A Mountain Biker Responds to My Web Site

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, Jun 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. At 10:28 AM 6/21/03 -0700, "Guy Ravad" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >I visited to look into the bike damage issue. As a responsible biker I wanted
    to see your perspective.

    You don't say whether you are a mountain biker. Such dishonesty is typical of mountain bikers.

    >I can understand your negative viewpoint but dissagree. But what I find most
    interesting is the relatively light treatment the equestrian community gets.

    1. That is a different topic. You are welcome to work on that issue. It has NOTHING to do with the
    harm done by mountain biking, although mountain bikers like you seem to love to point to
    equestrian damage as if it excused their own damage. I also don't talk much about nuclear
    warfare, but that doesn't imply that it's not important -- it's just covered by other people.

    2. The number of equestrians is miniscule compared to the number of mountain bikers. Mountain biking
    is a MUCH bigger problem.

    3. Tha damage from horses and burros is obvious to everyone. On the other hand, many people have
    gotten used to associating bicycles with protecting the environment (from automobile use) and
    other good things, are not aware of the huge amount of environmental damage that mountain biking
    has done and is continuing to do around the world. That's one reason I am writing about it.

    > There are many negative impacts to horses on the trails. Simply their mass
    alone results in more trail damage (up to 500 pounds per hoof static weight and 900 dynamic) and
    they are wider than bike plus biker but usually allowed on single tracks when bikes are not.

    Of course. But that has NOTHING to do with mountain biking and the damage that it does.

    > Your main argument seems to center around illegal activity.

    Not really. Mountain biking is just as damaging where it is legal as where it is illegal. But
    mountain bikers seem to be much more prone to illegal activity than other trail users. They have an
    attitude of entitlement ("all public land is ours") that leads them to ride illegally, to compensate
    for their perceived "unfair" treatment.

    > You want to ban an activity based on a small minority.

    Not true. If you will read my papers, you will see that ALL mountain biking is harmful, not just
    illegal mountain biking.

    > I believe in enforcement of the rules and would pay an entrance fee for that
    expense. Truly I believe you would prefer to allow only hiking and want the land protected to the
    extreme. I agree with that too as long as the potential damage is supported by sound scientific
    principles.

    It is. There are many reasons for banning bikes, which is why many parks and open spaces have done
    just that (e.g. Yosemite National Park).

    >So lets at least be consistent and restrict both horses and bikes when you make
    arguments to prevent damage to the environment on a traumatic basis.

    They are independent of each other. You are welcome to work on banning horses and burros. But I
    sense that you aren't doing that, making your comments a bit hypocritical.

    > Both groups are capable of illegal activity and may in fact on a percentage
    basis break the law similarly. Your eye witness accounts are going to be biased to bikes since they
    far out number the equestrians. As a biker I am not responsible for the activities of other bikers
    just like you are not responsible for the wacko statements of some PhDs.

    No, but you are responsible to tell the truth, and work to protect wildlife, who can't protect
    themselves from humans. Bicycles aren't human, and don't have rights. Nor do humans have any right
    to mountain bike, per a federal court decision (http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm).

    >Regards

    Guy Ravad, MD

    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
    Tags:


  2. Dashi Toshii

    Dashi Toshii Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > At 10:28 AM 6/21/03 -0700, "Guy Ravad" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >I visited to look into the bike damage issue. As a responsible biker I
    wanted
    > to see your perspective.
    >
    > You don't say whether you are a mountain biker. Such dishonesty is typical
    of
    > mountain bikers.

    Beam me up, beam me up, Mikey boy forgot his tin foil hat again. <G>

    He is quite mad you know!

    Dashii
     
  3. Doug Haxton

    Doug Haxton Guest

    On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:43:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Both groups are capable of illegal activity and may in fact on a percentage
    >basis break the law similarly. Your eye witness accounts are going to be biased to bikes since they
    >far out number the equestrians. As a biker I am not responsible for the activities of other bikers
    >just like you are not responsible for the wacko statements of some PhDs.
    >
    >No, but you are responsible to tell the truth, and work to protect wildlife, who can't protect
    >themselves from humans.

