Bikes Should be Restricted to Pavement!

[Mike Vandeman]

To the editor:

Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them and other proups are simply
a matter of failure to "get along" -- in other words, that there are no substantive issues. In fact,
the conflict has very little to do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners. Because if
you remove the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They are no
different from anybody else.

The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate
erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail. The tires create
V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the
experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to
watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and quiet. And, more
subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it much easier for more people to
get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15
to 60 miles long -- FAR farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed
wildlife habitat!

In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, especially older hikers and
children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned into velodromes for bikers.

Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National Park. Without these
large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy the trails on an equal footing. And there
will be no problem "getting along"!

===
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

 

[Ksc4444]

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.)

And I bet a few donations will really help you fight auto dependence and road construction, eh? Why
don't you fly down to the third world; not alot of roads there.

 

[Kevin]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> To the editor:
>
> Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them and other proups are
> simply a matter of failure to "get along" -- in other words, that there are no substantive issues.
> In fact, the conflict has very little to do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners.
> Because if you remove the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They
> are no different from anybody else.
>
> The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate
> erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail. The tires create
> V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the
> experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to
> watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and quiet. And, more
> subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it much easier for more people to
> get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15
> to 60 miles long -- FAR farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed
> wildlife habitat!
>
> In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, especially older hikers and
> children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned into velodromes for bikers.
>
> Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National Park. Without these
> large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy the trails on an equal footing. And
> there will be no problem "getting along"!
>
> ===
> 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

I think I know why Mike is so rotten: he can't ride. That's it - he can't ride a mountain bike. He
musta endo'd or puked after a long climb or, or, or I know - his buddies got tired of his whining
and dropped his punk ass then it started raining and he was lost and started crying. That's it he
can't ride! Sissy pants...Sissy pants...TeeHeeHee!

 

[Per LöWdin]

> > In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers,
especially
> > older hikers and children, off of the trails in many parks, which have
turned
> > into velodromes for bikers.

Were flat foots ever allowed in the parks? A flat food makes a lot more damage than any velocoped.
Just imagine if walking was banned most trails would rapidly narrow and more nature would remain
unmolested.

Per http://lowdin.nu

 

[Sterling Squirr]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> To the editor:
>
> Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them and other proups are
> simply a matter of failure to "get along"

Wouldn't anybody like everybody else to believe that the conflicts between them and other groups are
simply a matter of failure to "get along"?

> The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate
> erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail. The tires create
> V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on.

Then learn how to walk. Feet create foot-shaped holes that are dangerous to walk on. When concerned
with erosion, why stop with the bike? Why not stop walking - that erodes the land also, and almost
all of us are capable of walking. There's an episode of Mr. Show that has a pretty funny satire of
idiots who think we can solve things by eliminate soil erosion caused by human mobility. Actually,
biking is the most efficient form of transportation for humans, it enables us to travel farther
without using as much energy as it does to walk, burn gasoline, ride trains, or ride horses the
same distance

> The presence of bikes ruins the experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are
> seeking. The bikes force everyone to watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy
> nature, peace, and quiet.

What is fake, artificial nature? It strikes me as odd that people think anything that humans do or
make as not natural. This puts humanity at pretty dire odds with the rest of the natural world.
Screw topsoil erosion from bicycle wheels, your skewed view of humans as unatural pretty much sums
up your negative view of our survival. The concepts of "natural" and "unatural" are constructs of
our culture, it gives us an excuse to exploit what we've been defining as the natural world by
seperating us from it. So when a bird builds a nest, how can this be any more natural than when a
man builds his home? When an elephant treads its path, how is this any more natural than a person
riding a bicycle? I imagine an Elephant's foot kicks up a lot more dirt than a bicycle wheel. Where
do you draw the line?

> And, more subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it much easier for more
> people to get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as
> being from 15 to 60 miles long -- < > FAR farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a
> lot of disturbed wildlife habitat

So, human presence disturbs the wildlife habitat. I think the aboriginals of America hiked a hell of
a lot farther than you can imagine, and they didn't evestate the environment anymore than was needed
to sustain their life. There are squirrels on my campus. By your definition of Man and his role with
the est of the world, the Squirrels and the grass they sit on are wildlife, and hey should be in a
disturbed state. They sit, chill, and eat their acorns, and they might be watching the students walk
by just a few feet away. Oh, some tudents ride bikes on campus also...the squirrels undisturbed. A
majority of humans certainly drive wildlife from their habitat, but only when humans do tupid things
like pave masses of land, poison masses of land, cultivate masses of land, and construct fences to
keep other life off of their property. See he Fence:
http://www.newtribalventures.com/ntv/market/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=75

> In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, especially older hikers and
> children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned into velodromes for bikers.
>
> Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National Park.

