Mountain Bikers and Grizzly Bears

[HenryA]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/science/bears-biking-national-parks.html

Worth thinking about.

[Dino Suegiù]

Do not recreate in the woods where bears defecate.

[azrider]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/science/bears-biking-national-parks.html

Worth thinking about.

https://media.giphy.com/media/jUFJ1jPU25la8/giphy.gif

[daker13]

I read that article. The first thing that struck me was the statement that the guy who died was riding "about 25 mph" when he ran into a bear... I thought that seemed awful fast for a mtb'er who wasn't blasting down a descent. But then there was another reference to that speed later in the article. I wonder if it was lifted from his computer or something? A little disturbing that the NYT is giving its readers the impression that mountain bikers typically ride at 25 mph .

There always has to be a 'trend' for the NYT to write about it, and sometimes the trends the writers find are pretty thin. Personally, I thought that was yet another article singling out mountain bikers (which I rarely do anymore, btw) for their effects on wildlife/the backcountry without much to back it up.

[Kirk007]

The research studies are mounting, not so much bicycles but all forms of human recreation, mechanized or not. National Parks, forests, wilderness areas - there's too many of us literally loving these places to death and the impact on Flora and fauna alike is mounting. Conservationists have been seeing this trend for years but since most of us engage in these very activities, we've been slow to publicly acknowledge what we see when we look in the mirror.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

[Ronsonic]

I read that article. The first thing that struck me was the statement that the guy who died was riding "about 25 mph" when he ran into a bear... I thought that seemed awful fast for a mtb'er who wasn't blasting down a descent. But then there was another reference to that speed later in the article. I wonder if it was lifted from his computer or something? A little disturbing that the NYT is giving its readers the impression that mountain bikers typically ride at 25 mph .

There always has to be a 'trend' for the NYT to write about it, and sometimes the trends the writers find are pretty thin. Personally, I thought that was yet another article singling out mountain bikers (which I rarely do anymore, btw) for their effects on wildlife/the backcountry without much to back it up.

If you haven't noticed by now the NYT is basically crap, let me help.

The whole paper is like that. ALL of it.

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

― Michael Crichton

[Kirk007]

Your wrong. Full stop. The article is solid. If you want to go to the science journals for original papers backing it up be my guest. But the gist of the article is right. Sorry to burst your bubble about the biased media.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

[Louis]

If you haven't noticed by now the NYT is basically crap, let me help.

The whole paper is like that. ALL of it.

Oh please.

I have a lot more to say, but don't want to turn this thread into a political pissing match, so I'll leave it at that.

[billspreston]

A witness couldn’t see what happened but could hear it. “I heard a thud and an ‘argh,’” the unnamed witness told investigators. Then the bear made a noise “like it was hurt.” The bear disappeared before emergency responders arrived.

A few paragraphs later...

“The bear apparently had no time to move to avoid the collision. At a speed of 20-25 miles per hour, there were only one-to-two seconds between rounding the curve, the victim seeing the bear in the trail and impacting the bear.”

So... they were able to determine all this because a guy heard a bear made a noise "like it was hurt"?

Too scientific for me.

[Kirk007]

Seriously? This isn't a NYT beat writer making stuff up he's using a specific and tragic incident to introduce a larger story. As to the incident in question, I have friends who were involved in the investigation and I work with some of the biologists quoted in the article. I've been witness to a camper stumbling into a room having just had a very bad encounter with a sow griz when he stumbled in between her and a cub. And yes a lot of an incident can be reconstructed, as they were in the case I witnessed, but those details are immaterial - the rider had a sudden unexpected encounter with a griz and died.

Whether going 15 or 20 or whatever is immaterial. A person who heard but didn't see the crash describes what he heard - what's unreasonable about the inferences and conclusions drawn?

The sarcasm is not only misplaced but misses the forest for the trees - this isn't just about the humancentric perspective of whether you may have a very bad day in the woods, it's about the overall impact even non-motorized, even quiet recreation, has on the rest of the biotic community.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

[joosttx]

On our Reno2cino trip a bear ran at full speed directly across our path. That would of been a messy mess if it ran into one of us.

[speedevil]

For this thread, this is all I've got:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-LxMmP79/0/338fa40b/M/i-LxMmP79-M.png

[tctyres]

For this thread, this is all I've got:


There's this, too:
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/mountain-biker-goes-flying-over-bear

[colker]

If you haven't noticed by now the NYT is basically crap, let me help.

The whole paper is like that. ALL of it.

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

― Michael Crichton

Well... i think most of the press bashing in recent years is backwards. It´s readers who don´t know to read or too lazy as readers. Every paper has it´s view and opinon. As long as it does not twist the fact it´s doing the good thing no matter how much you disagree w/ the opinion.
You disagree on the views presented in this feature? Go ahead and make your point. Just telling us the NYT is bad or the press is bad sounds like something else and not criticsm.
We are living in dark times; people rather have opinions they like no matter how facts are ignored.

[Lionel]

On our Reno2cino trip a bear ran at full speed directly across our path. That would of been a messy mess if it ran into one of us.

What a memory, we were going uphill (I was in front as usual :)). It was a young black bear that we surprised. When he heard us he ran away crossing the trail less than 20 yards in front of me. What shocked me was how fast he was moving. Amazing and quite scary. He was beautiful.

