Dual Sport Environmentalist

Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by mikem9, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. slartidbartfast

    slartidbartfast Love those blue pipes

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Oddometer:
    5,063
    Location:
    Southern Louisiana or Southern England or ...
    Good for you - and I really mean that - Well done!

    Sadly, my friend, you and your ilk are in the great minority. Most people enjoying the great outdoors courtesy of a motorized vehicle make bigger messes, clean up no more, and burn a great deal more fuel because they are hauling their offroad toys on trailers and in large trucks
    #41
  2. randyo

    randyo Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,809
    Location:
    Northern NewEngland
    I have to disagree

    most people's perception of environmental damage is what is screamed at them by environmentally uneducated media and zealots who know just enuf buzz words to be dangerous

    the hugest examples of erosion I have ever seen are not due to man, but nature

    I don't think there is any difference between offroaders hauling toys or hikers travelling in cages to get to the mountains, for both, the largest impact is the impervious parking lot they park in, increasing rate of runoff, swells streams and less recharge to aquifer
    #42
  3. RayAlazzurra

    RayAlazzurra Stuck in the Eighties

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Oddometer:
    240
    Location:
    St. Louis, Mo, USA
    Thanks for the clarification. I read the idea about trees in an old Nat. Geo article about the carbon cycle. The author may have been mistaken. The idea was that trees could be harvested and stored in mines, or other places where they would be prevented from decomposing and returning carbon to the cycle. The author asserted that fast growing trees would be best for this purpose. Another idea was to create algae blooms in the oceans by seeding with iron.

    When we focus on carbon instead of biodiversity and habitat preservation we get some rather odd ideas like these. On the topic of the original thread I do feel good about using a motorcycle for traveling. I have a company provided pickup that keeps track of fuel consumption. I looked at the dash the other day and noticed that I had burned over 2500 gallons of gas in less than a year. My 250 Sherpa gets about 70 mpg and saves a bunch of gas in comparison, but it cannot cary all my tools. I am still using, or perhaps wasting a precious resource when I ride the Sherpa, but at least I am using a bit less. I'm not so much concerned about the CO2 emissions as the scarcity of fuel. Someone posted about future electric vehicles. It may be possible that horses and camels are in our future instead. As duel sport environmentalists we are trying to have it all. We want our fun and we want to save gas. It won't save the world, but it helps a wee bit. Btw. We saw the Sequoia groves in Yellowstone last summer. Incredible! Should be on everyones bucket list.
    #43
  4. Grinnin

    Grinnin Forever N00b

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2005
    Oddometer:
    3,045
    Location:
    Maine
    I think the math in this discussion doesn't start with realistic assumptions. When people go hiking it's often in groups. Put 2 hikers in a car that gets 30mpg and you have the equivalent of 60mpg per person. Or 3 in a SUV that gets 20mpg. That puts those about even with the typical motorcycle.

    These people may all commute one-per-vehicle during the week, but I usually see groups getting out of each car at a trail head.

    The MPG race for motorcycles and hikers looks like a wash to me.

    Bicyclists, in my experience, are more likely to arrive one-per-car.

    Do my observations or math match what others see?
    #44
  5. Aussijussi

    Aussijussi Long timer

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Oddometer:
    1,147
    Location:
    Finland-Australia
    On this side of the globe, it's the noise issue with motorcycles, more than anything else. Near where i live, they clossed a moto cross track due to complaint's from folks living nearby. Enduro is very popular here, i can't remember ever reading an adverse report from greenie's or anyone else for that matter. Erosion isn't a problem here, the way it is in my other homeland, Australia, where the top soil is so thin, causing all sorts of strife. As for the carbon footprint, i join the guy with VW TDI, i've got a Skoda tdi, cheaper to run than my 990adv, doesn't put a smile on my face like the 990 though:D
    #45
  6. randyo

    randyo Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,809
    Location:
    Northern NewEngland
    again, your putting the impact to the environment as the trip to the recreation area, it's miniscule, the impact is parking, compacted soil and open unvegetated areas that absorb more heat from the sun and increase flooding, soil erosion and stream and lake sedimentation. The road itself that ya get there on or the twisty that you ride on has more impact than the gasoline you burn.