Sure, then we can protect the "plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail"
by covering them with pavement! Hell, we've already done so with the cars that we use to
poison the air!

> Without these large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy the trails on an equal
> footing. And there will be no problem "getting along"!

And without large peices of modern ignorance trying to decide how people should live, I'll enjoy my
bike ride through the woods and enjoy the local wildlife.

> 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.)

I would like to help. Look at the link I pasted above (The Fence), and go read this when you have
the time: http://www.ishmael.com/Education/Writings/southwestern.shtml You fought the last 8 years
fighting road construction, that is a respectable thing to do. Roads are integrated into the
function of our culture, their construction was inevitable. Keeping them from being built is pretty
hard to do. I would like to help. Look at the link I pasted above (The Fence), and go read this when
you have the time: http://www.ishmael.com/Education/Writings/southwestern.shtml

 

[Ksc4444]

>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

You ain't nothin but a yellow bellied communist!

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 08 Dec 2003 00:08:11 GMT, [email protected] (Ksc4444) wrote:

.>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 . .You
ain't nothin but a yellow bellied communist!

Look up "non sequitur" in the dictionary. Better yet, have your mommy do it for you.
===
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

 

[moe]

And Horses create more damage than mountain bikes. Why aren't you bashing them, moron?

In rec.backcountry Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> spewed:
: To the editor:

: Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them and other proups are
: simply a matter of failure to "get along" -- in other words, that there are no substantive issues.
: In fact, the conflict has very little to do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners.
: Because if you remove the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They
: are no different from anybody else.

: The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate
: erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail. The tires create
: V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the
: experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to
: watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and quiet. And, more
: subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it much easier for more people to
: get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15
: to 60 miles long -- FAR farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed
: wildlife habitat!

: In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, especially older hikers and
: children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned into velodromes for bikers.

: Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National Park. Without these
: large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy the trails on an equal footing. And
: there will be no problem "getting along"!

: ===
: 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

 

[Lou W]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:04:20 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

> And Horses create more damage than mountain bikes. Why aren't you bashing them, moron?
>
Prove it. Cites? Any documentation?

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:04:20 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

.And Horses create more damage than mountain bikes. Why aren't you .bashing them, moron?

Because they are very rare, compared to mountain bikers, so have far less impact. Horses are also
native to North America: they belong here. Bikes DON'T. They have no place in natural areas.

.In rec.backcountry Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> spewed: .: To the editor: . .: Mountain
bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them and .: other proups are simply a
matter of failure to "get along" -- in other words, .: that there are no substantive issues. In
fact, the conflict has very little to .: do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners.
Because if you remove .: the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They
are .: no different from anybody else. . .: The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes,
especially with knobby tires, .: greatly accelerate erosion, killing any plants and animals that
happen to be on .: or under the trail. The tires create V-shaped grooves that are difficult and .:
dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the experience of real, .: un-artificial nature
that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to .: watch out for their safety, when they
would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and .: quiet. And, more subtle, but probably more important in
the long run, bikes make .: it much easier for more people to get into wildlife habitat, driving out
the .: wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15 to 60 miles long -- FAR .: farther
than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed .: wildlife habitat! . .: In the
San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, especially .: older hikers and children,
off of the trails in many parks, which have turned .: into velodromes for bikers. . .: Bikes should
be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National .: Park. Without these large
pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy .: the trails on an equal footing. And there
will be no problem "getting along"! . .: === .: 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

===
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

 

[Arpit]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:49:13 -0800, Lou W <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:04:20 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:
>
>> And Horses create more damage than mountain bikes. Why aren't you bashing them, moron?
>>
>Prove it. Cites? Any documentation?
pictures of deep horse hoof marks in the sand next to barely visible tire marks, like i saw
yesterday on my walk?

 

[Brett Jaffee]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:04:20 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:
>
> .And Horses create more damage than mountain bikes. Why aren't you .bashing them, moron?
>
> Because they are very rare, compared to mountain bikers, so have far less impact. Horses are also
> native to North America: they belong here. Bikes DON'T. They have no place in natural areas.

