Consider the massive amount of food a horse eats. That food needs to be grown somewhere. That food takes up water, is probably grown with pesticides, and adds to the increasing amount of farmland we need.

Horses in Griffith Park are not natural. They are a recreational activity. Without people, you won’t see horses going for strolls through Griffith Park, let alone being in the Americas at all.

With that said, you won’t see mountain bikes going through Griffith Park without people either. Calling one natural and the other a nuisance denies that both are recreational activities.

The perception of mountain bikers, as propagated by your argument as inconsiderate adrenaline junkies, only exists to keep them banned, rather than actually understand them. Having understood-rules would be effective, but it seems like you would rather not understand what mountain bikers are really like. Look at the picture you posted – is there anywhere in Griffith Park a rider can jump like that? Even if there was, the vast majority of riders are not capable whatsoever of that kind of riding.

Consideration does not need iron-fisted laws. Yes, I am an adrenaline junkie, I’ll admit that. But I am not riding for the sole purpose of hunting down Donna Barstow and making her life miserable. There are ways to work out differences rather than banning one and giving a warm hug to the other. Just like how I can drive through Griffith Park at 40, rather than 25, give road riders plenty of room, and not be a hazard to anyone. If you have to drive through Griffith Park at 25 to manage to not hit a cyclist or plow into a horse or ravine, you shouldn’t be driving. But that’s an argument for another day.

Since people can survive with no legs, why not horses?

Also, if you had a broken leg, would you be in pain for the rest of your life? Or should we just execute you?