    Why is he responsible for protecting wildlife? Who imposes this resonsibility on him? What penalties
    will he incur if he doesn't protect wildlife?

    Am *I* responsible for protecting wildlife as well?

    Doug
     
  4. On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:40:19 GMT, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:43:05 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . .>> Both groups are
    capable of illegal activity and may in fact on a percentage .>basis break the law similarly. Your
    eye witness accounts are going to be biased .>to bikes since they far out number the equestrians. As
    a biker I am not .>responsible for the activities of other bikers just like you are not responsible
    .>for the wacko statements of some PhDs. .> .>No, but you are responsible to tell the truth, and
    work to protect wildlife, who .>can't protect themselves from humans. . .Why is he responsible for
    protecting wildlife?

    It's called "morality": do no harm to others. You were supposed to have learned that in
    kindergarten, if not earlier. DUH!

    Who imposes this .resonsibility on him? What penalties will he incur if he doesn't .protect
    wildlife? . .Am *I* responsible for protecting wildlife as well?

    Of course.

    .Doug

    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  5. Doug Haxton

    Doug Haxton Guest

    On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:18:17 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >.>No, but you are responsible to tell the truth, and work to protect wildlife, who .>can't protect
    >themselves from humans. . .Why is he responsible for protecting wildlife?
    >
    >It's called "morality": do no harm to others. You were supposed to have learned that in
    >kindergarten, if not earlier. DUH!

    In a sense I agree with you; we have morals because we're taught them as children. Granted, they
    sometimes change later in life, but one's basic set of morals is certainly inculcated in childhood.

    Now, the question is: *which* morals? One of your morals is (apparently) "Do no harm to others",
    defining "others" to include wildlife. I'm not sure just how far you take this...you probably
    include deer & raccoons, but what about ticks?

    In any case, my morals do not include the blanket statement, "Do no harm to others". I'm perfectly
    comfortable shooting a deer or elk, as long as it's in season and all applicable game laws are
    followed. They're awfully yummy, after all. I would also condone killing virtually any animal in a
    survival setting regardless of the law.

    What's more, I also condone killing a fellow human in self-defense & killing in war...and yet I'm
    perfectly moral.

    I just don't share *your* morals.
    >
    > Who imposes this .resonsibility on him? What penalties will he incur if he doesn't .protect
    > wildlife?

    Missed a couple. I'll restate them for your convenience:

    1) A responsibility, by definition, must be imposed by an outside authority. Who imposes the
    responsibility to protect wildlife upon me?

    2) What penalties will this authority impose upon me if I don't protect wildlife?
    >. .Am *I* responsible for protecting wildlife as well?
    >
    >Of course.

    See the above 2 questions.

    Doug
     
  6. On 22 Jun 2003 14:56:30 GMT, [email protected] (Stephen Baker) wrote:

    .MV blurts: . .>and work to protect wildlife, who .>can't protect themselves from humans. . .Tell
    that to the folks who have beent savaged by a bear/mountain lion/wolf or .stomped on by large hooved
    animals. Can't protect themselves? Hah!

    Yes, against a gun.
    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  7. On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:42:19 GMT, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:18:17 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: .>.>No, but you are
    responsible to tell the truth, and work to protect wildlife, who .>.>can't protect themselves from
    humans. .>. .>.Why is he responsible for protecting wildlife? .> .>It's called "morality": do no
    harm to others. You were supposed to have learned .>that in kindergarten, if not earlier. DUH! . .In
    a sense I agree with you; we have morals because we're taught them .as children. Granted, they
    sometimes change later in life, but one's .basic set of morals is certainly inculcated in childhood.
    . .Now, the question is: *which* morals? One of your morals is .(apparently) "Do no harm to others",
    defining "others" to include .wildlife. I'm not sure just how far you take this...you probably
    .include deer & raccoons, but what about ticks? . .In any case, my morals do not include the blanket
    statement, "Do no .harm to others". I'm perfectly comfortable shooting a deer or elk, as .long as
    it's in season and all applicable game laws are followed. .They're awfully yummy, after all. I would
    also condone killing .virtually any animal in a survival setting regardless of the law. . .What's
    more, I also condone killing a fellow human in self-defense & .killing in war...and yet I'm
    perfectly moral. . .I just don't share *your* morals.