    Very few roads are actually engineered to be environmentally friendly
    #46
  7. Long Gone

    Long Gone Objectivist

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Oddometer:
    245
    Location:
    Ivor VA
    Just what are people trying to save the earth from? Ourselves it looks like, but since every bit of this planet has been at the bottom of an ocean numerous times in the last 4.5 billion years we severely exaggerate mankind's importance. We'll fade away or move somewhere else and the earth will recycle the crust with all the minerals while the flora and fauna repopulate just as they have numerous times before. Of course we can poison our air with pollutants but the argument that a gas that comprises only .04% of the atmosphere is creating a warming trend when we've accurately measured temperatures for only a few generations is irrational. A volcanic eruption puts more carbon dioxide and other much more deadly gases into the atmosphere that the whole of the Industrial Revolution. We really aren't a factor in how the climate changes. BTW, the coal in Antarctica didn't originate in Pennsylvania and the last Ice Age didn't end because of campfires.

    We should all try to keep the place up while we're here and respect the rights of others but I see no need to feel guilty about enjoying ourselves. The estimates of available fossil fuels go up weekly and the quicker we burn them up the quicker we'll be forced to find alternatives. Just my $.02, it's worth what you paid for it.
    #47
  8. Ceri JC

    Ceri JC UK GSer

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Oddometer:
    2,462
    Location:
    All over, usually Wales or England
    No, but hiking boots do damage trails: Hell, even bunny rabbits using them does.

    The problem is the binary divide a lot of people (hikers) seem to create whereby:
    Human walking = no impact
    Vehicle = earth-raping orgy of destruction
    As opposed to recognising it as the phenomenally complex and multi-faceted subject that it really is. Someone walking barefoot causes less damage than someone wearing hiking boots. Someone with Trials tyres causes less damage than someone with hill climb knobblies. There are an infinite number of shades of grey in terms of the impact someone makes. As someone else mentioned, the eco-mentalist with 4 kids and their future progeny will do far more to harm the planet than someone childless will, even if that person drives a hummer with knobblies through the Appalachians.

    Not that it should in any way alter the way my comments are taken, but just as an I've been a hiker a lot longer than I have a DSer and have hiked far more miles than I have ridden offroad (and indeed, more than many of the NIMBYing hikers who are so vehemently anti-vehicle have).
    #48
  9. bwalsh

    bwalsh UUU, UUU!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Oddometer:
    12,594
    Location:
    Helltown
    Damn, this thread was started to discuss Carbon footprint. I has now morphed into noise pollution, tree huggers and environmental impact, none of which relates to ones carbon footprint...:lol3

    The amount of carbon dioxide emitted due to the the consumption of fossil fuels by a particular person, group, etc.

    Source
    Definition of CARBON FOOTPRINT

    : the amount of greenhouse gases and specifically carbon dioxide emitted by something (as a person's activities or a product's manufacture and transport) during a given period

    Source



    It has nothing to do with noise. It has nothing to do with the attitude of the hippy down the block. It has nothing to do with compressed earth.
    Of course the blogger was just as misinformed as to what "carbon Footprint" actually meant so I guess...carry on! :clap

    This reminds me of being down in Jo Momma!
    #49
  10. BificusRex

    BificusRex Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Oddometer:
    253
    Location:
    Near The Notch, CT
    from the LA Times and I've seen other bits and pieces like it,

    "This story is about emissions. More specifically, it's about the surprising level of emissions spewing from on-road motorcycles and scooters. In California, such bikes make up 3.6% of registered vehicles and 1% of vehicle miles traveled, yet they account for 10% of passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions in the state. In fact, the average motorbike is about 10 times more polluting per mile than a passenger car, light truck or SUV, according to a California Air Resources Board comparison of emissions-compliant vehicles."


