If you think all activities in FHP are going to be banned so the “fragile ecosystem” can return to its “natural state”, your head is in the clouds.

This is a CITY PARK.  Not ANWR.  City parks are for people to enjoy being outdoors without having to drive hours to experience some wilderness.  Convincing the city to make FHP off-limits to everyone will never happen.  Just like if I would recommend to you to never use another kilowatt of electricity, ounce of gasoline/oil, and never throw anything away EVER again.  You couldn’t do it.  Be 100% green. ZERO carbon emissions.  Do you have a composting toilet?  Walk or ride a bike to work?  Recycle everything you use?  You must, otherwise anything else is hypocritical with your extreme stance regarding Forest Hill Park.

Personally, I think there are more important environmental battles to fight.  Mountain top removal, global warming, pollution in the Chesapeake, overpopulation, overconsumption, deforestation of the rain forests. Fight against one of those causes.  Oh, I forgot… you can’t see those from your front porch so they are not as important as mountain biking in Forest Hill Park.

You should try out for the Olympics, Johanna...that’s an award-worthy leap of logic you take there!
There is no talk about banning mountain biking here.

But don’t you think we deserve great trails? Aren’t you interested in learning about how to make our trails great?

Well put, Sister Johanna.  Like you and PDM, I too share a deep concern over the beautiful fragility of dirt paths.  After all, who among us hasn’t been brought to his knees, tearfully staring at the heavens, asking “why?” at the sight of wheel ruts in a dirt road?  Who among us hasn’t quaked with shame at the ecological terrorism committed by our forefathers as the cold hard wheels of their wagontrains defaced the once pristine Oregon Trail lo so many years ago? (cue crying Indian)

Actually, Mr. PDM doesn’t even have the basics of enviro-lunacy down.  If he was worth his salt he’d connect mountain bikers to global warming.  Mountain biking causes erosion, which causes 50 year-old oak trees to fall down, taking other trees down with them, thus ending those trees’ ability to conduct photosynthesis and thereby adding thousands of incremental tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.  Therefore mountain bikes are as bad as Hummers.  PDM, what game are you watching?

PDM is absolutely correct. 

We need to demand human-free natural habitats NOW!!!

We own houses close to the park AND we own this section of Forest Hill Park!

First, we’ll ban Mountain Biking in Forest Hill Park;
Then Dogs, Sledding, Trail Running, Hiking, Picnics, etc. - soon we will have ‘our’ park back.

So, do you ever look to other ‘clearinghouses’ for information on environmental impact? Or are you not interested in other points of view because they may undermine your position?

In order to have a good understanding of a subject, it’s a good idea to evaluate different points of view before drawing conclusions.

You probably mean that the MTB website acts as a clearinghouse for the studies that seem to support the claims made that the sport doesn’t cause environmental damage. And most of those studies presume that the trails in question are well designed to begin with.

But do they also post studies that show the detrimental effects of mountain biking, human activity, bad trail design, and so forth?

Really, all you have to do is open your eyes and look around to see the damage our sport does. That’s why road riding is looking better to me now, and I’m selling my mt. bike. I thought the sport would be a good way to enjoy nature, but I was wrong.

The MTB Website is simply a clearinghouse for these studies.

Many of the studies were conducted by non-MTB affiliated groups. Examples of authors for the studies: Journal of Park and Recreation Administration; U.S. National Park Service; Science and Research Unit, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; AMC Outdoors Magazine.

Do you ever look to non-mountain biking sites for research on trail impact?

I wouldn’t look to oil, coal, or nuclear backers to provide environmental data....wouldn’t exactly be objective.