As a biologist (UCSB, BS 1980, MS 1984) and avid gardener, your column regarding the damage by Mountain bikers to trails in the Santa Barbara area is sadly tabloid style journalism: the headline does not match the actual problem. There is no doubt that trail users (equestrian, MTB’s, hikers and animals, wild and domestic) will trample fauna. The trail itself is a thin cut through the mountainside habitat. The actual amount of damaged plant life due to trail use may represent a fraction of the actual plant population of the enormous hillside. Unless the population of the plant discussed resides exclusively alongside a 1-2 foot strip beside Romero Trail, the few damaged plants should not make a statistical difference in the ability of the overall plant population to survive and thrive. The actual population of the plant surely stretches for a larger distance, possibly miles on either side of the trail. A complete field survey would require leaving the trail and sampling in areas often difficult to access. I suspect most visitors prefer to stay on the trail and may miss the greater population of the plant.
While the naturalist mourned the loss of a few trampled plants at trail edge and noted a greater population of the plant this season, it should be considered that the presence of a larger trail width may be a contributing reason for the increased plant population. The open canopy above the trail may allow increased amounts of sunlight to reach the lower plants, spurring plant growth at soil level. The normally dense chaparral and forest may normally block sunlight to the ground dwelling plants and limit growth. Some plants also thrive in looser soils, as often found at road and trail edge. The greater amount of looser, disturbed soils may contribute to increased plant growth. Living in this habitat puts them at risk of being trampled while allowing them to thrive due to the looser soils. The wider trails may allow the plant population to grow due to less trampling episodes per unit of trail tread area. The greater width puts them further away from most trail users.
I sense an hidden agenda of stirring resentment between trail user groups by the use of such a combative headline. As an area trail user since the 70’s, I can attest that trails will continue to evolve over time. I would suspect the greater issues to trail longevity are fires and rain/flood episodes. The non-motorized uses of the trails appear to have minor effects in comparison. The damage by hoof prints, tire marks and hiking boots can easily be repaired. A few well placed rocks/logs on trail tread can harden heavy use areas. Relocating the trail tread away from fragile zones can minimize user damage.
Let’s all enjoy the wondrous trails of such an interesting area.
Previous Month
Posted on September 4 at 9:54 p.m.
Dear Ray Ford,
As a biologist (UCSB, BS 1980, MS 1984) and avid gardener, your column regarding the damage by Mountain bikers to trails in the Santa Barbara area is sadly tabloid style journalism: the headline does not match the actual problem. There is no doubt that trail users (equestrian, MTB’s, hikers and animals, wild and domestic) will trample fauna. The trail itself is a thin cut through the mountainside habitat. The actual amount of damaged plant life due to trail use may represent a fraction of the actual plant population of the enormous hillside. Unless the population of the plant discussed resides exclusively alongside a 1-2 foot strip beside Romero Trail, the few damaged plants should not make a statistical difference in the ability of the overall plant population to survive and thrive. The actual population of the plant surely stretches for a larger distance, possibly miles on either side of the trail. A complete field survey would require leaving the trail and sampling in areas often difficult to access. I suspect most visitors prefer to stay on the trail and may miss the greater population of the plant.
While the naturalist mourned the loss of a few trampled plants at trail edge and noted a greater population of the plant this season, it should be considered that the presence of a larger trail width may be a contributing reason for the increased plant population. The open canopy above the trail may allow increased amounts of sunlight to reach the lower plants, spurring plant growth at soil level. The normally dense chaparral and forest may normally block sunlight to the ground dwelling plants and limit growth. Some plants also thrive in looser soils, as often found at road and trail edge. The greater amount of looser, disturbed soils may contribute to increased plant growth. Living in this habitat puts them at risk of being trampled while allowing them to thrive due to the looser soils. The wider trails may allow the plant population to grow due to less trampling episodes per unit of trail tread area. The greater width puts them further away from most trail users.
I sense an hidden agenda of stirring resentment between trail user groups by the use of such a combative headline. As an area trail user since the 70’s, I can attest that trails will continue to evolve over time. I would suspect the greater issues to trail longevity are fires and rain/flood episodes. The non-motorized uses of the trails appear to have minor effects in comparison. The damage by hoof prints, tire marks and hiking boots can easily be repaired. A few well placed rocks/logs on trail tread can harden heavy use areas. Relocating the trail tread away from fragile zones can minimize user damage.
Let’s all enjoy the wondrous trails of such an interesting area.
Sincerely,
Wegarden@pacbell.net
On The Hidden Costs of Mountain Biking