[AngryScientist]

What shocked me was how fast he was moving. Amazing and quite scary.

there is a reason the prevailing warning is to NOT run from bears. they're fast!

listened to this recently; an interesting listen...

https://www.outsideonline.com/2402921/fight-off-bear-attack

[Tickdoc]

My favorite quote from the article...."Dr. Servheen also believes that the sensational news of a grizzly bear killing a bike rider works against the bear from a public relations standpoint."

Any grizzly bear killing of a human is sensational news, is it not?

That bear may need to hire a public relations specialist.

I don't live or ride in bear country, but I have hiked Yellowstone and encountered a Grizzly. Fortunately he was more scared of us than we were of him and hightailed it up and over a ridge knocking rocks for most of his 20 minute climb to get away. It is a good thing, too, because we would never have been able to get away otherwise.

I always think back to Ambrose' book on Lewis and Clark when they encountered their first Griz that was shot in the head with a .50 cal musket and still charged them almost taking them out.

Such fearsome predators when they want to be.

Don't poke the bear.

[HenryA]

The part I found bothersome is the look of an underlying opinion that indeed people using the resource are the problem and in this particular case MTB riders. It feels like an argument to close off certain areas to recreation. Sometimes that is a good idea for man and beast alike, but not as the first knee jerk reaction to a perceived problem. It appears that the underlying message or agenda of the article is to provide evidence to support more restriction.

IMO, a resource that goes unused often goes unloved. People who use these places care about them in a personal way lots more than those who don’t. So there is a balancing act between use and preservation. Lots of that balancing act occurs in siloed decision making trains that seem to not acknowledge each other’s validity.

A bear attack is sensational news, but its not a reason to close use of an area, whether as an immediate reaction or a long term policy. “Bad cases make bad laws” seems to fit here. If the energy spent in all the hand wringing and fighting was spent educating the people who use or might use the resources we’d be better off.

[Blue Jays]

"...The part I found bothersome is the look of an underlying opinion that indeed people using the resource are the problem and in this particular case MTB riders...IMO, a resource that goes unused often goes unloved..."Concur. This entire post is absolutely spot-on correct.
Many of us have seen MTB restrictions in multi-use places result in less maintenance to the point of total land mismanagement.

[unterhausen]

IMO, a resource that goes unused often goes unloved. People who use these places care about them in a personal way lots more than those who don’t. So there is a balancing act between use and preservation.
This is why I support hunting. Nobody listens to mountain bikers and hikers, but they do listen to hunters. If people can't hunt, they'll support paving over the woods.
Penndot was looking into bringing a 4 lane highway into State College from the east and the main proposal had the road destroying a wildlife area and a lot of local hiking and some really great mountain bike trails. If those things still existed, there would be the sound of the Detroit river to enjoy, whereas now it's silent back there. It would have been a travesty. It was crazy even though I see the logic of the route from a simply geographic perspective.

[Tandem Rider]

This is why I support hunting. Nobody listens to mountain bikers and hikers, but they do listen to hunters. If people can't hunt, they'll support paving over the woods.
Penndot was looking into bringing a 4 lane highway into State College from the east and the main proposal had the road destroying a wildlife area and a lot of local hiking and some really great mountain bike trails. If those things still existed, there would be the sound of the Detroit river to enjoy, whereas now it's silent back there. It would have been a travesty. It was crazy even though I see the logic of the route from a simply geographic perspective.

This is why we all need to respect others in the woods. Here, mountain bikers have built, and maintain, literally hundreds of miles of trails and trailheads. They are to be shared with other users, hikers, runners, dog walkers, horses, hunters, etc. I see all of these folks out there, and that's a good thing. Every year there are a few complaints about other users and almost always it's someone not respecting the rights of others to use it too. There are rules about trail use and sometimes people ignore them. A smile and a greeting goes a long ways, we are all out there for the same reason. :)

[joosttx]

there is a reason the prevailing warning is to NOT run from bears. they're fast!

listened to this recently; an interesting listen...

https://www.outsideonline.com/2402921/fight-off-bear-attack

Hey man, you know what they say, “ you don’t need to be faster than the bear, you just need to be faster than the person you are with”.

[Kirk007]

Concur. This entire post is absolutely spot-on correct.
Many of us have seen MTB restrictions in multi-use places result in less maintenance to the point of total land mismanagement.

Sure there are mountain bike haters that want closure, and some hikers want areas closed to horses and on and on - easy to point to the other user group and say that they are the problem. But its not a black and white - open and used or closed and abandoned issue.

For starters, nature did just fine before human "management" for eons. Our management of nature typically screws things up. These areas aren't "wasting" if not put to "wise use" for humans, they serve critical functions for the rest of the biotic community on earth; we are but one of millions upon millions of species.

And yeah, some places should be closed to at least mechanized use with temporal restrictions. A good example: the shrinking habitat that provides winter denning conditions for wolverines should be closed to both mechanized (snowmobile) and human powered (backcountry skiing) recreation during the denning period. It is a modest restriction to protect an endangered species (despite USFW's political decision not to list it).

I imagine most folks are sympathetic to the plight of deer in winter who are chased by folks' dogs - a big no no in the hunting and dog community. Why? Because of the stress it puts on the animal at a time when it is already severely stressed by temperature and decreased food availability. Well guess what -- studies over the past decade show that even cross country skiiers can pose similar threats.

