Mountain Bikes · Public discussion

Mountain bikers are out to "experience nature"? Not on your life!

Started by Mike Vandeman · · Last activity · 36 posts · 847 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Mountain Bikes
Published
7 October 2006
Last activity
12 October 2006
Original author
Mike Vandeman
Posts
36
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
847
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 36
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. NOTE to mountain bikers: you needn't read this; it's over your head.

    Mike

    August 15, 2002

    Board of Directors
    East Bay Regional Park District
    2950 Peralta Oaks Court
    P.O. Box 5381
    Oakland, California 94605-0381

    Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks

    Gentlepersons:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury. I allowed myself two more
    days after the conference for seeing two of the most famous
    repositories of nature and human artifacts in the world -- Kew
    (botanical) Gardens and the British Museum. I also saw the National
    Gallery of Art, which holds European art.

    Kew Gardens is gorgeous. The minute you enter, you feel your
    whole body relax. I was reminded of the discussion in Stephen Kellert
    and E.O. Wilson's The Biophilia Hypothesis of savannah as the
    landscape most attractive to humans (presumably because it is where we
    evolved). Kew consists of huge trees and small specialized gardens,
    separated by large expanses of grass. Paved paths lead the visitor
    throughout the garden. My favorite "garden" was "Evolution House", a
    glass-encased building depicting the evolution of plants, starting
    with the creation of life on the Earth. As you slowly follow the path
    through the displays, trying to soak up every fascinating detail and
    concept, your presence is detected at certain points along the path,
    and a recording is played from speakers overhead, describing and
    explaining what you are seeing.

    Mountain bikers claim to be mountain biking in order to "enjoy
    nature". So everywhere I went, I tried to imagine what it would be
    like to be on a mountain bike. Instead of pristine expanses of grass,
    the park would be crisscrossed by rutted dirt trails created by bikers
    who aren't satisfied riding on the "boring" paved trails that everyone
    else uses. In addition, to avoid being arrested, many of them would
    have started scaling the wall and sneaking into the park at night, so
    that they could ride as they wish, without getting caught. They would
    also bring in shovels, hoes, and other tools to construct illegal
    trails, jumps, and other obstacles to make biking more fun.

    Because the park is so dense with botanic diversity and
    information, a person on a bike (there were none, by the way -- of
    course!) would miss 99% of the experience and learning that are
    available in this most famous of all botanical gardens. And, of
    course, it would be very hazardous and unpleasant for other park
    visitors, all of whom are on foot, to suddenly try to share narrow
    paths with large, fast-moving pieces of machinery!

    Well, guess what? Parks are repositories of diversity and
    information just like Kew Gardens! It makes no more sense to "see" a
    park from the top of a bike, than it does to "see" Kew Gardens on a
    mountain bike.

    Now take the British Museum. It contains some of the most
    priceless artifacts ever discovered, such as the Rosetta Stone -- the
    key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics. Just to stand in front of
    the Rosetta Stone is an awesome experience! There seem to be three
    kinds of visitors. Some people carefully examine each exhibit, read
    the inscriptions, and also listen to a tape-recorded guide (or a human
    guide). Some people wander through haphazardly, often with friends and
    family, paying more attention to them than to the exhibits, at which
    they give only a cursory glance (after all, it is a huge museum!). And
    then there are those who fall somewhere between those extremes.

    Now imagine someone on a mountain bike trying to "see" the
    British Museum! We would have to create a fourth category for
    "visitors" like that. There is no way they could learn much of
    anything (except how to maneuver between randomly placed glass cases
    and people on foot, without crashing into them) while speeding through
    the museum on a mountain bike! (A recent email on a mountain biker
    listserv admitted that they ride at 6-10 miles per hour.)

    I am quite familiar with European painting, from having toured
    Europe when I was 19, so I didn't learn that much that was new in the
    National Gallery. However there was a special exhibit of drawings,
    including some Rembrandts. The Rembrandts weren't specially marked, so
    I had to carefully examine every drawing in the exhibit, in order to
    find them. There were two self-portraits, one in his thirties and one
    in his fifties. The latter brought me to tears. I don't think I can
    really explain why. But of all the hundreds of works in the museum, it
    is the only one that really "moved" me.

    Of course, if I were "touring" the museum on a mountain bike,
    I would have had a totally superficial experience, and probably never
    would have noticed that one small drawing out of all the hundreds of
    paintings in dozens of rooms.

