Another Mountain Biker Demonstrates that They All Lie

At 01:05 PM 2/13/04 -0700, Christopher Hess wrote:

>So, basically, everything would be ok if only everyone did only what you do.

Better, at least. So what?

>Your site is the most arrogant and simple-minded offering of pseudo-science and
bleeding-heart anthropomorphizing in the name of environmentalism I have ever seen.

Thanks for the compliments.

>I hike and ride on endless miles of trail here in Boise that see regular use by
hikers AND bikers and have not been destroyed in the manner you describe in your us-against-them
apocalyptical rantings.

So there's NO erosion? NO animals or plants killed? NO hikers or equestrians driven off the
trails? NO wildlife driven away from resources they need? You are a liar, just like all other
mountain bikers.

> I've done this same thing and seen these same things throughout Texas and
Colorado as well. Where's the destruction? Where the animosity between the species (hikers vs
bikers, as you so often and so miserably define)? Where the malicious intent of one species (the one
against which you promote discrimination) against the other (the only rightful users, ie You)? I
tell ya, I haven't seen it, and I've been hiking and riding, straddling this un-straddlable chasm,
for many a year.

You are lying, obviously. Of course, most of thehikers who don't like being around mountain bikers,
you wouldn't see. They are gone.

>Here's where the problem comes in: The day I decide that my rights and desires
trump those of anyone else, simply because I've convinced myself that this is right. Much like gonzo-
downhillers on heavily used trails are what's wrong with mountain bikers, You are what is wrong with
the environmental movement. You both see only what you want to see and expect all others to heed
your beliefs and momentum. You are no better than those in our current administration who fail to
see any side but their own. Your myopia cripples you, stamping an asterisk on your opinions and
unhinging your convictions. You do more harm than good. Surely you've heard this before? Perhaps
listening would help.

I do listen. But you are wrong. My positions are based on SCIENCE. If you think I am so extreme, why
is my position IDENTICAL to that os Yosemite National Park? We both want bikes restricted to
pavement. Are the park managers extremists?

>And you're wrong, by the way. It IS about getting along.

BS. I have no problem sharing trails with mountain BIKERS. It's only BIKES I don't want on the
trail. You might get more respect, if you didn't constantly
LIE.

> About bikers being respectful and about hikers being accepting. I've done
damage with boots as well as tires. So has anyone who's ever had either between their feet and
nature. I've repaired damage from both, and then some.

So you admit that you do damage, after all. But I have news for you: deal plants and animals don't
"recover", liar.

> (We'll leave hooves out of this discussion.) In almost every case, dirt and
earth prevail. As do manners and tolerance. Always.

>The trails of the foothills network surrounding our fair city are a model of
cooperation and acceptance. Bikers, hikers, runners, equestrians: all use the trails here, most in
more than just one way, and all get along with very very few exceptions.

So you admit that it's not working.

>The only thing that would upset this balance is if someone a bit too zealous, a
bit too Elitist and Exclusionary (much like yourself) came along and told everyone who could and who
couldn't enjoy these trails.

You are LYING again. I have NEVER advocated banning anyone from trails open to hiking.

>I know these words fall on deaf ears. I know your mind is made up with all the
righteousness and sanctimoniousness that one swollen ego and undernourished intellect could allow.
Yet I write anyway. Why? Because it makes me feel better. Because shouting into a void is better
than muttering under my breath. Because yours is a dogma of the most dangerous stripe. Because these
things need to be said.

You would get farther if you would stick to telling the truth, instead of LYING. You are only
helping me ban bikes.

>A bicycle is one of the most efficient, brilliant inventions humans have come
up with.

I agree, and it belongs only on pavement, where it can't do much harm -- as is the policy in
Yosemite National Park.

> We love bicycles, whether on dirt or on pavement, fast or slow, towing a
Burley or conquering a climb. Singletrack is the most sublime manifestation of riding on dirt. We
will not stop riding it.

>Try to stop us.

Your threat is duly noted.

>MAN that felt good.

LYING feels good? I doubt it. At least when you get caught red-handed.

>So sincerely,
Chris Hess

===
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

 

You are the gayest man in the universe

 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:43:57 -0600, hands of fate
<[email protected]> wrote:

.You are the gayest man in the universe

That's supposed to be a criticism? Talk about homophobic!
===
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

 

Give it a rest Vandeman. Anyone using the outdoors impacts it in some way. Rather it be a mountain
biker, off-road vehicle, stealth camper, paved roads, hunters, rangers, wood industry, cell towers,
building houses, and you walking etc. I have no trouble finding solitude in the woods. To have no
impact means totally making all areas totally hands off. However, all these groups also have a
responsibility to minimize the impact they do create. To their credit, most do. Did you know there
are more forest and trees today than there was 100 years ago? I am a avid hiker and road bicyclist
but I have no problems with mountain bikers on a trail as long as they are allowed to be there. If I
want to be away from them, it is real easy to do. Now, if they illegally mountain bike, they deserve
to get busted. But most don't. Most are pretty cool about it, a few aren't. I don't allow the few to
ruin it for me though.

I try to have a minimum impact by camping in established areas, taking my trash with me, and trying
my darnest to leave no trace.

--
Pat

 

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:18:41 GMT, "Pat Blakely" <[email protected]> wrote:

.Give it a rest Vandeman. Anyone using the outdoors impacts it in some way. .Rather it be a mountain
biker, off-road vehicle, stealth camper, paved .roads, hunters, rangers, wood industry, cell towers,
building houses, and .you walking etc.

And some impact it more than others. Do you have a problem recognizing that fact???

. I have no trouble finding solitude in the woods.

Irrelevant.

To have no .impact means totally making all areas totally hands off. However, all these .groups also
have a responsibility to minimize the impact they do create. To .their credit, most do.

Mountain bikers don't. Nor does anyone else, except hikers.

Did you know there are more forest and trees today .than there was 100 years ago? I am a avid hiker
and road bicyclist but I .have no problems with mountain bikers on a trail as long as they are
allowed .to be there. If I want to be away from them, it is real easy to do.

Sure, if you can jump fast enough.

Now, if .they illegally mountain bike, they deserve to get busted. But most don't. .Most are pretty
cool about it, a few aren't. I don't allow the few to ruin .it for me though.

BS. On IMBA's web site is a study proving that the VAST MAJORITY of mountain bikers break the law,
NOT just "a few".

.I try to have a minimum impact by camping in established areas, taking my .trash with me, and
trying my darnest to leave no trace.

Good. But you don't help us protect wildlife from mountain biking, so you aren't responsible..
===
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

 

"Pat Blakely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BA9Yb.14590$%[email protected]...
> Give it a rest Vandeman. Anyone 'snip> -- Pat
>
>

Trying to reason with the doc? You're wasting your time, in his own little world he's always right.
Oh and he NEVER lies (I'm lying).

 

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:26:30 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Spence"
<[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Pat Blakely" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:BA9Yb.14590$%[email protected]... .> Give it a rest Vandeman. Anyone 'snip>
-- .> Pat .> .> . .Trying to reason with the doc? You're wasting your time, in his own little .world
he's always right. Oh and he NEVER lies (I'm lying).

Thanks for proving my 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande