Trees cut down to close popular mountain biking trail

Mountain bikers are the only people I know who think they can do whatever they want to on public land! Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking.... A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions. Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless. Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT? For more information: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbfaq .

Mountain bikers are the only people I know who thing that can do whatever they want to on public land. Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking.... A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions. Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless. Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT? For more information: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbfaq

Cutting down those trees hurts the canyon more than mountain bikers ever could have.

Cutting down those trees hurts the canyon more than mountain bikers ever could have.

Please do not close this trail! This is the best downhill mountain biking trail in Utah. There is a huge demand for downhill mountain biking trails in utah right now. Please work with us to make this trail legal. There is nothing about this trail that is causing erosion to the canyon. The trail is atleast 100m away from the river in most spots. The trail actually has eroded LESS than the trail that the forest service installed lower in the canyon. I find it somewhat ironic that you can find money to close our trail that is in 100% perfect condition when you can't even find the money to restore the trail that you built that has eroded from spring flooding. Please do not ignore our e-mails. Please do not tell us to contact our ski resorts for a downhill trail. There should be public downhill trails and you are closing one of the best trails in existence. If you don't want a trail next to the creek in Little Cottonwood Canyon please give us some other land in that area to build. Please help us to grow the sport of downhill mountain biking rather than oppressing our needs!

Come on, this trail has been here for longer than most people who work for the USFS have been alive. Just because it is mostly being used by bikers right now does not mean that it was built by bikers. As far as I know this trail has been in existance long before the Forest Service started controlling the land in that canyon. I think it is sad that the Forest Service closed the best Downhill Mountain biking trail in Utah. That sport is growing more and more every day and it is a shame that the riders are being oppressed by a few dictators from the Forest Service. If you want to close that trail, even though there is NO REASON to close it, atleast give the Downhill bikers a better place to ride. The Forest Services says they are closing that trail because it was not sustainable, yet it was impacting the environment less than the actual Forest Service sanctioned trail lower in the canyon!

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193304&page=12 cutting down live 60 year old trees, as an alternative to putting a few concrete barriers in or something for a couple years? and you're trying to "revegetate" the area? yeah, makes perfect sense...

Bikers were causing damage to the watershed but the campground, hiking trails, illegal climbing trails, road salt (in the winter) and forest service chain saws were not? Give me a break...