    It sounds like you DO, except that you don't practice them, when it's not convenient.

    .> .> Who imposes this .>.resonsibility on him? What penalties will he incur if he doesn't
    .>.protect wildlife? . .Missed a couple. I'll restate them for your convenience: . .1) A
    responsibility, by definition, must be imposed by an outside .authority.

    BS. By definition, morality has no imposer, except the community.

    Who imposes the responsibility to protect wildlife upon .me? . .2) What penalties will this
    authority impose upon me if I don't .protect wildlife?

    Loss of respect. It is already happening to mountain bikers as a whole.

    .>.Am *I* responsible for protecting wildlife as well? .> .>Of course. . .See the above 2
    questions. . .Doug

    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  8. Chris Snell

    Chris Snell Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 22 Jun 2003 14:56:30 GMT, [email protected] (Stephen
    Baker) wrote:
    > .stomped on by large hooved animals. Can't protect themselves?
    Hah!
    >
    > Yes, against a gun.

    Mountain bikers don't usually carry guns. 'Cept maybe if there's whip snakes about.
     
  9. Doug Haxton

    Doug Haxton Guest

    On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:30:01 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:42:19 GMT, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >.On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:18:17 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: .>.>No, but you are
    >responsible to tell the truth, and work to protect wildlife, who .>.>can't protect themselves from
    >humans. .>. .>.Why is he responsible for protecting wildlife? .> .>It's called "morality": do no
    >harm to others. You were supposed to have learned .>that in kindergarten, if not earlier. DUH! .
    >.In a sense I agree with you; we have morals because we're taught them .as children. Granted, they
    >sometimes change later in life, but one's .basic set of morals is certainly inculcated in
    >childhood. . .Now, the question is: *which* morals? One of your morals is .(apparently) "Do no harm
    >to others", defining "others" to include .wildlife. I'm not sure just how far you take this...you
    >probably .include deer & raccoons, but what about ticks? . .In any case, my morals do not include
    >the blanket statement, "Do no .harm to others". I'm perfectly comfortable shooting a deer or elk,
    >as .long as it's in season and all applicable game laws are followed. .They're awfully yummy, after
    >all. I would also condone killing .virtually any animal in a survival setting regardless of the
    >law. . .What's more, I also condone killing a fellow human in self-defense & .killing in war...and
    >yet I'm perfectly moral. . .I just don't share *your* morals.
    >
    >It sounds like you DO, except that you don't practice them, when it's not convenient.

    I thought I made myself clear: I delineated instances where our morals disagreed.

    When, exactly, do I not practice my personal morality?
    >
    >.> .> Who imposes this .>.resonsibility on him? What penalties will he incur if he doesn't
    >.>.protect wildlife? . .Missed a couple. I'll restate them for your convenience: . .1) A
    >responsibility, by definition, must be imposed by an outside .authority.
    >
    >BS. By definition, morality has no imposer, except the community.

    First of all, we're talking about responsibility, not morality. Secondly, the community *is* an
    outside authority. Example: I am responsible for carrying auto insurance. This responsiblity is
    imposed upon me by the state government.
    >
    > Who imposes the responsibility to protect wildlife upon .me?

    You didn't answer this one...you've stated that I have a responsibility to protect wildlife. Who
    imposes this on me? I'm not aware of any such imposition.
    >. .2) What penalties will this authority impose upon me if I don't .protect wildlife?
    >
    >Loss of respect.

    No offense, but the threat of you not respecting me doesn't make me quake with fear. Who else won't
    respect me if I don't actively protect wildlife, other than some eco-nut granolaheads?
    > It is already happening to mountain bikers as a whole.

    The last time I checked, mountain bikers weren't suffering from a lack of respect from the
    general public.

    You do seem obsessed with this topic...