    I think you get the point. Mountain bikes have no more place
    in parks and other wildlife sanctuaries than they have in Kew Gardens,
    the British Museum, the National Gallery, or the Sistine Chapel.
    Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.
    That is the law in Yosemite National Park, and it should be the law in
    every other park, as well.

    Sincerely,

    Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

    References:

    Foreman, Dave Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, New York: Harmony Books,
    c. 1991

    Kellert, Stephen R. and Edward O. Wilson, The Biophilia Hypothesis.
    Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

    Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
    Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.

    Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. London: Chapman & Hall, c.1997.

    Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads",
    Earth First!

    Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
    Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
    California, 1994.

    Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially "The
    Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -
    - Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited" and "Equal Access to
    Our Parks".
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  2. Mike Vandeman said:

    NOTE to mountain bikers: you needn't read this

    DONE!

    LOL

  3. Mike Vandeman said:

    Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks

    Gentlepersons:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.
    Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.

    How did you get to England?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2383135.html

    Shame on you.

    You know they make paved roads with open-cast quarried aggregate, and
    tar derived from the oil industry, right?

  4. Mike Vandeman said:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.

    Here is the abstract for Mike's paper:
    http://www.conbio.org/Activities/Meetings/2002/abstracts/Monday/cpone.cfm

    And here is the full paper in all its glory:
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.htm

    How long did that take to deliver, Mike? Carbon well spent, I'd say.

  5. "Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    NOTE to mountain bikers: you needn't read this; it's over your head.

    Mike

    Then why post it here dumbshit!! You really should have sid "You
    needn't read this because it's nothing but a long worthless rant about
    nothing"

    Quoted message said:


    August 15, 2002

    Board of Directors
    East Bay Regional Park District
    2950 Peralta Oaks Court
    P.O. Box 5381
    Oakland, California 94605-0381

    Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks

    Gentlepersons:

    "Gentlepersons" Oh how sweet!

  6. Quoted message said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.

    Here is the abstract for Mike's paper:
    http://www.conbio.org/Activities/Meetings/2002/abstracts/Monday/cpone.cfm

    And here is the full paper in all its glory:
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.htm

    I've read and re-read the paper you gave in Canterbury. It'd be
    funny if it wasn't so pitiful. You were the first lecture on the
    first day, a filler when most people were probably still getting over
    the previous evening's hangover. Some of the papers delivered at that
    conference clearly have scientific and/or practical merit. Yours,
    however, is anything but the objective paper it claims to be; it's
    just an opinion, cobbled together from research carried out by other
    people. You anthropomorphise not only animals, but even planets:

    "It is utterly inexcusable that we continue extending our hegemony
    into every square inch of the Earth -- and soon, other *defenceless*
    planets as well." Defenceless planets...?

    I picture a wild eyed loony, pounding his fist on a lectern while the
    (tiny) audience sneak sidelong glances at each other and twirl their
    fingers next to their temples. Did they laugh while you were speaking?

    I know some people here live in California - how about popping round
    to Mike's house:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=2600+Camino+Ramon,+San+Ramon,+CA+94583

    Take a picture and post it up, so we can put a face to the name.

    More rigorous scientific commentary from Dr Vandeman here:
    http://www.imaja.com/as/environment/mvarticles/BobIsDead.html

  7. Loads of conjecture and extrapolation using your opinion as a basis to form
    a conclusion on what mountain bikers may experience. Your own comments show
    your lack of ability to grasp the concept that other people can, and do,
    enjoy the natural surroundings while cycling.
    By commenting on a mountain bike in the British Museum or the Kew Gardens,
    you are merely accomplishing an absurd comparison as an attempt to show what
    you can not prove.
    Why not put a mountain bike in a nuclear submarine...? Or on an iceberg...?
    Or on a cell phone tower...? As long as you are making stupid comparisons,
    you might as well go all out and blame war, global warming and cell phone
    cancer on the use of mountain bikes.

    BTW... I just built a rock wall in my yard. Can you come bang your head on
    it so I know it is sturdy?

  8. Once again I fail to see your point here - other than perhaps that you
    have a vivid imagination and are a poor judge of your audience.

    Mike Vandeman said:

    NOTE to mountain bikers: you needn't read this; it's over your head.