    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/11/autos/hy-throttle11

    yes the bikes burn less gas but spew more shit into the air. Either way give the evil eyed hikers the adv salute next time you see em :flip, it's here for everyone to enjoy ( so long as your doing it legally)

    I would say if I was concerned with my carbon footprint I would have to abandon all modern comforts, so long heating and cooling, so long shelter, so long mass produced clothing and sell off the toys. In short, life would suck (more)
    #50
  11. slartidbartfast

    slartidbartfast Love those blue pipes

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Oddometer:
    5,063
    Location:
    Southern Louisiana or Southern England or ...
    You are up against all the credible scientists in the world with your idea of what is rational and what's not. CO2 tends to hold heat in the atmosphere far more than nitrogen or oxygen do - It's an effect that is measurable and well understood. Therefore it's influence is far greater than the relatively small proportion might suggest. Also the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by around 40% since pre-industrial times (up from about 0.03%, mostly since about 1950) - Again, this measurement is fairly well understood and not disputed.

    This is a totally fabricated fact that has been put about by those with an anti-global-warming axe to grind. It is absolutely NOT true. Volcanic activity releases less than 1% of the amount of CO2 that is emitted from fossil fuel burning each year.
    #51
  12. Grinnin

    Grinnin Forever N00b

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2005
    Oddometer:
    3,045
    Location:
    Maine
    You may be right.

    The article that started this thread is not about impact at all. It's about finger-pointing. It's about justifying one's own activities and blaming the activities of others. It is also about denying the blame that other groups spread around.
    #52
  13. Ginger Beard

    Ginger Beard I have no soul

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Oddometer:
    7,029
    Location:
    Sunny Northern Cuba (aka: South Florida)
    Why even bother arguing with pissed off hikers ? You are on a bike for fecks' sake!!! Just roost them and carry on your merry way. :1drink



















    :hide
    #53
  14. randyo

    randyo Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,809
    Location:
    Northern NewEngland
    I didn't read that anywhere, even between the lines, carbon footprint was discussed by the OP however carbon footprint is prolly the least impacting aspect of environmental impact

    1. were coming out of an ice age and in a global warming mode by nature

    2. how often do you see a smog cloud over the recreational areas outside of metropolitan areas

    maybe we should be more concerned with the primary impacts

    erosion
    sedimentation
    trash
    habitat destruction
    introduction of invasive species (insects & diseases that have left eggs, larvae, spores on camping gear, etc.)
    #54
  15. mikem9

    mikem9 Wanderer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,251
    Location:
    North Georgia
    OP here. I just thought it was interesting. I think a lot of the authors purpose was just trying to be humorous while making a bit of a point. Most of us that have ridden shared use trails have felt that stink eye stare of other user groups from time to time. Some riders say F-em. I don't know about that. I enjoy getting along with fellow outdoor enthusiasts. All except maybe the unreasonable extremists who feel their particular way of enjoying the outdoors is absolutely the only way. Those seem to be in the minority. For those, I say kill them with kindness, unless they become a personal threat - and then I believe in doing whatever is necessary.

    I can empathize with other forest users who've had encounters with loud obnoxious motorcyclists who roost by and don't seem to give a hoot about those around them. But, a good number of back country, enduro dual sport types, are courteous, care a lot about conserving the environment and most have stories of helping other users in need. As you know our vehicle choice is the best in the forest for covering ground, except for maybe a helicopter. So, in times of need - searching, bringing food/water, going for help etc. Motorcyclists often have a lot to offer other forest users in emergency situations. Most of us have stories of helping other users.

    Regarding the impacts and sharing with other users. I also hike and mountain bike and have seen the issue from those users point of view. In the backcountry, those motorcycle riders who come along usually standing on the pegs and wearing a backpack, a style of riding with good smooth singletrack skills - using momentum vs. roosting everywhere and quiet pipes. They often have some of the best enduro skills. They stop for others users or go slowly by. They give a nod or a wave as they ride by.These folks make a good impression.