    Doug
     
  10. On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:54:36 GMT, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:30:01 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . .>On Sun, 22 Jun
    2003 16:42:19 GMT, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote: .> .>.On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:18:17 GMT,
    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .>.wrote: .>.>.>No, but you are responsible to tell the truth,
    and work to protect wildlife, who .>.>.>can't protect themselves from humans. .>.>. .>.>.Why is he
    responsible for protecting wildlife? .>.> .>.>It's called "morality": do no harm to others. You were
    supposed to have learned .>.>that in kindergarten, if not earlier. DUH! .>. .>.In a sense I agree
    with you; we have morals because we're taught them .>.as children. Granted, they sometimes change
    later in life, but one's .>.basic set of morals is certainly inculcated in childhood. .>. .>.Now,
    the question is: *which* morals? One of your morals is .>.(apparently) "Do no harm to others",
    defining "others" to include .>.wildlife. I'm not sure just how far you take this...you probably
    .>.include deer & raccoons, but what about ticks? .>. .>.In any case, my morals do not include the
    blanket statement, "Do no .>.harm to others". I'm perfectly comfortable shooting a deer or elk, as
    .>.long as it's in season and all applicable game laws are followed. .>.They're awfully yummy, after
    all. I would also condone killing .>.virtually any animal in a survival setting regardless of the
    law. .>. .>.What's more, I also condone killing a fellow human in self-defense & .>.killing in
    war...and yet I'm perfectly moral. .>. .>.I just don't share *your* morals. .> .>It sounds like you
    DO, except that you don't practice them, when it's not .>convenient. . .I thought I made myself
    clear: I delineated instances where our .morals disagreed. . .When, exactly, do I not practice my
    personal morality? .> .>.> .>.> Who imposes this .>.>.resonsibility on him? What penalties will he
    incur if he doesn't .>.>.protect wildlife? .>. .>.Missed a couple. I'll restate them for your
    convenience: .>. .>.1) A responsibility, by definition, must be imposed by an outside .>.authority.
    .> .>BS. By definition, morality has no imposer, except the community. . .First of all, we're
    talking about responsibility, not morality. .Secondly, the community *is* an outside authority.
    Example: I am .responsible for carrying auto insurance. This responsiblity is .imposed upon me by
    the state government. .> .> Who imposes the responsibility to protect wildlife upon .>.me? . .You
    didn't answer this one...you've stated that I have a .responsibility to protect wildlife. Who
    imposes this on me? I'm not .aware of any such imposition. .>. .>.2) What penalties will this
    authority impose upon me if I don't .>.protect wildlife? .> .>Loss of respect. . .No offense, but
    the threat of you not respecting me doesn't make me .quake with fear. Who else won't respect me if I
    don't actively .protect wildlife, other than some eco-nut granolaheads? .> It is already happening
    to mountain bikers as a whole. . .The last time I checked, mountain bikers weren't suffering from a
    lack .of respect from the general public.

    Yes, they are. They are considered one of the lowest forms of human life, by any one with
    any brains.

    .You do seem obsessed with this topic... . .Doug

    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  11. Doug Haxton

    Doug Haxton Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > .The last time I checked, mountain bikers weren't suffering from a lack .of respect from the
    > general public.
    >
    > Yes, they are. They are considered one of the lowest forms of human life, by any one with
    > any brains.

    Well then, it shouldn't be any problem for you to provide documentation that mountain bikers are
    held to be the scum of the Earth by the general public.

    We eagerly await your proof.

    Doug
     
  12. Peter H

    Peter H Guest

    Doug Haxton wrote:

    >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >
    >>.The last time I checked, mountain bikers weren't suffering from a lack .of respect from the
    >>general public.
    >>
    >>Yes, they are. They are considered one of the lowest forms of human life, by any one with
    >>any brains.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Well then, it shouldn't be any problem for you to provide documentation that mountain bikers are
    >held to be the scum of the Earth by the general public.
    >
    >We eagerly await your proof.
    >
    >Doug
    >
    >
    You'll note that the moon is approaching full. These roundelays of blatherings seem to follow that
    cycle - although one would have to be really involved to determine whether or not there is a
    statistical correlation. Watching grass grow is more important.

