Geoffrey Pounder - Yesterday
Mountain bikers have spoken loud and clear. Now it is time for conservationists to speak up. No second chances to save our river valley.
© Provided by Edmonton Journal
A mountain biker on a trail near the Whitemud Equine centre. File photo.
Bikers are trying to roll back the conservation efforts of past generations. Strip protection from “preservation” areas — open only to foot-traffic. Even as green space dwindles , and the remainder faces increasing pressure from increasing traffic and climate change. Does this make sense?
As the city recognized decades ago, mountain biking in sensitive natural areas is unsustainable.
What about safety? Can fast-moving bikes on winding, narrow trails safely mix with pedestrians? No one likes to be startled by bikers coming from behind without warning. Why should a family on a Sunday stroll stay alert for bikers?
Horseback riders, golfers, sledders, and skiers all have their space. Bikers deserve space too. Outside sensitive natural areas.
But bikers want to go everywhere. They claim they cause no more damage to trails than foot traffic. But the issue is not what bikers do on city trails. The problem is the proliferation of new trails — most constructed without city oversight.
Do biking, new trails, tree-cutting, and obstacle courses really have the same impact as hikers keeping to the path?
An ever-expanding network of trails with increasing traffic fragments habitat, speeds erosion, increases run-off, and muddies streams. Bikes crush plants and compress the soil. Some ride in stream beds. Issues bikers ignore.
Bikers, not hikers, propose a network of new trails throughout the river valley. If they do not get their way, they warn that illegal trails will be built and used , regardless.
Inexplicably, parks officials permitted the Edmonton Mountain Bike Alliance (EMBA) to build trails in the river valley without oversight. Sidelining other stakeholders. The result? The city has no idea. As the “ Ribbon of Green + Mountain Biking FAQ ” states:
“ Most of the single-track trail network was built by trail users and the city has not had oversight of the construction of these trails, some of which are found in sensitive areas, so we don’t know the ecological impact they have had.”
The city failed to follow its own policies. The proposed solution? Downgrading trail status in preservation areas effectively strips protection from adjacent parkland. The city’s original decision to restrict preservation areas to foot traffic was correct. The science has not changed.
Will the city buckle? Will officials dither until sensitive natural areas and the biodiversity corridor are damaged beyond repair? How much more habitat is the city willing to sacrifice?
No, damage by hikers does not justify damage by bikers or vice versa. No, trail repair does not negate damage done by an expanding network of new trails, tree-cutting, off-trail riding, and landscape modification.
No, hikers do not want to keep the valley pristine wilderness for themselves and mountain goats. The balance has already tipped. Our duty is to pass on our natural legacy unimpaired to future generations. Save what little is left before it is gone — for all citizens, future generations, and other species.
No more outsourcing trail management. Close all unauthorized trails. Close bike trails in preservation areas. No more trails without oversight. Base parks policy on science. Identify and protect sensitive areas, restore ecological integrity, halt inappropriate activities, hire park rangers, and enforce the rules.
Across North America, this same battle has been replayed over and over. Now it is Edmonton’s turn to stand up. Protect our river valley.
Bikers are trying to roll back the conservation efforts of past generations. Strip protection from “preservation” areas — open only to foot-traffic. Even as green space dwindles , and the remainder faces increasing pressure from increasing traffic and climate change. Does this make sense?
As the city recognized decades ago, mountain biking in sensitive natural areas is unsustainable.
What about safety? Can fast-moving bikes on winding, narrow trails safely mix with pedestrians? No one likes to be startled by bikers coming from behind without warning. Why should a family on a Sunday stroll stay alert for bikers?
Horseback riders, golfers, sledders, and skiers all have their space. Bikers deserve space too. Outside sensitive natural areas.
But bikers want to go everywhere. They claim they cause no more damage to trails than foot traffic. But the issue is not what bikers do on city trails. The problem is the proliferation of new trails — most constructed without city oversight.
Do biking, new trails, tree-cutting, and obstacle courses really have the same impact as hikers keeping to the path?
An ever-expanding network of trails with increasing traffic fragments habitat, speeds erosion, increases run-off, and muddies streams. Bikes crush plants and compress the soil. Some ride in stream beds. Issues bikers ignore.
Bikers, not hikers, propose a network of new trails throughout the river valley. If they do not get their way, they warn that illegal trails will be built and used , regardless.
Inexplicably, parks officials permitted the Edmonton Mountain Bike Alliance (EMBA) to build trails in the river valley without oversight. Sidelining other stakeholders. The result? The city has no idea. As the “ Ribbon of Green + Mountain Biking FAQ ” states:
“ Most of the single-track trail network was built by trail users and the city has not had oversight of the construction of these trails, some of which are found in sensitive areas, so we don’t know the ecological impact they have had.”
The city failed to follow its own policies. The proposed solution? Downgrading trail status in preservation areas effectively strips protection from adjacent parkland. The city’s original decision to restrict preservation areas to foot traffic was correct. The science has not changed.
Will the city buckle? Will officials dither until sensitive natural areas and the biodiversity corridor are damaged beyond repair? How much more habitat is the city willing to sacrifice?
No, damage by hikers does not justify damage by bikers or vice versa. No, trail repair does not negate damage done by an expanding network of new trails, tree-cutting, off-trail riding, and landscape modification.
No, hikers do not want to keep the valley pristine wilderness for themselves and mountain goats. The balance has already tipped. Our duty is to pass on our natural legacy unimpaired to future generations. Save what little is left before it is gone — for all citizens, future generations, and other species.
No more outsourcing trail management. Close all unauthorized trails. Close bike trails in preservation areas. No more trails without oversight. Base parks policy on science. Identify and protect sensitive areas, restore ecological integrity, halt inappropriate activities, hire park rangers, and enforce the rules.
Across North America, this same battle has been replayed over and over. Now it is Edmonton’s turn to stand up. Protect our river valley.
Born and raised in Edmonton, Geoffrey Pounder is an advocate for nature and cycling — in the right places.
No comments:
Post a Comment