    Vs. the other types of backcountry riders at the other end of the spectrum. Loud bikes. The roosting starts in the parking lot, throwing gravel, roosting the start of the trail head. No courtesy for other users. An entitlement mentality.

    For most of us that ride backcountry and in the forest. We love the mountains and the forest as much as other users. We want to see it kept healthy. But, we feel that the proper use of our vehicles won't do significant or long term damage.
    Private, commercially owned riding areas have proven that the forest can be kept healthy by proper management, even with high levels of vehicle traffic.

    I think at the root of most of this discussion is common courtesy. In a closed course, motorized only environments, quiet pipes aren't as big of a deal. Also, we can all roost to our hearts content. It's part of motocross or Hare Scrambles. But, if we are sharing space with hikers, horse riders, rock climbers, mountain bikers etc, quiet pipes are a courtesy issue. Slowing down and minimizing roosting around others is a courtesy issue. Not roosting trail entrances and in parking lots - all common courtesy.

    In summary - As riders, most of us really love the forests and mountains. We care about the environment and feel the impact we make is acceptable. Regarding other users, common courtesy will go a long way.
    #55
  16. Long Gone

    Long Gone Objectivist

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Oddometer:
    245
    Location:
    Ivor VA
    Credible scientists? The one's who skewed the data and had it revealed in emails? Sorry, but ALL the credible scientists don't agree on anything much less that climate change is being caused by human activity. Maybe ALL the "credible" scientists you choose to listen to agree on that but ALL credible scientists certainly do not. There are quite a few real scientists who don't publish to gain more government hand-outs or grants and who have a different and supportable opinion. Seeing a hypocritical "D" student like Algore as the spokesperson for this tripe ought to be the first clue that it's fad pseudo-science being foisted on a largely uninformed populace that thinks Entertainment Tonight is journalism. The anti-capitalist leftists that jumped on the environmentalist bandwagon when the Soviet Union imploded would love to have us join the Kyoto accords while the worst polluters in the Third World get a pass. All the accords will do is help drag us down to their level. Now the UN wants the industrialized west to pay through the nose to cover supposed damage done to the less developed world due to climate change. That money won't do a thing except end up in the pockets of the people who rule that part of the world and keep it underdeveloped because they become richer and more powerful when we cough up our wealth. I'm old enough to remember when Time magazine was warning of the coming ice age. What happened to that? I've had enough of Chicken Littles who think 100 years is a long time in the life of this planet.
    #56
  17. p0diabl0

    p0diabl0 Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Oddometer:
    582
    Location:
    San Diego
    Wow, someone certainly had their Fox News this morning.
    #57
  18. slartidbartfast

    slartidbartfast Love those blue pipes

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Oddometer:
    5,063
    Location:
    Southern Louisiana or Southern England or ...
    You have a strange understanding of "credible". Perhaps I should have said "respected" or "mainstream" but you've probably got a trite rebuttal for those terms too.

    "Not a fucking clue!" is a huge understatement. You also seem to be having a hard time separating conjectural unwanted political outcomes (UN actions, etc.) from the science.

    ...and if one incident related to data manipulation is enough to turn your opinion against all those who believe in anthropogenic climate change, how do you feel about those who simply make facts up? (Like the well-circulated, oft repeated BS about relative CO2 emissions from vulcanism?)
    #58
  19. randyo

    randyo Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,809
    Location:
    Northern NewEngland
    My observation of the "bad apples" so to speak is that they are generally local yahoos, if they trucked to the area, it was only a short distance. As locals, they feel they are entitled cause they were there first, "flatlanders" are an invasion from the outside. I know this because its the people I have grown up with. They have loud pipes usually cause its a reflection of the state of repair as much as any other reason. But if it's what their got to ride with, their gonna ride. I was a teenager once, so I've seen it firsthand, then of course, there are some that are really assholes
    #59
  20. Knute Dunrvnyet

    Knute Dunrvnyet marooned in realtime

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Oddometer:
    1,990
    Location:
    CNY: "Traveler's Rest"
    The irony of your self-description is not lost on me.:rofl
    #60