And there's valid ecological reasons to continue to keep mechanized recreation out of wilderness areas (indeed there are good reasons to clamp down on all recreation in these areas). There are simply too many people in many of these areas yet the recreation community chafes at permitting and use restrictions - the irony of not agreeing to limit access then going to a wilderness area seeking solace and being pissed off cause there's too many people everywhere you go.

Should you be able to go mountain biking in grizzly country? In general, in nonwilderness areas I think so, and if you're mountain biking in Montana or Idaho and parts of Wyoming you probably are all ready. I forget the citation to the study but there was one in the Glacier-Waterton area that compared GIS data for some hikers/researchers with GIS data for collared bears. Over a rather extended period of time the hikers were in very close proximity to a bear on a regular basis, yet never saw the bears. One takeaway is that despite very frequent proximity, actual encounters, let alone lethal ones are rare. Bears aren't out looking for a fight with humans, quite the contrary, but encounters happen.

A good friend of mine was on an early morning mountain bike ride on a forest service road in Alaska when he came around a corner and there was a griz about 30 yards away. He stopped. The bear bluff charged twice before turning around. He was lucky; he could have been the feature of this article.

Bears, and cougars, are out there; be prepared, make noise, carry bear spray, exercise common sense, consider staying out of grizzly territory at key time periods, like in June when bears are coming out of their dens after hibernation, hungry and cranky. And if you surprise a bear and it turns on you, don't blame the bear - your in its backyard.

[GregL]

There's this, too:
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/mountain-biker-goes-flying-over-bear
Is anyone else disgusted by the absolute idiocy depicted in the linked story? Deliberately jumping a bear with a downhill mountain bike? It's one thing to accidently startle a wild animal during a trail encounter. It's a whole different level of stupid to pull a stunt like this. Definitely a Darwin Award nominee...

Greg

[GregL]

Bears, and cougars, are out there; be prepared, make noise, carry bear spray, exercise common sense, consider staying out of grizzly territory at key time periods, like in June when bears are coming out of their dens after hibernation, hungry and cranky. And if you surprise a bear and it turns on you, don't blame the bear - your in its backyard.
It's not just off-road riding. My closest bear encounter came on a road bike. I came around a corner at the end of a long, steep climb to find a black bear slowly ambling across the road. He looked at the skinny bike rider and decided there wasn't sufficient food to attract his attention. He just kept on going into the woods at a leisurely pace. On the other hand, I was so filled with adrenaline that my fatigue vanished and I was ready for the sprint of a lifetime...

Greg

[Kirk007]

Is anyone else disgusted by the absolute idiocy depicted in the linked story? Deliberately jumping a bear with a downhill mountain bike? It's one thing to accidently startle a wild animal during a trail encounter. It's a whole different level of stupid to pull a stunt like this. Definitely a Darwin Award nominee...

Greg

The situation at Whistler bike part is a disaster waiting to happen. I haven't been up there for awhile, but used to go every summer with my son and his friends. There were black bears everywhere - in the Village, between the trails (countless spottings while riding a lift to the upper trails), encounter on trails. I'm surprised no one has been seriously hurt.

And yeah, the guy jumping the bear.... Although not much stupider than what historically occurred at Yellowstone NP with bears - in the 70s it was completely out of hand - and what still occurs today with encounters with bison and elk. A lack of familiarity and simple ignorance leads to back decisions - "wild"life is an apt description.

[benb]

I usually am a big fan of the NYT and am not on the "fake news" bandwagon at all but this article just smacks of typical anti-MTB/anti-cycling nonsense. They're just inserting grizzly bears as a new reason. You could go through the article and substitute trail damage in for grizzly bears and the whole article would still make sense.

If they are actually serious they will talk about restricting hiking too. But they're not, they're trying to target bikes.

Bear accidents/deaths are a drop in the bucket. Such a low priority. There are probably more cyclists/pedestrians killed in NYC in a week than cyclists/hikers killed by all kinds of wildlife in 10 years. A guy hitting a bear on a descent is a one in a zillion occurrence. He'd be more likely to be killed by a lightning strike. They pull the "he's a ranger/authority figure too so if it happened to him it's really bad!" card too.

It just smacks of anti-cycling agenda/NIMBY/whatever. Besides.. problems occurring out in the west do not need the New York Times to solve them. I'm sure those who actually live out West are more than capable of figuring out their own solutions. It sounds like the author lives in Montana but what is his agenda? Why did this need to go through the NYT?

As for a place like Whistler.. that's overdevelopment... if it was a free running parkour course taking over the mountain it'd probably be the same thing. I bet that crowd spills food all over the place and generally behaves in bad ways which attract bears, as if the mountain hadn't already been bear habitat.

[GregL]

And yeah, the guy jumping the bear.... Although not much stupider than what historically occurred at Yellowstone NP with bears - in the 70s it was completely out of hand - and what still occurs today with encounters with bison and elk. A lack of familiarity and simple ignorance leads to back decisions - "wild"life is an apt description.
Sadly, Yellowstone is still filled with non-sensible humans...

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/yellowstone-tourist-injured-after-falling-into-hot-spring.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/072319.htm

When I visited Yellowstone, I couldn't believe how close people got to bison and moose. Don't anger the horned animal that weighs over a ton!

