The reality is that all types of trail users can have a light or heavy impact on trails and other users.
Not surprisingly, websites focused on various sports (walking <https://equusmagazine.com/blog-equus/australian-research-horse-impact-ecology-national-parks-trails/>, biking <https://www.anacorteswa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16528/EIS-mountain-bikes-and-Best-Practices>, horseback riding <https://www.usgs.gov/publications/impact-horse-traffic-trails-rocky-mountain-national-park>) seem to find (selected) evidence that the problem resides with other groups. There are a few sites that try to offer helpful suggestions for a lighter impact, including these sites discussing walking <https://www.whi.org.uk/walking-tips/minimising-the-ecological-impact-of-walking/>, biking <http://phraseguides.com/trail/rogers/impact.php>, horseback riding <https://equinewellnessmagazine.com/impact-trail-riding/> and even llamas <https://www.americantrails.org/resources/minimizing-llama-impact-in-the-backcountry> . On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:29 AM DJCP <djcp0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Or maybe just chill out about bikers? > > Diana > Giles Rd > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:24 AM Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, conclusions reached would suggest we ban walkers and horses, and >> bring on trial bikes and motorized vehicles! >> Really? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 21, 2022, at 10:13 AM, Margaret Olson <marga...@margaretolson.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> Here's an article that summarizes the research on trail impacts of >> various users: >> >> >> https://www.americantrails.org/resources/comparing-relative-impacts-of-various-trail-user-groups >> >> (The second half of the article discusses policy implications for the >> author's jurisdiction, which may not be applicable here). >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 7:16 AM John Mendelson <johntmendel...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Forgive me, Sara, my history was a bit off. >>> >>> Changes were made almost 30 years ago, not 40. Please see the attached >>> article which also notes that the commission should "work with interested >>> groups to ensure adequate off-road biking opportunities for younger people >>> ". Prior to 1996, to the best of my knowledge, biking was allowed on all >>> trails, similar to horseback riding. >>> >>> Further, and I quote directly from the conservation department's website: >>> >>> Conservation Land Management Staff work to balance natural-resource >>> preservation with passive recreation on approximately 1600-acres of >>> municipal conservation land. Together, with Land Trust Staff, they manage >>> approximately 80 miles of trails. In addition, they work on the following >>> programs. >>> >>> (You can read the rest here: >>> https://www.lincolntown.org/411/Land-Stewardship-Trails) >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 11:50 PM Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> John, >>>> Your history is a bit off. >>>> It was not 40 year ago, or even 20. >>>> Lincoln was making decision consistent with Mass General Law Part 1, >>>> Title VII, Chpt.40, Section 8C, the charge to the Con.Comm., the stewards >>>> of our open space and trails >>>> "Section 8C: Conservation commission; establishment; powers and >>>> dutiesSection >>>> 8C. A city or town which accepts this section may establish a conservation >>>> commission, hereinafter called the commission, for the promotion and >>>> development of the natural resources and for the protection of watershed >>>> resources of said city or town.” >>>> No where in the charge does it say that the Con. Comms must provide for >>>> bike trails for recreation. >>>> >>>> Lincoln was forward-thinking in its early adoption of a Con. Comm. and >>>> it’s acquisition of open space for preservation for all for all time. >>>> We should remain mindful of the purpose for our protected lands and the >>>> duty of the Conservation Commission. >>>> >>>> We have already provided for walkers, bikers, dog walkers in such a way >>>> as to honor the intent of those who invested in our public lands and those >>>> who are charged with its stewardship. >>>> Expanding trails for mountain biking were not the intent nor consistent >>>> with the charge. >>>> >>>> Sara >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> Sara Mattes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I’ll just address one point here.. I can assure you that our current >>>> guidelines are not exclusionary. I walk every day Monday-Friday, 50 weeks >>>> out of the year, with people from Sudbury, Concord, Lincoln and Maynard. >>>> I’ve made friends walking with people from Weston, Waltham and beyond. >>>> These walkers from beyond Lincoln cherish our current guidelines and >>>> appreciate Lincoln’s stewardship of nature and wildlife. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:31 PM John Mendelson < >>>> johntmendel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You are thinking back to a different time, Sara. Our roads were >>>>> safer. Trail biking was in its infancy. I could go on. Just because >>>>> excluding bikes was the right decision 40 years ago doesn't mean it is the >>>>> right decision today. >>>>> >>>>> Trail bikers are just as likely to be stewards of the trails and the >>>>> environment as those wanting quiet contemplation. Why should we make a >>>>> value judgement that one use is more important than another? Why is >>>>> walking and horseback riding more important to the community than biking? >>>>> Our current and proposed trail use policy says that walking and horseback >>>>> riding are in fact more important and I think that is plain wrong and not >>>>> in sync with the values the town otherwise espouses. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 5:09 PM Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would strongly disagree with the general statement that we are >>>>>> perceived as “an island of exclusion,” because of our current trail >>>>>> policies. >>>>>> The number of cars parked along our roadways all during the pandemic, >>>>>> and the walkers that came from them would say otherwise. >>>>>> We are *well-known* for the relative peacefulness of our trails, as >>>>>> opposed to those towns that have a larger number of bikes on them. >>>>>> >>>>>> The number of fast moving bikes and mountain bikes that were here >>>>>> during Mike Farney’s tenure, and after, led to many complaints and to the >>>>>> degradation of the trails. >>>>>> The bike ruts led to erosion and degradation of flora and vegetation, >>>>>> and made walking often uncomfortable and sometimes unsafe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Subsequent hearings were filled with very passionate folks from the >>>>>> out-of-town biking community and those in town, with a similar charge of >>>>>> elitism deployed. >>>>>> It did not dissuade the stewards of our lands and the introduction >>>>>> of more restricted use, and the return of peace and healthier trails for >>>>>> the rest. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems history is repeating itself and we may, once again, relearn >>>>>> a hard lesson, unless our stewards are very, vary careful as they thread >>>>>> the needle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sara >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ >>>>>> Sara Mattes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 20, 2022, at 4:45 PM, John Mendelson <johntmendel...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I must point out that both Concord and Weston (and other towns >>>>>> mentioned) allow cycling on a significant majority of their trails at >>>>>> present. We are very much our of step with our peer towns in terms of >>>>>> restricting usage of our trails. And these policies give us a >>>>>> reputation, >>>>>> deserved or otherwise, of a town that is the opposite of welcoming and >>>>>> open-minded. We are an island of exclusion when it comes to trail use >>>>>> policy in the area. >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, there are many trail bike specific destinations in the area >>>>>> that attract enthusiasts and an incremental increase in bike access here >>>>>> will not significantly increase use nor impact wildlife. >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 4:25 PM Barbara Peskin <bpeski...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Deb, >>>>>>> Thank you for sharing the zoom link and reminder for the 6/22 vote. >>>>>>> Interest from Lexington, Wayland, Andover, etc seems to be a sign of >>>>>>> outside recreational bike groups looking to get access to Lincoln trails >>>>>>> and I feel that the Conservation Commission's considering to lower the >>>>>>> bar >>>>>>> on protecting habitat will negatively impact Lincoln wildlife - I don't >>>>>>> think Concord or Weston will in exchange protect trails if we open ours. >>>>>>> Lincoln has something special because of the generosity of conservation >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> hard work of stewardship that came before us, and I wish it could >>>>>>> continue. >>>>>>> I am sending in another letter on behalf of walkers and wildlife before >>>>>>> 6/22 and hope you might, too. If you are interested in seeing my letter >>>>>>> please let me know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Re: Trails Continuance from Lincoln Digest, Vol 117, Issue 20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, all - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The June 1 ConComm trails discussion over Zoom was robust and >>>>>>> heartening; lots of people showed up and voiced their opinions on the >>>>>>> proposed trails regulations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For those who couldn't make it, the ConComm decided to hold off on >>>>>>> voting on the regs, and instead to continue the meeting on the evening >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> this Wednesday, June 22, also over Zoom. You can find the agenda for >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> meeting here: >>>>>>> https://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06222022-4573 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further discussion and a vote on the trails issue is scheduled for >>>>>>> 8:15 pm, and the Zoom link for the meeting is on the agenda, or here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Zoom Meeting Link: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88063247875?pwd=SFJFd1pKcVJZSDFXUDkxdGVyYzBQZz09 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> or Dial In: 1-646-876-9923 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Meeting ID: 880 6324 7875 Passcode: 894034 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Written comments on the proposed draft trails policy are a matter of >>>>>>> public record; Michelle Grzenda suggested that anyone interested in >>>>>>> reading >>>>>>> those comments should call or email her or Stacy Carter for the link. >>>>>>> (The >>>>>>> Conservation Dept. prefers to get individual requests for the link >>>>>>> rather >>>>>>> than broadcasting it, because private emails are included with the >>>>>>> comments). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have read the comments, and think they’re worth the read, as they >>>>>>> give a wide range of opinions on trail use in Lincoln. (I noticed that >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> quite extensive comments came from residents of Lexington, Wayland, >>>>>>> Weston, >>>>>>> Concord, Belmont and Andover — there’s quite a lot of interest outside >>>>>>> Lincoln in Lincoln’s trail policies.) And of course it’s always good to >>>>>>> hear the voices and views of others on the ConComm Zoom, and to voice >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> own. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Deb Howe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>> Barbara Peskin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *My Moments in Nature Photo Gallery: barbarapeskin.com >>>>>>> <http://barbarapeskin.com/>* >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>>>>>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>>>>>> Browse the archives at >>>>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>>>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>>>>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>>>>> Browse the archives at >>>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Barbara Peskin >>>> >>>> *My Moments in Nature Photo Gallery: barbarapeskin.com >>>> <http://barbarapeskin.com/>* >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
