First some political perspective for the cyclists. President Bush did this on his way out. He did little to nothing for cyclists during his administration despite becoming an avid participant. The decision is a pen stroke away from being overturned.

It is a dread that people who actually run environmental advocacy groups tend to be the “die hards” and will likely sympathize with Vandeman’s position. The science does not back up Vandeman. Bicycle tires have no greater impact on trail wear than boots since the human body isn’t really capable of providing the tire spinning, trail ripping torque of an internal combustion engine.

Now some more tidbits.

1) Cyclists tend to stay on the trail since the bicycle doesn’t work as well off of it. There are notable “bad player” free-ride types … these are a very small minority.

2) Cyclists do not spook wildlife more than hikers. They spook them LESS. Bikes don’t have the same predator bobbing motion and as a result, deer will stand and allow you VERY, VERY close before they will run. It would make a hunter jealous. In big spaces it’s a null effect. The danger is that bicycles are TOO quiet and are likely to provoke an encounter with a horse or bear when they notice you there too close for comfort.

3) The same people who advocate against cycling on public trails will stand strongly behind equestrian use. The effect of a 1000 pound animal with metal shoes is PROFOUND on trails. That and they leave behind smelly goop for everyone else to dodge. Further, equestrian also grants greatly increased range for riders into the park. Which kinda defeats MV PhD’s argument. Oh yeah that and … if you do manage to spook a horse, it go careening wildly down the trail. What would you rather be struck buy a 200# bike with cyclist or a 1200# horse with rider.

I can understand the desire for hikers to be away from “bad players” in the cycling world. I don’t want to be around those guys either. But “those guys” come from every group. Everyone should be well mannered when they meet and go into “polite passing mode”. Cyclists and equestrians should give ample warning before passing a hiker (or each other).

When it comes to PUBLIC TAX SUPPORTED ACCESS, the policy that allows the most access without threat of environmental harm is the one that should be considered first. This means human powered transport is the preferred modality. Most trails SHOULD be cycling and pedestrian BY DEFAULT. Restrictions should be in place to allow MV PhD and his cohorts pedestrian segregated access. Horse and moto should be segregated on designated trail by default unless the trail tread will support them. Then maybe we can get some of those die hard advocates to show up and get their hands dirty and do some trail work!!!

"Need I say more?"

It's never been needed, and I doubt you'll ever shut up. A deep tragedy here is that you act like an insane bobble head devoid of compromise or pragmatism. A consequence is the entire progressive movement gets broad brushed as being like you or someone like you.

There are a few mountain bikers out there who really don't care about the environment and do tear it up. And I was being literal when I meant a few. Generally when folks are out in nature (like when they aren't clearcutting) it engenders a respectful attitude for the place. Its this type of access that ensures preservation. By denying access and being a fundamentalist prick, you cut off mindshare and your would be allies both liberal and conservative.

Conservancy and public recreation are not party issues. They are human issues. And your extremism deflects from that. MV PhD, you're like a one man PETA (yes that org is run by well educated lunatics just like the Bush administration).

The Parks will be able to decide. I don’t think they will open up the Appalachian Trail to mountain biking.

There are more than a few skiers (not to mention bikers, "etc.") who would take serious issue with the notion that their activity needs to be contained to (expensive) and "well enforced recreational resorts." I have news for you, your "natural parkland" is anything but. As soon as we removed native dwellers from the Yellowstone area to make our first National Park, it was no longer "natural." When you set your titanium hiking stick on the ground of a well-traveled trail, how is that any more "natural" than someone biking over it? The question is not which activity does more damage to your socially-constructed pristine landscape, but rather how to manage diverse uses.

As someone who enjoys (gasp) both mountain biking and hiking I suggest you get over yourself and your narrow definition of mixed use recreation and public lands.

Lastly, I would strongly suggest you keep your hiking stick to yourself.

Mountain biking, like skiing, etc. belongs to a contained and well enforced recreational resort, not sprawled all over our natural parkland and wilderness trails. What kind of yahoo mentality thinks otherwise?

For one thing, I am tired of having to jump out of the way of speeding mountain bikes on our trails. The whole "hikers don't mind mountain bikers on their trails" is the biggest myth of all. A few bikers with bent spokes from my hiking stick can vouch for that.

If I wished to "share the trails" with vehicles, I could just as easily walk down the middle of Main Street USA, dodging vehicles. Stay off the hiking trails, and your bike will not meet up with my titanium hiking stick. That is plain common sense, folks.

Walkers and motorised vehicles do more environmental damage than mountain bikers…. hell…. war, famine, farming…. blah blah blah. Get some perspective dude FFS

You sir are a hater and need to get your head out of your academic arse.

Rideon!

Mountain bikes have a lower impact on trails than horseback riders. Hikers easily go off trail and create damaging splinter trails- mountain bikes not so often. Try it – it is too HARD!!!

Mountain bikes are not noisy – no motors, duh! And if the noise associated with peddling a bike is too loud of you— consider joining Cranky Anonymous.

Mountain biking is an incredibly healthy and safe sport – unlike road biking (1 pedestrian dies every 90 minutes in USA). Kids that spend time in wilderness areas are stronger, kinder, smarter and healthier.

Face it- a minority of hikers have synthesized this 'conflict'. (probably retired with plenty of time to make trouble) They have forgotten what it is like to be young – or maybe they never were?? – and clearly these folks don't practice the lifeskill of 'sharing'.

The majority hikers and mountain bikers enjoy meeting on the trails and sharing experiences or just saying 'hello'.

Besides – America would never have been "Land of the Brave" if our forefathers had to tiptoe through the forests so as not to startle old people.

So stand up for mountain bikes and the next generation: if you spot a kid testing his grit down steep rocky slope, step aside and cheer that kid on! Go Kid! Go America!

About me: I'm a hiker, mtn biker, director of an environmental group, Obama supporter, and even old! Just not cranky.

What spell check?

Get over your Spelling Bee Trophy.