Greg

[Kirk007]

They're just inserting grizzly bears as a new reason. You could go through the article and substitute trail damage in for grizzly bears and the whole article would still make sense.

It sounds like the author lives in Montana but what is his agenda? Why did this need to go through the NYT?



The writer is from Montana, well known in the conservation community where the discussion is much broader than bikes -- it is all human recreation/use of backcountry in particular. I think its important to understand that the same folks having this discussion in Montana are bikers, hikers, skiers, rafters, hunters, anglers, climbers.... human users of the resource, trying to figure out how to balance human recreation with protecting the very thing that they all love - wild country.

It's easy to pass this off as hkers vs IMBA or whatever, but to do so sells the issue short.

Why the NYT? Because a critical component of this is issue is public awareness, even spawning discussion in nontraditional venues, like here for instance.

I'm not dismissing the reflexive anti-bike crowd; they are certainly out there - I've had spirited discussions too often to count trying to get them to see beyond their own bias.

[benb]

The increasing popularity of trail biking has brought to the fore some of the inherent conflicts in the uses of public land — natural regions or playgrounds. And while the growth of tourism may help local businesses, the forays into deeper parts of the forests by more and more people are encroaching on wildlife.

Mechanized mountain bikes and e-bikes, especially at higher speeds, are incompatible with hiking, hunting, and bird and wildlife watching, some argue. Safety is also a concern. Some mountain bikers revel at bombing down trails at 20 or 30 miles per hour on single-track trails that hikers also frequent

I am sorry but Mike Vandemann himself could have written this.

I see putting it in the NYT, a newspaper from an elite east coast city thousands of miles away as a way to escalate and get people from far away to dictate a solution when you can't convince the locals of your agenda. Get the Feds to come in with a heavy hand and ban the MTBs.

It's not like hundreds of mountain bikers are getting eaten by wildlife. The guy clearly didn't want the MTBs there in the first place cause they disturb people in his preferred activities.

The MTB riders probably live there too after all.

This is 100% classic anti-MTB agenda. You can't argue "playground vs nature preserve" and say Hikers are totally fine. If it's a nature preserve and you gotta ban some users other users don't get a pass.

As for eBikes... he probably has a point. If motor vehicles are not allowed maybe eBikes shouldn't be either. eBikes are motor vehicles IMO.. Motor vehicle = machine power assist to allow people to cover more ground with less effort. Seems like in this context eBikes are motor vehicles.

[Jaybee]

Though we don't have Grizzlies in CO, we do have many of the same expanding population/user and wildlife/ecosystem impact issues here.

I don't read a specific anti-MTB agenda into this - rather just an exploration of how MTBs play into the idea that there are more people into outdoor recreation, more people in general, and we are loving these places to death.

Some of this is just common sense. MTBs cover a lot more ground than hikers. They move faster, and sneak up on animals quicker. There is a specific citation in the article for how much further a elk cow will move when disturbed by a human on a bike vs a human on ATV vs a human on foot.

[benb]

It's dog whistle stuff to the anti-MTB crowd. Same veiled arguments as always.

If you're 100% roadie you might not have run into this as much.

A MTB rider can wear bear bells & carry bear spray every bit as easily as a hiker.

[Jaybee]

Personally, I'm closer to 100% MTB than 100% roadie, and the Front Range is rife with user conflicts, so I get the anti-MTB dog whistle interpretation.

I guess the article kinda struck a cord for me. I'm out there regardless of season exploring on wheels/skis/snowshoes/feet, but I've started to wonder what the balance is between my enjoyment and experiences versus the impact I (and the million others like me) are having on the places I love the most.

I've got bear bells and bear spray and it keeps me safe, but that same bear bell might be spooking a pregnant moose who doesn't have a big margin between losing her calf and birthing in the spring.

[Elefantino]

I don't usually agree with Mike Lee but he's right ... local managers should decide whether to allow MTBs in their areas. And if they close off an area because of grizzlies or moose or the spotted owl, that's their decision based on their expertise.

[Kirk007]

You can't argue "playground vs nature preserve" and say Hikers are totally fine. If it's a nature preserve and you gotta ban some users other users don't get a pass.



Agreed. And that is very much a part of the discussion out here, its not just bikes, but you can't ignore that activities have different levels of impact.

I live and work in conservation in the West and have for over 30 years so sorry but I find it a bit ironic to be lectured by someone in Mass about how it works in the West. Locals are having these discussions, there's nothing about Big Government dictating; hell big government these days is all about ripping the sh*t out of the western landscape with little regard for the resource. Come to a SHIFT conference in Jackson Hole some year if you want to hear a robust discussion and competing points of view on balancing outdoor recreation and conservation.

You can read this as an anti-MTB whistle if you want but you are overlooking the larger theme of the article and misunderstanding the conversations that are actually occurring. Sure there are plenty of strident hikers who hate mountain bikes. Cripes one of my organization's founders is one of the worst; he drives me crazy with his myopic view so yeah they are out there, but so are the I"ll ride my FS fatbike whereever and whenever I want so F8ck you whiny hikers.

Much like the rest of our current dialogues, people are long on sound bites and strident positions and short on nuanced, thoughtful conversations that can allow broad solutions rather than a me vs you shoutmatch.

