Public Comment

"Based on current available research, there is no data to support claims that the use of e-bikes on trails is inherently less safe than conventional bikes or that e-bikes are more impactful to wildlife or habitats than conventional bikes except for potential noise impacts to some species":

1. Lack of research is not lack of impact!

2. This statement is obviously false! E-bikes give bikers a much greater range, thereby significantly increasing their impact on wildlife. It doesn't take any "research" to know what is so obvious. For the same reason, mountain bikes greatly increase people's range and therefore impact on the wildlife. It was a huge mistake to permit mountain biking. That decision needs to be reversed ASAP. 

3. The purpose of the Half Earth and 30x30 projects is to increase the extent of protected habitat, so permitting bikes on unpaved trails directly violates those projects. The same goes for all other projects aimed at increasing human access to the parks. They are seriously misguided. Additions to the parks should not automatically be opened to human access. It's based on the obviously false idea that access to nature increases conservation. All it does is increase recreation. A perfect example is the 30 miles of illegal trails constructed by mountain bikers in Briones Regional Park. Mountain bikers obviously don't understand the nature and importance of conservation. All over the world, they are hell-bent on building as many new trails as possible, destroying and fragmenting enormous amounts of habitat. Other recreationists differ only slightly in their dedication to conservation. I've asked hundreds of hikers to help remove invasive non-native plants, but I've yet to see even one of them actually do it. Recreation only leads to more recreation. For this reason, buying private land and opening it to the public can actually reduce available habitat, depending on how that land was managed! If we use 30x30 to continue "business as usual", it won't accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish. 

4. By the way, a recent article in New Scientist points out that animals and plants aren't the only species in danger of extinction. The same goes for microbes, which provide essential services to all living things (e.g. half of our oxygen is supplied by algae and photosynthesizing microbes). Are they even covered by the Endangered Species Act? I doubt it....