    Mike

    August 15, 2002

    Board of Directors
    East Bay Regional Park District
    2950 Peralta Oaks Court
    P.O. Box 5381
    Oakland, California 94605-0381

    Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks

    Gentlepersons:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury. I allowed myself two more
    days after the conference for seeing two of the most famous
    repositories of nature and human artifacts in the world -- Kew
    (botanical) Gardens and the British Museum. I also saw the National
    Gallery of Art, which holds European art.

    Kew Gardens is gorgeous. The minute you enter, you feel your
    whole body relax. I was reminded of the discussion in Stephen Kellert
    and E.O. Wilson's The Biophilia Hypothesis of savannah as the
    landscape most attractive to humans (presumably because it is where we
    evolved). Kew consists of huge trees and small specialized gardens,
    separated by large expanses of grass. Paved paths lead the visitor
    throughout the garden. My favorite "garden" was "Evolution House", a
    glass-encased building depicting the evolution of plants, starting
    with the creation of life on the Earth. As you slowly follow the path
    through the displays, trying to soak up every fascinating detail and
    concept, your presence is detected at certain points along the path,
    and a recording is played from speakers overhead, describing and
    explaining what you are seeing.

    Mountain bikers claim to be mountain biking in order to "enjoy
    nature". So everywhere I went, I tried to imagine what it would be
    like to be on a mountain bike. Instead of pristine expanses of grass,
    the park would be crisscrossed by rutted dirt trails created by bikers
    who aren't satisfied riding on the "boring" paved trails that everyone
    else uses. In addition, to avoid being arrested, many of them would
    have started scaling the wall and sneaking into the park at night, so
    that they could ride as they wish, without getting caught. They would
    also bring in shovels, hoes, and other tools to construct illegal
    trails, jumps, and other obstacles to make biking more fun.

    Because the park is so dense with botanic diversity and
    information, a person on a bike (there were none, by the way -- of
    course!) would miss 99% of the experience and learning that are
    available in this most famous of all botanical gardens. And, of
    course, it would be very hazardous and unpleasant for other park
    visitors, all of whom are on foot, to suddenly try to share narrow
    paths with large, fast-moving pieces of machinery!

    Well, guess what? Parks are repositories of diversity and
    information just like Kew Gardens! It makes no more sense to "see" a
    park from the top of a bike, than it does to "see" Kew Gardens on a
    mountain bike.

    Now take the British Museum. It contains some of the most
    priceless artifacts ever discovered, such as the Rosetta Stone -- the
    key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics. Just to stand in front of
    the Rosetta Stone is an awesome experience! There seem to be three
    kinds of visitors. Some people carefully examine each exhibit, read
    the inscriptions, and also listen to a tape-recorded guide (or a human
    guide). Some people wander through haphazardly, often with friends and
    family, paying more attention to them than to the exhibits, at which
    they give only a cursory glance (after all, it is a huge museum!). And
    then there are those who fall somewhere between those extremes.

    Now imagine someone on a mountain bike trying to "see" the
    British Museum! We would have to create a fourth category for
    "visitors" like that. There is no way they could learn much of
    anything (except how to maneuver between randomly placed glass cases
    and people on foot, without crashing into them) while speeding through
    the museum on a mountain bike! (A recent email on a mountain biker
    listserv admitted that they ride at 6-10 miles per hour.)

    I am quite familiar with European painting, from having toured
    Europe when I was 19, so I didn't learn that much that was new in the
    National Gallery. However there was a special exhibit of drawings,
    including some Rembrandts. The Rembrandts weren't specially marked, so
    I had to carefully examine every drawing in the exhibit, in order to
    find them. There were two self-portraits, one in his thirties and one
    in his fifties. The latter brought me to tears. I don't think I can
    really explain why. But of all the hundreds of works in the museum, it
    is the only one that really "moved" me.

    Of course, if I were "touring" the museum on a mountain bike,
    I would have had a totally superficial experience, and probably never
    would have noticed that one small drawing out of all the hundreds of
    paintings in dozens of rooms.

    I think you get the point. Mountain bikes have no more place
    in parks and other wildlife sanctuaries than they have in Kew Gardens,
    the British Museum, the National Gallery, or the Sistine Chapel.
    Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.
    That is the law in Yosemite National Park, and it should be the law in
    every other park, as well.

