"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:If you like reading a bunch of mountain biker lies, see
http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32.
It is interesting, however, that among the lies, the author also admits
that I
Quoted message said:am mostly RIGHT. One doesn't get a Ph.D. by being "mostly" right. You have
to be
Quoted message said:right 99+% of the time.
Which makes us wonder why they even allow you to buy Cracker Jacks, knowing
that some of the boxes have PhD's in them.
Bike routes consume less than 0.004% of the habitat through which they pass,
and for any given route, less than 0.01% has an adverse affect on the
habitat through which it passes.
What the author as aludiing to is that your basic agenda to preserve the
environment is a good one. What you ignore is that many in the biking
communinty, and even some in the motoring community, actually side with your
basic agenda. Where you lead yourself astray is in insisting that everybody
that rides or drives is directly responsible for an environmental calamity.
The fact is, most vehicle operators actually care about many of the same
things you care about, and they go to great lengths to not do precisely the
things you pin on them.
You also ignore the fact that many of the routes you want to close to
vehicle operators have been in the inventory for a century, some for even
longer, and the environment through which they pass has gotten along just
fine without your fanaticism.