[rigged]

I read the article too and was reminded of my trip to Chilcotin Mountains in June. We were warned that it was bear country and made as much noise as possible when flying down the descents. Fortunately we never ran into a bear on the trail, but of course it can happen- a known risk. I've seen stories about mountain lion attacks too.

I think the point of the article is in terms of impact on wildlife-- how far they are displaced by an encounter with a human-- and that mountain bikers have more impact than hikers. I had never considered that before.

And for the record I like the New York Times, biases notwithstanding. Someone who says that it is all crap clearly doesn't read it.

[72gmc]

Much like the rest of our current dialogues, people are long on sound bites and strident positions and short on nuanced, thoughtful conversations that can allow broad solutions rather than a me vs you shoutmatch.

Very well said.

My wife got me a book of Bernard DeVoto essays. I was struck, again, by how little land use arguments have changed in the West throughout decades of change in society. Seems a good pair of ears is a slow evolutionary process for us all.

[benb]

The thing is it's exactly the same arguments we get in our east coast surburban areas.

They just added bears as a scare point.

We wouldn't care for Op Eds out of California lecturing us on what activities are OK in our eastern parks and such either.

We're starting to have a little bit of Coyote scare mongering but that's pretty mild compared to bears.

We've gotten articles on the Middlesex Fells and Blue Hills from the same tactics. They are too natural & too pristine & too precious and would be ruined by mountain bikes, despite being landlocked in Urban/Suburban areas with hundreds of years of unfettered use by other types of users.

[quehill]

The forest-for-the-trees issues with this whole debate hurt my brain.

For starters, even if we accept the unsubstantiated assertion that mountain biking is increasingly "popular" I wonder how that nets out with what we know to be a sharp decrease in the number of people hunting (cite: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation). Is anyone actually arguing that backcountry mountain bikers are more disruptive to charismatic megafauna than dudes wandering around off-trail shooting guns? Please.

For seconders, the real substantial unprecedented threats to ecosystem function and native species in the West (and everywhere else) are : 1.) human caused climate change and 2.) land conversion. But the NYT and some in the conservation community apparently want to talk about one guy on a bike (gasp! riding 25mph!) running into one bear. Again, please.

For thirders, this is just exactly the kind of semi-hysterical semi-debate I've been saying mopeds, oooops, sorry e-mountainbikes, were going to provoke. Assistant adjunct associate professor boomers at the U of Montana yelling get off of my lawn at entitled backcountry moped riding boomers. Puuuuuuhleeeze.

/end rant

[benb]

Yah my views were not really clearly written.

The gist of what I think is happening here is:


- Local guy opposes MTBs in his playground
- Other locals don't agree with him
- Invent new reason MTBs are really bad and dangerous, make sure it's something most people in the country have 0 experience with so they believe you without much though. After all most people have never gone Mountain Biking and most people have never seen a live Brown Bear, even in a zoo.
- Put up a dog whistle article to get the attention of other people who hate MTBs around the country
- Hopefully all these people around the country who hate MTBs but have never even visited your area react and write their Congresscritters, etc.. and bring a landslide of opposition down via remote government and quash your local opponents

[Kirk007]

I still think y'all are too focused on the bear-bike thing - and of course the headline, the lead, that's what grabs the reader attention right?

The truth is you are right - a lot of folks, including a lot in the hiking community have a holier than thou attitude and think the wall should be erected keeping other users out of their sacred space - you know, not that different from the border wall - both an issue of too many people and who is entitled to be where.

The larger truth is the author, and those who he interacts with in the Montana community at least, are not just focused on mountain bikes. The discussion is the amount of humans, regardless of how they get there, in the shrinking areas that yes, are shrinking or morphing at an ever faster rate due to climate change and land conversion, and a dawning realization that my god, am I a hypocrite?
I rail against resource extraction and snowmobiles and ORVS but dang, could it be that the things that I love to do - hiking, biking, skiing, hunting - even these activities are adversely effecting the very things that I love about my place?

What's the hip word - "woke" ? - let's just say the outdoor rec crowd is seeing for the first time that they are not immune, that they are part of the problem. Sure some will just point the finger at mountain bikers, but I think most are smarter and more self aware than that, even if they won't admit it in public. The relative impact of outdoor rec on ecosystem resilience is surely much smaller than many others but its not zero.

[rigged]

Yah my views were not really clearly written.

The gist of what I think is happening here is:


- Local guy opposes MTBs in his playground
- Other locals don't agree with him
- Invent new reason MTBs are really bad and dangerous, make sure it's something most people in the country have 0 experience with so they believe you without much though. After all most people have never gone Mountain Biking and most people have never seen a live Brown Bear, even in a zoo.
- Put up a dog whistle article to get the attention of other people who hate MTBs around the country
- Hopefully all these people around the country who hate MTBs but have never even visited your area react and write their Congresscritters, etc.. and bring a landslide of opposition down via remote government and quash your local opponents

Sorry, did we read the same article? I understand that there people have ulterior motives, but how you got from that article to your conclusions includes a whole bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions.

[redir]

The part I found bothersome is the look of an underlying opinion that indeed people using the resource are the problem and in this particular case MTB riders. It feels like an argument to close off certain areas to recreation. Sometimes that is a good idea for man and beast alike, but not as the first knee jerk reaction to a perceived problem. It appears that the underlying message or agenda of the article is to provide evidence to support more restriction.

