Mountain Bikers and Grizzly Bears

[HenryA]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/s...nal-parks.html

Worth thinking about.

[Dino Suegiù]

Do not recreate in the woods where bears defecate.

[azrider]

Originally Posted by HenryA

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/s...nal-parks.html

Worth thinking about.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Ronsonic

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:

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by speedevil

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

There's this, too:
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/mou...ying-over-bear

[colker]

Originally Posted by Ronsonic

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.