mt biking brings foriegn vegitation into riding areas, as a reason for not allowing access. Anyone have any info to dispute this? It sounds crazy to me and I've never heard of this issue before.


I guess that depends on a lot of things. Ultimately, yes it is possible. If someone were to ride their bike, and caught in the dirt on the tires, shoe or frame were embedded seeds from another area, those seeds could drop off of the bike and root. If this is a form of vegitation that is not native, then you have introduced a non-native species.

I have found in trekking overseas, that many places take this issue very seriously, particularly destination hikes. They provide cleaning areas at trailheads so that the hiker will wash his boots, tent stakes, shovel and anything else that has been in contact with ground that may be carrying seeds and/or eggs.

Is the area open to hiking? any off road vehicle access? Both of these are also potential causes of the introduction of non-native species. As far as disputing it, factually it is true, but look for ways to minimize the impact of it. Learn about native species, and while building the trail, offer to work with the land manager to remove existing non-native vegetation. After the trail is built, remain dilligent about removing invasive plants.

If you can show that you can provide an immediate benefit (removing already existing plants) and a long term commitment to keep the plants out, you might be able to get your foot in the door.


----------



## palerider (Jul 15, 2004)

*I have seen it happen*

The worst offender in this area (NM) are goatheads. Nasty little stickers that are in season now. They will stay in your tire from local trails, to be transplanted on other rides in places that were previously free of their scourge!!


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

Hmmm... Unfortunately one of my riding buddies prime riding spots has some sort of plant disease. He makes sure that his bike is spotless before he rides it anywhere else. 

As for bringing vegetation in.... is it a real reason to ban riders?? That’s ridiculous. Horses are the main culprits around here. Depending on conditions their *expelled* feed quickly grows all sorts of stuff........  

Frank Tuesday has some great ideas there. Good stuff.

Cheers, Dave.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

*I've heard about that with Boats and Horses*



Fattirewilly said:


> I had a land manager tell me yesterday that mt biking brings foriegn vegitation into riding areas, as a reason for not allowing access. Anyone have any info to dispute this? It sounds crazy to me and I've never heard of this issue before.


But not bikes before.

It is possible as stated above, but far more likely from other potential trail users. Is there a certain invasive plant he's worried about or does it seem more likely a ploy to keep out bikes?

Even without people involved there are enough birds, and small ground animals that move around that the stuff he's worried about could still get into a park.

JmZ


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

A few years back in Norcal when Sudden oak Death was still new, me and my buddies were sprayig our tires down with disinfectant after each ride to prevent carrying bacteria into disease free forests. In the UK a fw years ago, they had wash stations at trailheads for horses and bikes to prevent the spread of Mad Cow or some other disease. 
The issue is real, but the answer to the problem is not to ban bikes,only to minimize any unintended impacts. If this is the best reason the land manager can find to ban bikes, you should easily be able to implement a program to prevent the spread of exotic species int the park. Is this a preserve, and are there any endangered plants/animals that are the main concern?? I'd like to hear more about this one. Later, Sasquatch



JmZ said:


> But not bikes before.
> 
> It is possible as stated above, but far more likely from other potential trail users. Is there a certain invasive plant he's worried about or does it seem more likely a ploy to keep out bikes?
> 
> ...


----------



## Medwheeljo (Oct 2, 2004)

Fattirewilly said:


> I had a land manager tell me yesterday that mt biking brings foriegn vegitation into riding areas, as a reason for not allowing access. Anyone have any info to dispute this? It sounds crazy to me and I've never heard of this issue before.


Sorry for the delayed response I'm relatively new to this list. We have dealt with these issues for years in Colorado. I believe the argument stems from grazing issues (no pun intended). Anyway, because these animals eat plants they clearly pass the seeds through the digestive process and the seeds have opportunity to reproduce wherever they may happen to be placed. Because of this there are areas here where horses or cattle that feed in certain locations are not allowed into restricted areas for fear of introducing noxious weeds or other species that are not indigenous to the area. This is what concerns the land manager. So obviously any surface whether it be hooves, shoes, tires etc. that could transport contaminants become suspect. I have also seen where this becomes critical in riparian areas where stream crossings may occur. One such instance had to do with a highly contagious 'whirling' disease that has infected the 'brown trout' here in Colorado.


----------



## sharetrails_org (Jan 7, 2005)

Maybe this article might help explain what environmental corporations are up to.
________________________________________________________________________

Regarding "Invasive Species" and Trojan Horses

(Note: This is an excellent -- and brief -- means of understanding the agenda of "invasive" species and those driving this Cash Cow. This is an agenda to control people by controlling their ability to responsibly use their lands and waters. It is an agenda to control all recreation by controlling access by humans whose shoe treads, bicycle and other vehicle tire treads, etc. "MIGHT" or "COULD" spread "invasive seeds" -- all the while never mentioning that birds spread seeds far more widely than people ever could. It is highly recommended that you share this gem widely. A must-read!)

