Specific critique of the justification used in this plan for mountain bicycle management recommendations is discussed elsewhere. Our recommendations for changes in the plans, considering more accurate and more comprehensive information are also presented elsewhere. The plan's recommendations to switch to a closed-unless-designated-open policy are based primarily on the impact issues, which were not justified in the report, nor in the technical literature. 
 

But all the research and impact studies in the world don't avoid three simple concepts that we believe may really be at the heart of the plan's recommendation to dramatically change how bicycles are managed in Region 7: (1) There are many sections of poorly-designed trails where impacts from bicycles are evident, (2), Many other forest users just plain don't like bicycles because it impacts their experience in the woods, and (3), Some folks have constructed illegal trails in the forest.. Each of these are discussed below.
 

(1). Anyone arguing for restrictions to bicycle access can find an example in a state forest of a degraded trail that shows evidence of bicycle use. This may be presented as empirical evidence that contradicts what studies have shown, namely that impacts are similar. However, this empirical "evidence" does not support disproportionate impacts from bicycles.  As demonstrated elsewhere, this impact is is entirely a function of trail design. Trails that can not be rerouted, or have their drainage improved need to be closed. When this happens, this empirical reason will no longer exist.  Furthermore, for every instance where such impact is observed, countless counter examples can be presented where use, whether by hikers or bicycles, has not resulted in such impacts. A well-designed trail with very heavy use often erodes less than a poorly-designed trail with light use, regardless of user type. 
 

(2). For some users, typically hikers, the mere presence of a bicycle in the trail is disturbing. A person's feelings are incontrovertible; there is no question that these people are genuinely upset by seeing a bicycle. However, the flip side of this situation needs to be considered. Cyclists who are told they can not ride on a given trail, despite the fact that they would have no greater impact than the hikers who are allowed on the trail, are also genuinely upset. Probably even more so. The fact that there are no restrictions on hiking whatsoever (nor even mention of trail closures in the hiking activity section, even for unauthorized or illegal trails), and the fact that the plan only identifies "foot trails" and "multipurpose trails" (consciously or subconsciously grouping cyclists in with equestrians and motorized users), suggests that the plan presupposes the needs and desires of hikers outweigh those of cyclists and other users. This issue, unlike trail design and construction, can not be resolved through any specific action.  We concede that to meet the needs of some users, some trails will have to be designated hiing-only. However, we do request that the DEC reexamine the motivations behind the recommendations, and give greater consideration to the impact this has on the cyclists who enjoy the forests.

(3).  The issue of illegal trail construction is mentioned only obliquely in the draft plan.  Two sentences discuss this in the Environmental impacts section.  But more importantly, it is listed as one of the three main reasons for adopting a "closed-unless-open" policy for cyclists.  Unauthorized trail construction is both illegal and detestable.  It undermines trust between forest users and managers and trail users.  It directly conflicts with the mission of the DEC which is to manage the forests in a way that meets the needs of various users while maintaining environmental quality.  For this reason, it is understandable if the DEC, including the authors of this plan, takes these trails as a personal affront.  It's not clear, but this could be one motivation for the drastic changes in management policy that the plan proposed.  But it is questionable whether all the facts are weighed correctly on this issue.  Currently, the DEC recognizes no trails at Shindagin Hollow (other than the FLT), while in fact there are many.  The impression we get is that DEC believes these trails were entirely made by cyclists.  This is not correct.  Bicyclists may have constructed some of the unauthorized trails, but the vast majority have been present for 10 years or more.  Many were made by motorized users long or ago, or perhaps recently.  The origin of others is unknown, but their age predates the increase in cycling.  Hikers also create unauthorized trails, both deliberately and through casual, repetitive travel. Yet their unauthorized trail building is not used to justify restrictions on hiking.  Decisions made in this plan should not be made assuming most trails in the forest that are not on an official DEC map were made by cyclists, because that is incorrect.  Nor should all users of the forests be punished for the lawlessness of the few individuals that do build illegal trails.  Those individuals should be caught and punished, and their trails closed.  But this should not mean that all trails in Region 7 state forests should be closed to bicycles, unless signed open.