I can see both sides of that coin. I think that leaving the decision up to the individual parks is a good idea. Each park has its own needs, uses, types of visitors, ecology, etc. Some parks may be completely able to sustain bike traffic without impact, damage, or conflict. Some may not. I do agree with the comment regarding public input to an extent. Any discussion on a decision regarding public land should be made available to the public that ultimately funds that land and its management. However, when making decisions, care should be taken to realize that those with negative opinions are usually more vocal. Also, larger groups (hikers, maybe equestrians) will inherently have more voice than the smaller groups (bikers) due to their size alone.
2 comments:
I can see both sides of that coin. I think that leaving the decision up to the individual parks is a good idea. Each park has its own needs, uses, types of visitors, ecology, etc. Some parks may be completely able to sustain bike traffic without impact, damage, or conflict. Some may not. I do agree with the comment regarding public input to an extent. Any discussion on a decision regarding public land should be made available to the public that ultimately funds that land and its management. However, when making decisions, care should be taken to realize that those with negative opinions are usually more vocal. Also, larger groups (hikers, maybe equestrians) will inherently have more voice than the smaller groups (bikers) due to their size alone.
Speak for yourself about size. I live in Texas.
Post a Comment