November 5, 2004

By Fred V. Grau

State College, Pennsylvania

Weeds are weeds, whether native or nonnative. It is almost certain that some of the "invasive weeds" (weeds) are "native weeds" (weeds). Sagebrush, perhaps? It is a native specie.

Confused? Don't feel bad.

Confusion is part and parcel of the "Invasive Species" agenda.

You see, by definition -- President Clinton's Executive Order 13112, February 3, 1999 http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13112.html -- an "Invasive Species" must be "nonnative to that ecosystem".

Who knows enough to decide what is native to an ecosystem -- and what is not?

The simple answer is: Nobody, really.

Okay, so what to do about that? Here goes:

1. Create a crisis (agenda). "Invasive Species": Natives are "good". Non natives are "bad".

2. Create bureaucracies to deal with this "crisis" -- that didn't exist before February 1999).

3. For Precautionary Principles, list almost any non-food plant species that is known to be of foreign origin as an "Invasive Species". (Examples: red clover, timothy, brome ... as well as yellow starthistle, the knapweed family, and so on ...)

4. Create "partnerships" with universities, government research units, "environmental" groups, even agriculture organizations -- etc., for the purpose of ... (see No. 5)

5. ...FUNDING. Yes, it all boils down to power and money.

From No. 2, we see that it will be the "experts" in the bureaucracies who apoint themselves as the sole authorities to determine what is "Invasive" and what is not. Power.

From No. 5, we see that the Greens and research types play the game because they receive $Billions (I'm not kidding) to solve the unsolvable. Money.

Think about this. Before 1999 (or 2000-2001), had you ever heard the term "Invasive Species" or "Invasive Weeds"?

Probably not. You had, however, heard the term "noxious weed".

The creation of the "Invasive Species" agenda was/is an ingenious attempt (successful so far) for the Green non-governmental organizations and government bureaucrats to hijack what was once a commonsense agricultural issue: noxious weeds.

Farmers and ranchers (as well as foresters and other resource folks) need to be on Red Alert so they don't fall into the "Invasive Species" trap.

The Greens will smile at you, as all parties agree on how "Invasive" knapweed is (true enough).

Producers must peel off the veneer and check out the websites and literature to see for themselves that it doesn't stop there.

The ultimate agenda is to target all nonnative species, including useful ones such as the clovers, timothy, etc.

Money is one of the two factors.

Power is the other -- and by far the more dangerous.

The Greens' intent is to wield power (and control) beyond that of the Endangered Species Act -- to use "Invasive Species" -- to control human behavior on public and private land.

It is a Trojan Horse.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Throwing up a smokescreen...*



Fattirewilly said:


> I had a land manager tell me yesterday that mt biking brings foriegn vegitation into riding areas, as a reason for not allowing access. Anyone have any info to dispute this? It sounds crazy to me and I've never heard of this issue before.


Your LM's logic is flawed. If he were to ban mountain bike access for this reason he would certainly have to ban hiking and equestrian use for the same reason.

As others have mentioned, it is possible but there wouldn't be much information to dispute his claim because its so specious.

I think a reasonable approach would be for you to ask the LM for their data to support their position. Let them know you'd like to see the studies that support the claim.

Ken


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*humans*



Ken in KC said:


> Your LM's logic is flawed. If he were to ban mountain bike access for this reason he would certainly have to ban hiking and equestrian use for the same reason.
> 
> As others have mentioned, it is possible but there wouldn't be much information to dispute his claim because its so specious.
> 
> ...


Following this reasoning, I suppose, humans are an "invasive species" in all areas except "the Garden of Eden," wherever that may have been. We should eradicate ourselves or all move back to Africa.

Plus, in many areas, much of the existing plant species are non-native, anyway. The tall grasses that cover the foothills here in central California are non-native, but everywhere now.


----------



## sick4surf (Feb 4, 2004)

Hi,

A little late to the topic but we have run into a similar situation on one of our trails that is in a nature preserve. Luckily I was very familiar with invasive plant species since I had a landscaping company that specialized in planting native species. (back in the 80's and early 90's).

I decided to become more informed about the subject. We plan to have a "weed watchers" presentation at our bike club meeting taught by The Nature Conservancy. We will also develop interpretive signs for the trailheads and kiosks to educate the trail users. We can become an important ally in the control of invasive plant species.