IMO, a resource that goes unused often goes unloved. People who use these places care about them in a personal way lots more than those who don’t. So there is a balancing act between use and preservation. Lots of that balancing act occurs in siloed decision making trains that seem to not acknowledge each other’s validity.

A bear attack is sensational news, but its not a reason to close use of an area, whether as an immediate reaction or a long term policy. “Bad cases make bad laws” seems to fit here. If the energy spent in all the hand wringing and fighting was spent educating the people who use or might use the resources we’d be better off.

On the other hand though there are the parts in the article that referred to actual scientific data collection that proves otherwise.

For example, I didn't think that mountain bikes would be much different then hiking in terms of wildlife impact and then I just read that a study shows that indeed it is. That Elk in particular move further away from MTBr's then hikers. Has this study been replicated? I don't know but I'm not going consider that impact in a different way now. IOW this puts restriction on my 'beliefs.'


And being one who spends lots of time in the national forests and parks all over the country I beg to differ, There are plenty of people who use these places and don't care about them in any loving way what so ever. I see it every time and it drives me nuts.

[benb]

For example, I didn't think that mountain bikes would be much different then hiking in terms of wildlife impact and then I just read that a study shows that indeed it is. That Elk in particular move further away from MTBr's then hikers. Has this study been replicated? I don't know but I'm not going consider that impact in a different way now. IOW this puts restriction on my 'beliefs.'


This is actually really interesting if it's actually true... we don't have Elk here.

I can't even count the # of times I've come across White Tailed Deer riding mountain bikes. They generally don't react at all as long as you are on the bike... they're completely unfazed unless you're about to smack into them.

If you stop and put a foot down they bolt immediately. They're way more scared of you on foot.

I have on numerous occasions ended up WAY closer than I'd prefer to be to deer when on a bike. Like 10x closer at least than on foot.

So it'd be really interesting if Elk and Deer were different in this behavior.

[rigged]

I can't even count the # of times I've come across White Tailed Deer riding mountain bikes.



What an awesome visual.

[benb]

Sorry, did we read the same article? I understand that there people have ulterior motives, but how you got from that article to your conclusions includes a whole bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions.

Did you read the report?

The article starts out with a heart-pulling story about a guy supposedly hitting a bear and then the bear swats him and kills him and uses that to launch into a thesis about how mountain bikes don't belong in these areas.

Read the report. Google the author of the report and see the trail of anti-MTB articles he's quoted in.

No one saw him hit the bear. There's no GPS track or Strava file or anything showing he was actually traveling at an excessive speed.

The report has pictures of the trail, it's flat trail, it looks nice and smooth but it's flat, not downhill. There are pictures of the bike, it looks like an older low-end bike. Tektro rim brake levers & Deore shifters visible.

He was riding with a new inexperienced mountain biker according to the report. He was supposedly travelling 20-25mph on flat singletrack around a blind corner.. but his friend who was a newbie was somehow keeping up with him. Not many people actually travel in that speed range in the woods on flat singletrack for long, and they don't have their newbie friends keep up with them if they do. It does say he was very familiar with the trail. The newbie friend couldn't see him but knew he was travelling 20-25mph. He didn't witness the collision but heard the bear roar.

There was never another sighting of the bear.

The whole thing just sounds weirder and weirder the more you read it.

I read things into it cause I've read this article over and over for 20 years. Same pattern, fill in the blanks slightly differently.

The gist of the scientific reasoning behind MTBs being bad and horses/hiking being OK is that mountain bikers go too fast and make too little noise. So we're going to hit/conflict with the bears. I assume they are meaning the bears will kill/injure the mountain bikers and then the authorities will go in and kill the bears? It sure doesn't sound like there is any scientific studies showing MTBs are super fast and make no noise and that's causing lots of collisions/impacts/conflicts with predators. The guy who wrote the report has been using this case of this one guy who was killed by a bear as proof in every article he's quoted in for the past 2 years. It just took 2 years to make it to the New York Times.

[redir]

This is actually really interesting if it's actually true... we don't have Elk here.

I can't even count the # of times I've come across White Tailed Deer riding mountain bikes. They generally don't react at all as long as you are on the bike... they're completely unfazed unless you're about to smack into them.

If you stop and put a foot down they bolt immediately. They're way more scared of you on foot.

I have on numerous occasions ended up WAY closer than I'd prefer to be to deer when on a bike. Like 10x closer at least than on foot.

So it'd be really interesting if Elk and Deer were different in this behavior.

Apparently they are making a comeback here in Virginia. Elk used to be all over Kentucky and Virginia maybe even as far up north as you are I don't know. And of course that was a very long time ago.

[benb]

The Trick with the deer would be figuring out how to get a picture without putting a foot down. I could never figure that out. Put a foot down and pull the camera out of your jersey pocket.. the deer disappear in a flash.

[merlinmurph]

Do not recreate in the woods where bears defecate.

In other words, don't go in the woods - period.
Seriously?

[Dino Suegiù]

In other words, don't go in the woods - period.
Seriously?

I think your humor/irony meter might need a little re-calibrating I think.

