Originally Posted by
sunstorm
First, my comment about him getting out there and working on maintenance was that his EXCUSE to be a on a trail that was CLOSED to mountain bikes was that the bridges on the mountain bike trails had been washed out. If my mountain bike breaks down and I'm not willing to fix it, can I just take someone elses? Would you be all right with that, particularly if it is your bike? How about if I decide that lovely, well maintained, hard packed mountain biking trail is perfect for a motorized dirt bike or a quad? Still ok with it? I am a heavy trail user; I bike, run, orienteer, letterbox, and hike on trails. I am also a biologist and spend a lot of time volunteering in restoration and maintenance of nature settings.
What you're trying to say is bicycles are to hikers as dirtbikes are to bicycles? If so you're dead wrong. A bicycle weighs 30lbs and it doesn't turn into a magical trail shedding sulfurous flame spewing demonic machine ready to thrash your rainbow coloured hike. There is plenty of evidence a bicycle isn't going to ruin a trail anymore than hikers. Common sense means the largest factor is weight and width. Lets hope we don't have to ban obese people.
I agree, in many places, it is the locally organized groups of hikers, bikers, orienteeers, SAR teams, etc that do the vast majority of the maintenance and improvements in parks, but your assumption is that the woman wasn't part of that, and that the OP, just by being a mountain biker, is contributing. My assumption is the opposite, since the OP shared that the 'hippie' said she had a permit and admitted to being on a closed trail that wasn't generally open to bikers, then griped about being forced onto other trails due to washed out bridges on the mountain bike trails....and that his solution to those bridges was to go gripe to the council in charge of the park to have that fixed (rather than to develop a plan to replace the bridges and take that proposal to the councile.)
I don't know if he is a contributor, but the fact is the system isn't designed as a club - it's public and voluneteer. Volunteers acting in a reckless manner are going to get themselves kicked out or arrested and thereby are sabotaging themselves.
Yes, the OP could have decked someone.....so the failure to do a more extreme inappropriate act makes other inappropraite acts acceptable? By that logic, if you violently assault someone it's appropriate as long as you didn't go the extra step and murder them? I agree she probably went over the line, but he was not a model of behavior either (having already decided that rules didn't apply to him.) I never said the OP was criminal, I said he was a complainer rather than a contributer, based on his own comments. I am not aware whether or not there was a gravel path or other preperation to handle the vehicle the woman was in; I know our parks all have access trails for maintenance and emergency crews. I wasn't assuming this place did or didn't have such access. Heck, I didn't even assume that she owned the SUV or truck or whatever auto she had.....around here it's the ranger's that provide vehicles for trail maintenance.
He sure could have and legally too... simply to push her off him would be fine. The fact he didn't probably has a lot todo with him outnumbered. Coincidentally her comrades didn't seem surprised at her behavior which makes me think they've seen her go ballistic more than once. My point about the gravel is that you've got a person complaining about muddy tires when somebody has laid and paved a roadway large enough to drive their SUV down 50m away. Does that not seem hypocritical? IF this area is so ecologically sensitive then what the hell is a hiking trail doing there let alone a limestone laneway.
I will say, as a hiker and biker, I adore 90% of the bikers I encounter on the trail. I also know that it only takes that 10% acting like jerks and/or abusing the privelages of access to create an uproar that can close the parks off to the rest of us.
Sure, and most hikers are just fine and in touch with reality. There are a good 10% it seems - the real elitist environmentalist zealots - which are embedded in the groups and furthering an agenda which isn't related to the real needs of a park but to their perceived image of it. Typically it's a stifling image.