I believe it is better to encourage more people onto the trails who are educated to reduce the spread and report sightings of invasives than close off the trails to all users. If we close off trails in these pristine native areas then what I find happens is that the invasives spread like wildfire without the trails acting as a fire break and inspection venues.

Contact your local Nature Conservancy office...they would love for more volunteers to help with their efforts...plus it reinforces the image that mountain bikers care about the environment.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

sick4surf said:


> Hi,
> 
> A little late to the topic but we have run into a similar situation on one of our trails that is in a nature preserve. Luckily I was very familiar with invasive plant species since I had a landscaping company that specialized in planting native species. (back in the 80's and early 90's).
> 
> ...


Funny, the LM in question is the Nature Conservancy. I guess birds and deer should also be banned. Birds eat an amazing amount of seed and it often passes through them and lands where ever they "deposit" it. Thats why Cedars "like" to grow along fence lines.

Is your trail actually on Nature Conservancy land? Precident is good.

The "Weed Watchers" class sounds like a good idea/compromise, if the area has long term potential to make it worth our club's time.


----------



## sick4surf (Feb 4, 2004)

Fattirewilly said:


> Funny, the LM in question is the Nature Conservancy. I guess birds and deer should also be banned. Birds eat an amazing amount of seed and it often passes through them and lands where ever they "deposit" it. Thats why Cedars "like" to grow along fence lines.
> 
> Is your trail actually on Nature Conservancy land? Precident is good.
> 
> The "Weed Watchers" class sounds like a good idea/compromise, if the area has long term potential to make it worth our club's time.


Our trail is not on Nature Conservancy land but it is in a county nature preserve where have to adhere to strict procedures for trail maintnance. I know, in general The Nature Conservancy would prefer that no one use their land but we are fortunate that an official with TNC (in our area) mountain bikes with his son and was impressed with our maintenance of a popular trail he has ridden.

Another thing in our favor is that we have a relatively large turnout of young and middle aged people at our trail work parties and we have a track record of fostering stewardship for the land. The hiking club trail work volunteers on the other hand are few and mostly composed of senior citizens.

I will be representing our mountain bike club at bi-monthly weed management meetings sponsored by the nature conservancy and is attended by all park's land managers. I want to show them we can be a powerfull ally. I think it is important to develop these kinds of relationships with your land managers...it might take a few years to get them to see the light...unless your up against a particular stubborn person who might have had a bad experience or interaction with a MTBer....then that's another story.

In the end, I think it is a better opportunity for TNC to teach people how to minimize and manage the problem and get them interested in helping out instead of keeping people out and also keeping them in the dark, about the problem. People are good...deep down they want to help.

Good Luck


----------



## Hackamo (May 9, 2004)

I wanted to thank all of your for this thread. It has spurred me onto to contact our wildlands conservancy to have them do a spring meeting talk about how to decrease invasive plant spreading. It's truly a win/win and since they're the biggest non profit land purchases this partnership is crucial. thanks again,

Joe transue
PA IMBA rep
Valley Mountain Bikers, www.bikevmb.com
You have to fight for the trails to ride the trails


----------



## ickyickyptngzutboing (Mar 30, 2005)

While I agree that creating that partnership is a great idea, there is little chance that you will carry an "invasive" specie(s) into a given area. Given yea, if you don't wash your bike EVER, and travel around the globe with an inch of mud caked over the frame, then you could possible carry that species(s). However, I don't know a fellow mountain bike who doesn't clean his bike before he travels further than an hour away to get to a trailhead--you want the bike to work, you clean it, you lube it, you check everything. Seeds won't be on the bike, the LM's argument while valid, doesn't apply to you. His 4WD truck provides the same chance--if not more--of contamination as your bike.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

The scientific definition of an invasive plant differs a bit from the one mentioned in that article. Invasive plants can be native or non-native. Their purpose is to colonize new areas rapidly. Therefore, they thrive in disturbed environments (just about the entire United States could be classified as disturbed). Non-native plants can be either invasive or non-invasive. They are defined as plants originating in another area that have been brought to a new area. There are a large number of non-native plants growing across the country. Some integrate fairly well into the environment without choking out native plants. Some just take over. The ones that integrate are usually considered naturalized.