    Sincerely,

    Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

    References:

    Foreman, Dave Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, New York: Harmony Books,
    c. 1991

    Kellert, Stephen R. and Edward O. Wilson, The Biophilia Hypothesis.
    Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

    Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
    Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.

    Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. London: Chapman & Hall, c.1997.

    Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads",
    Earth First!

    Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
    Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
    California, 1994.

    Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially "The
    Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -
    - Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited" and "Equal Access to
    Our Parks".
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  9. Quoted message said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks

    Gentlepersons:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.
    Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.

    How did you get to England?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2383135.html

    Shame on you.

    You know they make paved roads with open-cast quarried aggregate, and
    tar derived from the oil industry, right?

    Remember this ?

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Think before you belittle us with words such as 'WARNING: It is probably impossible to understand my web page, if you own a car.
    Or a mountain bike.' (just a thought - I guess you either own a car or use some form of transport that uses the internal combustion engine ?)


    MV > Obviously NOT.

    .... I guess you walked from the airport ?

  10. Quoted message said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.



    Bicycles antedate paved roads by a fair bit.

    Quoted message said:


    How did you get to England?

    He's so pure he was probably wafted by flights of angels.

  11. In rec.backcountry S Curtiss said:

    Loads of conjecture and extrapolation using your opinion as a basis to form
    a conclusion on what mountain bikers may experience. Your own comments show
    your lack of ability to grasp the concept that other people can, and do,
    enjoy the natural surroundings while cycling.
    By commenting on a mountain bike in the British Museum or the Kew Gardens,
    you are merely accomplishing an absurd comparison as an attempt to show what
    you can not prove.

    What Mike has expressed at length, Colin Fletcher summed up pithily in
    his well-known Law of Inverse Appreciation. Basically, it holds that the
    more sophisticated your means of travel, the more removed you become from
    the landscape through which you pass. Mentally removed, that is. One
    might express a corollary that would hold that the more mechanized your
    form of transportation, the more damage you do to the environment, and the
    less you realize it.

    Bill

    -----------------------------------------
    | The means are the ends in the making. |
    | -- Mohandas K. Gandhi |
    -----------------------------------------

  12. Quoted message said:


    Mike Vandeman said:

    Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks

    Gentlepersons:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.
    Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.

    How did you get to England?

    On public transit.

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2383135.html

    Shame on you.

    You know they make paved roads with open-cast quarried aggregate, and
    tar derived from the oil industry, right?

    Thanks for demonstrating how mountain bikers always miss the point.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  13. Dizbin said:
    Quoted message said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks

    Gentlepersons:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.
    Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.

    How did you get to England?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2383135.html

    Shame on you.

    You know they make paved roads with open-cast quarried aggregate, and
    tar derived from the oil industry, right?

    Remember this ?

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Think before you belittle us with words such as 'WARNING: It is probably impossible to understand my web page, if you own a car.
    Or a mountain bike.' (just a thought - I guess you either own a car or use some form of transport that uses the internal combustion engine ?)


    MV > Obviously NOT.

    ... I guess you walked from the airport ?

    Where possible (e.g. in Adelaide, Australia). Public transit.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  14. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.

    Here is the abstract for Mike's paper:
    http://www.conbio.org/Activities/Meetings/2002/abstracts/Monday/cpone.cfm

    And here is the full paper in all its glory:
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.htm

    I've read and re-read the paper you gave in Canterbury. It'd be
    funny if it wasn't so pitiful. You were the first lecture on the
    first day, a filler when most people were probably still getting over
    the previous evening's hangover.

    Scientists aren't drunks, like mountain bikers. The first slot is a
    place of honor. Obviously they thought it was important. Too bad it
    was over your head.

    Some of the papers delivered at that

    Quoted message said:

    conference clearly have scientific and/or practical merit. Yours,
    however, is anything but the objective paper it claims to be; it's
    just an opinion, cobbled together from research carried out by other
    people. You anthropomorphise not only animals, but even planets:

    "It is utterly inexcusable that we continue extending our hegemony
    into every square inch of the Earth -- and soon, other *defenceless*
    planets as well." Defenceless planets...?

    I picture a wild eyed loony, pounding his fist on a lectern while the
    (tiny) audience sneak sidelong glances at each other and twirl their
    fingers next to their temples. Did they laugh while you were speaking?

    I know some people here live in California - how about popping round
    to Mike's house:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=2600+Camino+Ramon,+San+Ramon,+CA+94583

    Take a picture and post it up, so we can put a face to the name.