But yes, in my opinion it is just fine to not go mtbing/etc in a known and active grizzly bear habitat. As in, one might also decide that one does not have to go "convert" some isolated islanders off of Japan. Etc. Etc. There are plenty of other destinations to get one's rocks off, in both/all cases. Ymmv.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9M2rXKC5jY

[rigged]

Did you read the report?

The article starts out with a heart-pulling story about a guy supposedly hitting a bear and then the bear swats him and kills him and uses that to launch into a thesis about how mountain bikes don't belong in these areas.

Read the report. Google the author of the report and see the trail of anti-MTB articles he's quoted in.

No one saw him hit the bear. There's no GPS track or Strava file or anything showing he was actually traveling at an excessive speed.

The report has pictures of the trail, it's flat trail, it looks nice and smooth but it's flat, not downhill. There are pictures of the bike, it looks like an older low-end bike. Tektro rim brake levers & Deore shifters visible.

He was riding with a new inexperienced mountain biker according to the report. He was supposedly travelling 20-25mph on flat singletrack around a blind corner.. but his friend who was a newbie was somehow keeping up with him. Not many people actually travel in that speed range in the woods on flat singletrack for long, and they don't have their newbie friends keep up with them if they do. It does say he was very familiar with the trail. The newbie friend couldn't see him but knew he was travelling 20-25mph. He didn't witness the collision but heard the bear roar.

There was never another sighting of the bear.

The whole thing just sounds weirder and weirder the more you read it.

I read things into it cause I've read this article over and over for 20 years. Same pattern, fill in the blanks slightly differently.

The gist of the scientific reasoning behind MTBs being bad and horses/hiking being OK is that mountain bikers go too fast and make too little noise. So we're going to hit/conflict with the bears. I assume they are meaning the bears will kill/injure the mountain bikers and then the authorities will go in and kill the bears? It sure doesn't sound like there is any scientific studies showing MTBs are super fast and make no noise and that's causing lots of collisions/impacts/conflicts with predators. The guy who wrote the report has been using this case of this one guy who was killed by a bear as proof in every article he's quoted in for the past 2 years. It just took 2 years to make it to the New York Times.

benb I agree that the lead in of the story doesn't really connect to the main point of the article about human impact on wildlife in their habitat, and no I did not read the report-- though it does smell a bit fishy based on your read. And I don't ride on trails where our (MTB) impact on wildlife is being called into question, though I have seen coyote, deer and foxes in the Don trail system in Toronto. So I don't share your sense of being threatened by other interests, but I can understand where you are coming from if you do. Still, the point about our impact on wildlife is worth considering, no matter how we use the trails.

[Kirk007]

Apparently they are making a comeback here in Virginia. Elk used to be all over Kentucky and Virginia maybe even as far up north as you are I don't know. And of course that was a very long time ago.

Elk are rapidly reestablishing, starting in Kentucky and now spreading to Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia .... There are no natural barriers to their continued expansion. Elk are primarily grazers whereas deer are primarily browsers. In the absence of cougars and wolves, that leaves only black bear (fawns) and humans (where hunting is reestablished) as predators. They have become a major traffic hazard in Pigeon Creek Gorge on I-40 just north of Great Smoky NP. We are engaged in a radio collaring study to determine the appropriate place for constructing some wildlife crossings (also for black bear). No one wants to run into an elk or a bear (or bike or in a car).

[jamesdak]

Apparently they are making a comeback here in Virginia. Elk used to be all over Kentucky and Virginia maybe even as far up north as you are I don't know. And of course that was a very long time ago.

What??!!! My family comes from Elkton, you mean the town may once again have real elk around it? That would be awesome!

[redir]

Elk are rapidly reestablishing, starting in Kentucky and now spreading to Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia .... There are no natural barriers to their continued expansion. Elk are primarily grazers whereas deer are primarily browsers. In the absence of cougars and wolves, that leaves only black bear (fawns) and humans (where hunting is reestablished) as predators. They have become a major traffic hazard in Pigeon Creek Gorge on I-40 just north of Great Smoky NP. We are engaged in a radio collaring study to determine the appropriate place for constructing some wildlife crossings (also for black bear). No one wants to run into an elk or a bear (or bike or in a car).

We need more hunters for sure. Right after my ride tonight as we were all hanging out I commented on a bunch of deer just walking nonchalant through a neighborhood.. Then towards a busy road. Yikes!

What is a browser? I had not heard that before. What I have heard is that deer like 'the edge.' That's why no one can have any roses around here.

Since I have lived in the Mountains of Virginia going on 25 years now I have gone from, "Man I'd love to see a bear", to " Holy crap another bear!"

Don't get me wrong I love it, I love to coexist with our natural habitat. And for the most part they are not a problem. Last MTB race I did there were several reports of black bear on the course, I saw them.

What??!!! My family comes from Elkton, you mean the town may once again have real elk around it? That would be awesome!

Yes! KY was covered in Elk at one point in time. I worked for an energy company in KY in the 90's, mostly in the eastern part of the state and there were towns and roads that all had "elk" this or that in the name because that's what was once there. There was an initiative to bring them back at that time and from what I understand was very successful. Probably why they have moved into VA. I have yet to see any here though.

[nighthawk]

What is a browser? I had not heard that before. What I have heard is that deer like 'the edge.' That's why no one can have any roses around here.