    Pete H

    --
    The universe is largely unexplored. NPR News item
     
  13. The Ogre

    The Ogre Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > .The last time I checked, mountain bikers weren't suffering from a lack .of respect from the
    > general public.
    >
    > Yes, they are. They are considered one of the lowest forms of human life, by any one with
    > any brains.

    What exactally is Breach of Leadership Trust Mike? Most people think that people who stab their
    buddies in the back would be somewhere below Mountain Bikers.
     
  14. On 12 Jul 2003 12:39:09 -0700, [email protected] (Doug Haxton) wrote:

    .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>... .> .The last time I checked, mountain bikers
    weren't suffering from a lack .> .of respect from the general public. .> .> Yes, they are. They are
    considered one of the lowest forms of human life, by any one with any brains. . .Well then, it
    shouldn't be any problem for you to provide .documentation that mountain bikers are held to be the
    scum of the .Earth by the general public. . .We eagerly await your proof.

    See the latest issue of "Bicycling" -- "Paradise Lost". QED
    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  15. Doug Haxton

    Doug Haxton Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:31:30 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >.Well then, it shouldn't be any problem for you to provide .documentation that mountain bikers are
    >held to be the scum of the .Earth by the general public. . .We eagerly await your proof.
    >
    >See the latest issue of "Bicycling" -- "Paradise Lost". QED

    I subscribe to Car & Driver, not Bicycling...could you provide a URL?

    Doug
     
  16. On 13 Jul 2003 07:53:34 -0700, [email protected] (The Ogre) wrote:

    .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message . .> .The last time I checked, mountain bikers
    weren't suffering from a lack .> .of respect from the general public. .> .> Yes, they are. They are
    considered one of the lowest forms of human life, by any .> one with any brains. . .What exactally
    is Breach of Leadership Trust Mike? Most people think .that people who stab their buddies in the
    back would be somewhere .below Mountain Bikers.

    Look up "whistle-blower".
    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  17. On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:10:13 -0600, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:31:30 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . .>.Well then, it
    shouldn't be any problem for you to provide .>.documentation that mountain bikers are held to be the
    scum of the .>.Earth by the general public. .>. .>.We eagerly await your proof. .> .>See the latest
    issue of "Bicycling" -- "Paradise Lost". QED . .I subscribe to Car & Driver, not Bicycling...could
    you provide a URL? . .Doug

    http://www.bicycling.com/
    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  18. Doug Haxton

    Doug Haxton Guest

    On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:08:02 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:10:13 -0600, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >.On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:31:30 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . .>.Well then, it
    >shouldn't be any problem for you to provide .>.documentation that mountain bikers are held to be
    >the scum of the .>.Earth by the general public. .>. .>.We eagerly await your proof. .> .>See the
    >latest issue of "Bicycling" -- "Paradise Lost". QED . .I subscribe to Car & Driver, not
    >Bicycling...could you provide a URL? . .Doug
    >
    >http://www.bicycling.com/
    >===

    While this sends one to the front page of Bicycling Magazine, it doesn't have any info about an
    ariticle entitled, "Paradise Lost"

    Doug
     
  19. > .The last time I checked, mountain bikers weren't suffering from a lack .of respect from the
    > general public.
    >
    > Yes, they are. They are considered one of the lowest forms of human life,
    by any
    > one with any brains.
    >

    Please trim, asshole.

    Mountain bikers are not suffering from any lack of respect from the general public, indeed they are
    championed because a people powered vehicle is vastly preferred to a motor vehicle.

    You, on the other hand, suffer a complete and total lack of respect by everyone with any brains.
     
  20. On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:12:46 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

    .> .The last time I checked, mountain bikers weren't suffering from a lack .> .of respect from the
    general public. .> .> Yes, they are. They are considered one of the lowest forms of human life, .by
    any .> one with any brains. .> . .Please trim, asshole. . .Mountain bikers are not suffering from
    any lack of respect from the general .public, indeed they are championed because a people powered
    vehicle is .vastly preferred to a motor vehicle. . .You, on the other hand, suffer a complete and
    total lack of respect by .everyone with any brains.

    Did you say something?
    ===
    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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...