    More rigorous scientific commentary from Dr Vandeman here:
    http://www.imaja.com/as/environment/mvarticles/BobIsDead.html


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  15. On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:25:32 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]

    Quoted message said:
    In rec.backcountry S Curtiss said:

    Loads of conjecture and extrapolation using your opinion as a basis to form
    a conclusion on what mountain bikers may experience. Your own comments show
    your lack of ability to grasp the concept that other people can, and do,
    enjoy the natural surroundings while cycling.
    By commenting on a mountain bike in the British Museum or the Kew Gardens,
    you are merely accomplishing an absurd comparison as an attempt to show what
    you can not prove.

    What Mike has expressed at length, Colin Fletcher summed up pithily in
    his well-known Law of Inverse Appreciation. Basically, it holds that the
    more sophisticated your means of travel, the more removed you become from
    the landscape through which you pass. Mentally removed, that is. One
    might express a corollary that would hold that the more mechanized your
    form of transportation, the more damage you do to the environment, and the
    less you realize it.

    AMEN! My theory is that people visit nature for experiences
    (sensations), so mountain bikers have to travel several times as far
    to get the same amount of experiences as a hiker does in a few feet,
    since the biker is insulated from nature (e.g. they don't even tough
    the ground). The same applies, a fortiori, to drivers etc.

    Quoted message said:

    Bill

    -----------------------------------------
    | The means are the ends in the making. |
    | -- Mohandas K. Gandhi |
    -----------------------------------------


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  16. Dizbin said:

    Once again I fail to see your point here - other than perhaps that you
    have a vivid imagination and are a poor judge of your audience.

    As I said, it is over your head.

    Quoted message said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    NOTE to mountain bikers: you needn't read this; it's over your head.

    Mike

    August 15, 2002

    Board of Directors
    East Bay Regional Park District
    2950 Peralta Oaks Court
    P.O. Box 5381
    Oakland, California 94605-0381

    Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks

    Gentlepersons:

    In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury. I allowed myself two more
    days after the conference for seeing two of the most famous
    repositories of nature and human artifacts in the world -- Kew
    (botanical) Gardens and the British Museum. I also saw the National
    Gallery of Art, which holds European art.

    Kew Gardens is gorgeous. The minute you enter, you feel your
    whole body relax. I was reminded of the discussion in Stephen Kellert
    and E.O. Wilson's The Biophilia Hypothesis of savannah as the
    landscape most attractive to humans (presumably because it is where we
    evolved). Kew consists of huge trees and small specialized gardens,
    separated by large expanses of grass. Paved paths lead the visitor
    throughout the garden. My favorite "garden" was "Evolution House", a
    glass-encased building depicting the evolution of plants, starting
    with the creation of life on the Earth. As you slowly follow the path
    through the displays, trying to soak up every fascinating detail and
    concept, your presence is detected at certain points along the path,
    and a recording is played from speakers overhead, describing and
    explaining what you are seeing.

    Mountain bikers claim to be mountain biking in order to "enjoy
    nature". So everywhere I went, I tried to imagine what it would be
    like to be on a mountain bike. Instead of pristine expanses of grass,
    the park would be crisscrossed by rutted dirt trails created by bikers
    who aren't satisfied riding on the "boring" paved trails that everyone
    else uses. In addition, to avoid being arrested, many of them would
    have started scaling the wall and sneaking into the park at night, so
    that they could ride as they wish, without getting caught. They would
    also bring in shovels, hoes, and other tools to construct illegal
    trails, jumps, and other obstacles to make biking more fun.

    Because the park is so dense with botanic diversity and
    information, a person on a bike (there were none, by the way -- of
    course!) would miss 99% of the experience and learning that are
    available in this most famous of all botanical gardens. And, of
    course, it would be very hazardous and unpleasant for other park
    visitors, all of whom are on foot, to suddenly try to share narrow
    paths with large, fast-moving pieces of machinery!

    Well, guess what? Parks are repositories of diversity and
    information just like Kew Gardens! It makes no more sense to "see" a
    park from the top of a bike, than it does to "see" Kew Gardens on a
    mountain bike.