Browsing is a feeding behavior, exploiting leaves and twigs from low tree branches and shrubs. Grazing is munching more on the grasses and forbs.
In areas densely (over) populated with deer, you can often see a browse line at the forest edge. A pretty distinct line where vegetation has been stripped, basically as high as the deer can reach.

Depends on location, but what I’ve seen is more a seasonality in feeding behavior, for example ungulates primarily grazing in spring and summer when new grass and forbs are abundant, then moving to browse in the fall and winter.

In urban and suburban areas, especially with dense deer populations, those ornamental shrubs, like roses, are a high quality/low energetic cost food source. Especially in winter months when food is scarce and travel requires trudging through snow.

[gasman]

I never heard of the word forb until now. Had to Wiki it. Learn something every day.
I do know we have to dang many deer and turkeys in our end of town.

[redir]

Ah yes ok I have definitely seen that browse line that you are talking about. The deer population in Virginia has gone crazy in the last ten years.

[GregL]

In upstate NY, it's said that there are two categories of drivers: those that have hit a deer, and those that will hit a deer. I've hit two, spun into a ditch avoiding one, and been a passenger in a vehicle that hit one. I also know several pilots who have hit deer on runways. One of the aircraft-deer collisions cost upwards of $300K in engine/airframe damage!

Back to bike content, I've had way too many close encounters with deer and fear that a collision is inevitable. I once panic-stopped so close to a doe that I could feel her snot hitting my forearm as she snorted at me. There are several locations on my regular road riding routes where I slow to a near-walking pace due to the likelihood of deer encounters. They're beautiful, but not too compatible with wheeled transportation devices!

Greg

[Dekonick]

Right now I am listening to coyotes howling... I wonder how a pack of coyotes would react to a mountain bike... :eek:

Seriously, in Baltimore I worry far more about the squeegee kids than the bears in the state parks... or coyotes (unless you own a cat).

Much more likely to die from a car jacking than a bear jacking.

[Kirk007]

Right now I am listening to coyotes howling... I wonder how a pack of coyotes would react to a mountain bike... :eek:

Seriously, in Baltimore I worry far more about the squeegee kids than the bears in the state parks... or coyotes (unless you own a cat).

Much more likely to die from a car jacking than a bear jacking.

coyotes will run in small family groups but are more likely to be solitary when encountered in the wild. In any event, I encounter coyotes, usually singles, quite regularly on my bike. They stop and stare or they run. You're right, much more danger posed by two legged carnivores.

[joosttx]

Right now I am listening to coyotes howling... I wonder how a pack of coyotes would react to a mountain bike... :eek:

Seriously, in Baltimore I worry far more about the squeegee kids than the bears in the state parks... or coyotes (unless you own a cat).

Much more likely to die from a car jacking than a bear jacking.

I use to ride at night in the Headlands of Marin. There were packs of coyotes howling in the valleys. I have seen plenty of coyotes during the day and in fact encountered two coyote pups which I took a picture and posted it here somewhere. Coyotes don’t bother you and neither do bobcats. Mountain lions, I rather not find out although I seen two while riding. One (juvenile) I did spook on a fire road causing it to run about 100-150 ft ahead of me before stopping, staring at me and exiting into the brush below the fire road.

[Mark McM]

coyotes will run in small family groups but are more likely to be solitary when encountered in the wild. In any event, I encounter coyotes, usually singles, quite regularly on my bike. They stop and stare or they run. You're right, much more danger posed by two legged carnivores.

And in keeping with the theme that what applies to one part of the country doesn't necessarily apply to another ...

Coyotes are not native to the eastern US, and the animals that have migrated to the eastern states (referred to as Eastern Coyotes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_coyote)) are actually coyote/wolf hybrids (and sometimes mixed with dogs). These hybrids are typically bigger than western coyotes, and are more likely to hunt in packs. There has been at least one documented instance of a pack of eastern coyotes killing a human.

[benb]

The Eastern Coyote supposedly has Dog mixed in with Coyote + Wolf.

It all seems pretty complicated so hard to say they are not native. I think Dogs were the only ones who weren't originally here. They can all breed with each other too.

I have seen Coyotes riding here.. even while road riding. Interestingly I have never seen more than one at once.. but I suspect the others are there. Same thing with wolves I think you would typically only see one unless you're about to be attacked.

There are still a lot of dogs on/off leashes that scare me a lot more than the Coyotes if I'm riding. Dogs are way more likely to be aggressive & out of control in my experience.

[Mark McM]

I can't even count the # of times I've come across White Tailed Deer riding mountain bikes.

I have seen Coyotes riding here.. even while road riding.

Still waiting for the pictures! Better yet would be a picture of the White Tail Deer and the Coyote riding a tandem!

It all seems pretty complicated so hard to say they are not native. I think Dogs were the only ones who weren't originally here. They can all breed with each other too.

The fossil record and genetic studies shows that coyotes originally didn't exist in the east. Apparantly, after the Eastern Wolf populations were hunted to extinction in the eastern states, coyotes migrated to the east to fill that niche in the eco-system, and were better able to blend in to the landscape that had been altered by humans. On their way from the west, coyotes mixed with populations of Eastern Wolves that still inhabited the northern mid-west states, creating the current Eastern Coyote Hybrid.

[beeatnik]

Dangling modifiers are so weird.