The real threat comes from non-native invasives. There really aren't a whole lot of them. Each region seems to have a few key players...amur honeysuckle, purple loosestrife, water hyacinth, certain species of mustard plant, and multiflora rose are a problem in my area (midwest). Honeysuckle, in particular can be a major problem. It is among the first plants to leaf out in the spring and one of the last to drop its leaves in the fall. It produces copious amounts of red berries which aren't really favored by birds, so a lot of them drop to the ground just around the parent shrub in the wintertime. They also aren't favored as browse by the deer, which means they don't get trimmed back. They tend to grow in dense thickets, shadowing out native herbaceous plants. The ground beneath them goes bare, and then erodes well in a rain. Compounding the headaches, the plant also has means for asexual reproduction. If you cut one down, it will sprout from the roots. They grow runners, which also produce new plants very close to the original. The best way to deal with them is to dig them out...thankfully they have a shallow root system and most small ones can just be pulled.

At any rate, the trail maintenance groups I've worked with have personal vendettas against honeysuckle and multiflora rose. They grow very quickly and make trailwork difficult. When we cut new trail, we take out said plants up to 10 feet on either side of the trail, opening up a nice corridor. Within a season or two, the native wildflowers start moving back in. During regular maintenance, instead of just trimming these plants, we pull them, dig them out, and get them out of the trail corridor. So far, the land managers have been quite appreciative of our efforts. 

It's not too tough to become educated on issues surrounding non-native invasive plants and using your new training to assist land managers in dealing with the problem. Some agencies will even provide a certain amount of native plant seeds to aid in revegetation...you just have to ask.


----------



## sick4surf (Feb 4, 2004)

Hey Nate,

Thanks for the clarification. The Nature Conservancy will be giving us a list of the most serious non-native invasives as well as teaching us how to identify them and the proper removal techniques. Too bad that alot of invasives also have some nice fragrance: honey suckle, russian olive, floribunda roses etc. However the previous mentioned plants are so pervasive in our wild areas that they are not on TNC's "hot list". We will be concentrating on making sure non natives stay out of a "clean" mapped area. Eventually we might clear invasives from some areas acre by acre.

The newest threat is an invasive called: "mile-a-minute vine" there was some spotted in our county and it may have been stopped in it's tracks but we are on the look out for more.


----------



## udontknowmehomie (Jul 22, 2004)

*I dunno bout this*

I'm not saying that there isn't any validity to this subject at all BUT just seems kinda unlikely as someone has mentioned in a early comment , who doesnt wash thier bike when their gonna travel an hour(far enough to carry feedme seeymore strange species) away to go riding. even so say you never wash your ride, do ya really store it a place that supports plant growth? i'm not saying it cant happen , but this brother here cant even keep the aloe plant in his office alive. just seems like kinda a stretch thats all............


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Introduction of noxious weeds and exotics is now listed as one of the 4 greatest threats to our public lands.

Yes. Bikes can introduce seeds and spores, as well as insect pests and diseases. They will be not only on the bike, but lodged in the sole of your shoe, sitting in the bottom of your pack, or even stuck under the chassis of your car.

But bikes are not more likely to be a carrier than hikers, horses, ATV, 4WD, or any other use. The local manager was right to be concerned about introduction of non-native species, but was wrong to single out bikes as a greater culprit than other uses.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

dave54 said:


> But bikes are not more likely to be a carrier than hikers, horses, ATV, 4WD, or any other use.


You left out natural sources like wind, birds, squirrel, deer, rabbit and other creatures that move from point A to point B.

ALL the human carriers pale in comparison.


----------



## Raymo853 (Jan 13, 2004)

Seriously people I work with are doing research on this right now. It is not the bikes, nor the horses but the trails themselves. The open cannopy and the movement of all thing, people, bikes, horses, hikers, WIND, runoff, deer, racoons spread the invasives down the trail and road edges. No single user group can be blamed for this problem. Even natural deer/elk paths help spread invasives. 

If you would like to have somebody with a background in this have a talk with this guy please PM me an email for him. One of the folks biug into this research is on my thesis committe so I can hit him up for help on this.


----------



## fritzaholic (Jul 2, 2005)

*My wife*

is doing her master's on invasives. This week she's at a conference in Montreal giving a presentation of her data. One of the things I've heard from her is that invasive species are the 2nd biggest threat to our ecosystem today (The 1st being global climate change/global warming depending on who you voted for).
This is a huge deal, but no, bikes are not SOLELY responsible. Most people would put horses way before b/c when they spread seeds, the seeds come fully fertilized!
Also, here in nor cal, with sudden oak death synd. another friend is finishing research on just this topic. I got a new set of shoes, and new bike tires for being involved in this research. I am anxious to see what she finds.
cheers
-f


----------



## JamR (Feb 22, 2005)

Not a new phenomenon.

This has been known about for decades and used to be a common hiking and backpacking topic. Any mode of transportation (even foot traffic) has the potential for bringing non-local species into an area.

I don't think it's a phenomenon that will be strongly used to detract biking.


----------