    Now take the British Museum. It contains some of the most
    priceless artifacts ever discovered, such as the Rosetta Stone -- the
    key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics. Just to stand in front of
    the Rosetta Stone is an awesome experience! There seem to be three
    kinds of visitors. Some people carefully examine each exhibit, read
    the inscriptions, and also listen to a tape-recorded guide (or a human
    guide). Some people wander through haphazardly, often with friends and
    family, paying more attention to them than to the exhibits, at which
    they give only a cursory glance (after all, it is a huge museum!). And
    then there are those who fall somewhere between those extremes.

    Now imagine someone on a mountain bike trying to "see" the
    British Museum! We would have to create a fourth category for
    "visitors" like that. There is no way they could learn much of
    anything (except how to maneuver between randomly placed glass cases
    and people on foot, without crashing into them) while speeding through
    the museum on a mountain bike! (A recent email on a mountain biker
    listserv admitted that they ride at 6-10 miles per hour.)

    I am quite familiar with European painting, from having toured
    Europe when I was 19, so I didn't learn that much that was new in the
    National Gallery. However there was a special exhibit of drawings,
    including some Rembrandts. The Rembrandts weren't specially marked, so
    I had to carefully examine every drawing in the exhibit, in order to
    find them. There were two self-portraits, one in his thirties and one
    in his fifties. The latter brought me to tears. I don't think I can
    really explain why. But of all the hundreds of works in the museum, it
    is the only one that really "moved" me.

    Of course, if I were "touring" the museum on a mountain bike,
    I would have had a totally superficial experience, and probably never
    would have noticed that one small drawing out of all the hundreds of
    paintings in dozens of rooms.

    I think you get the point. Mountain bikes have no more place
    in parks and other wildlife sanctuaries than they have in Kew Gardens,
    the British Museum, the National Gallery, or the Sistine Chapel.
    Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.
    That is the law in Yosemite National Park, and it should be the law in
    every other park, as well.

    Sincerely,

    Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

    References:

    Foreman, Dave Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, New York: Harmony Books,
    c. 1991

    Kellert, Stephen R. and Edward O. Wilson, The Biophilia Hypothesis.
    Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

    Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
    Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.

    Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. London: Chapman & Hall, c.1997.

    Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads",
    Earth First!

    Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
    Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
    California, 1994.

    Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially "The
    Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -
    - Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited" and "Equal Access to
    Our Parks".
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  17. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    In rec.backcountry S Curtiss said:

    Loads of conjecture and extrapolation using your opinion as a basis to
    form
    a conclusion on what mountain bikers may experience. Your own comments
    show
    your lack of ability to grasp the concept that other people can, and do,
    enjoy the natural surroundings while cycling.
    By commenting on a mountain bike in the British Museum or the Kew
    Gardens,
    you are merely accomplishing an absurd comparison as an attempt to show
    what
    you can not prove.

    What Mike has expressed at length, Colin Fletcher summed up pithily in
    his well-known Law of Inverse Appreciation. Basically, it holds that the
    more sophisticated your means of travel, the more removed you become from
    the landscape through which you pass. Mentally removed, that is. One
    might express a corollary that would hold that the more mechanized your
    form of transportation, the more damage you do to the environment, and the
    less you realize it.


    Comparing the ramblings of MV to Mr. Fletcher is like comparing a piece of
    gravel to the Rock of Gibraltar. MV sees the issue with blinders on,
    ignoring all else outside of his field of vision. Mr. Fletcher absorbed
    everything and his experience is extraordinary as a field of knowledge.
    However, it is still a matter of preference and personal experience as to
    how any one person perceives their surroundings.
    There is no doubt that walking and cycling offer a different experience.
    However, there is also no doubt that the cyclist's perception is in no way
    discounted merely by the desire to make it so by a narrow-minded zealot.
    MV's statements that a bicycle removes all sensation of natural enjoyment is
    merely his unproven opinion.
    It is MV's insistence on absolutes that causes disagreement.

  18. "Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:25:32 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]

    Quoted message said:
    In rec.backcountry S Curtiss said:

    Loads of conjecture and extrapolation using your opinion as a basis to
    form
    a conclusion on what mountain bikers may experience. Your own comments
    show
    your lack of ability to grasp the concept that other people can, and do,
    enjoy the natural surroundings while cycling.
    By commenting on a mountain bike in the British Museum or the Kew
    Gardens,
    you are merely accomplishing an absurd comparison as an attempt to show
    what
    you can not prove.

    What Mike has expressed at length, Colin Fletcher summed up pithily in
    his well-known Law of Inverse Appreciation. Basically, it holds that the
    more sophisticated your means of travel, the more removed you become from
    the landscape through which you pass. Mentally removed, that is. One
    might express a corollary that would hold that the more mechanized your
    form of transportation, the more damage you do to the environment, and the
    less you realize it.

    AMEN! My theory is that people visit nature for experiences
    (sensations), so mountain bikers have to travel several times as far
    to get the same amount of experiences as a hiker does in a few feet,
    since the biker is insulated from nature (e.g. they don't even tough
    the ground). The same applies, a fortiori, to drivers etc.


    The statement by Mr. Fletecher may be applicable to a degree, however your
    "theory" is flawed because you fail to acknowledge the real and actual
    perceptions of the cyclist. Your opinion discounts these perceptions by the
    cyclist and you insist that your view is the only one possible. The distance
    of the cyclist's travel does not discount their experience of any length of
    it merely because you say it does. Since your desire is the removal of bikes
    from any and all areas that have a natural connection, you flatly disregard
    the experience of the cyclist. You apply your opinion as the total measure
    of others' reality. You claim to know psychology yet fail to acknowledge the
    varied degrees of perception and experience inherent in every individual.
    Mr. Fletecher's comment as presented is like an equation with a graphical
    representation from the results. You insist the use of a bicycle is further
    up the "graph" than it is in reality. It is much closer to "waliking" than
    you care to accept.

  19. Mike Vandeman said:
    Dizbin said:
    Quoted message said:

    Mike Vandeman wrote:

    > Re: Mountain Biking in the East Bay Regional Parks
    >
    > Gentlepersons:
    >
    > In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    > Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.
    > Bicycles are a wonderful invention, and completely appropriate
    > transportation tools on paved roads, which is where they should stay.
    How did you get to England?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2383135.html

    Shame on you.

    You know they make paved roads with open-cast quarried aggregate, and
    tar derived from the oil industry, right?


    Remember this ?

    Quoted message said:

    > Think before you belittle us with words such as 'WARNING: It is probably impossible to understand my web page, if you own a car.
    > Or a mountain bike.' (just a thought - I guess you either own a car or use some form of transport that uses the internal combustion engine ?)


    MV > Obviously NOT.

    ... I guess you walked from the airport ?

    Where possible (e.g. in Adelaide, Australia). Public transit.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvand

    So not in the UK or anywhere else outside of Australia, what about at
    home ? - hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.

  20. Mike Vandeman said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Mike Vandeman wrote:

    > In July I was in England to give a paper at the Society for
    >Conservation Biology meeting in Canterbury.

    Here is the abstract for Mike's paper:
    http://www.conbio.org/Activities/Meetings/2002/abstracts/Monday/cpone.cfm

    And here is the full paper in all its glory:
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.htm

    I've read and re-read the paper you gave in Canterbury. It'd be
    funny if it wasn't so pitiful. You were the first lecture on the
    first day, a filler when most people were probably still getting over
    the previous evening's hangover.

    Scientists aren't drunks, like mountain bikers.

    As usual you have no idea WTF
    you're talking about.

    The first slot is a

    Quoted message said:

    place of honor.

    As usual, you have no idea WTF
    you're talking about.

    Obviously they thought it was
    important.

    As usual, you have no idea WTF
    you're talking about.

    Too bad it

    Quoted message said:

    was over your head.

    Some of the papers delivered at that

    Quoted message said:

    conference clearly have scientific and/or practical merit. Yours,
    however, is anything but the objective paper it claims to be; it's
    just an opinion, cobbled together from research carried out by other
    people. You anthropomorphise not only animals, but even planets:

    "It is utterly inexcusable that we continue extending our hegemony
    into every square inch of the Earth -- and soon, other *defenceless*
    planets as well." Defenceless planets...?

    I picture a wild eyed loony, pounding his fist on a lectern while the
    (tiny) audience sneak sidelong glances at each other and twirl their
    fingers next to their temples. Did they laugh while you were speaking?

    I know some people here live in California - how about popping round
    to Mike's house:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=2600+Camino+Ramon,+San+Ramon,+CA+94583

    Take a picture and post it up, so we can put a face to the name.

    More rigorous scientific commentary from Dr Vandeman here:
    http://www.imaja.com/as/environment/mvarticles/BobIsDead.html

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.