Native to America? Forgive me, but wasn't the modern horse introduced to North America by Europeans?
They've only got a 500 year head start on bikes...a blink of the eye in the grand sceme of things.

 

[Brett Jaffee]

Brett Jaffee <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Native to America? Forgive me, but wasn't the modern horse introduced to North America by
> Europeans? They've only got a 500 year head start on bikes...a blink of the eye in the grand sceme
> of things.

Note: I guess I probably should have said "re-introduced" as the modern horse evolved in N. America
then died out there some 10,000 years ago.

 

[George]

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

God, its the zoning Nazi.

 

[Lou W]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:34:04 +1100, Arpit wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:49:13 -0800, Lou W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:04:20 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> And Horses create more damage than mountain bikes. Why aren't you bashing them, moron?
>>>
>>Prove it. Cites? Any documentation?
> pictures of deep horse hoof marks in the sand next to barely visible tire marks, like i saw
> yesterday on my walk?

Your using MV logic.

 

[The Rooster]

I am just checking out a few other news groups and I'll tell ya what, all of you make me want to
fire up my four wheeler and run your asses over!

Give me a break will ya! You all sound like the little kid who ordered toast and was upset when the
waitress put it on the table because it was the "square" toast and she wanted the "triangle" toast.
Grow the heck up and think about what you are saying. Although I seldom walk on trails and seldom
ride my mountain bike I'd have to side with the bikers. You (walkers) want to put limits on what can
and can not be done as long as it suits your needs. Nature is your excuse!

Buildings go up by the thousands; sewer run off kills more fish ever day than you can count. Big
companies pay off local politicians to let "environmental" issues slide and your *****ing about a
few bikes creating a larger stream of water when it rains.

I'm out of here! Have to go kill some wild life!

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> God, its the zoning Nazi.

 

[Peter H]

Lou W wrote:

>>
>>
> Your using MV logic.
>
>
An oxymoron.

Pete H

--
The idea is to die young as late as possible. anon.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:43:38 GMT, Brett Jaffee <[email protected]>
wrote:

.Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in .news:[email protected]: . .>
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:04:20 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote: .> .> .And Horses create more damage
than mountain bikes. Why aren't you .> .bashing them, moron? .> .> Because they are very rare,
compared to mountain bikers, so have far .> less impact. Horses are also native to North America:
they belong .> here. Bikes DON'T. They have no place in natural areas. . .Native to America? Forgive
me, but wasn't the modern horse introduced to .North America by Europeans? They've only got a 500
year head start on .bikes...a blink of the eye in the grand sceme of things.

I didn't say "modern horse". The horse actually evolved in North America. See:

Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples. New
York: Grove Press,2001. "The behaviours animals use to avoid predators are both genetically based
and learned. The genetic component is acquired through natural selection and so can only slowly be
developed. This may account in part for the fact that most of the world's surviving large mammals
live in Africa, for it was there that humanity evolved, and it was only there that animals had the
time to acquire the genetically based behaviours that allowed them to cope with the new predator. …
Given the level of efficiency achieved by Clovis hunters, it seems unlikely that the Columbian
mammoth had time to acquire either an appropriate genetic or learned response to the threat humans
posed." Pp.198-9.

===
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

 

[Sorni]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:43:38 GMT, Brett Jaffee
<[email protected]>
> wrote: .> Because they are very rare, compared to mountain bikers, so have far .> less impact.
> Horses are also native to North America: they belong .> here. Bikes DON'T. They have no place in
> natural areas. . .Native to America? Forgive me, but wasn't the modern horse introduced to .North
> America by Europeans? They've only got a 500 year head start on .bikes...a blink of the eye in the
> grand sceme of things.
>
> I didn't say "modern horse". The horse actually evolved in North America.
See:
>
> Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North
America
> and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press,2001

So, Mike, if you go hike the Pacific Crest Trail and see whole sections destroyed by horses, you'll
just chalk it up to "nature"?!?

Hypocrite.

Bill "BTW, Tim Flannery was an infielder for the Padres" S.

 

[Brett Jaffee]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I didn't say "modern horse".

Read what you wrote. You said horses were okay on the trails because they were a native species!
How is that not a reference to modern horses? Or, are you implying that only ancient prehistoric
horses are okay on 21st century trails? We don't get many of those out here, but I'll let you know
if I see one.

> The horse actually evolved in North America. See:

Which I mentioned in my previous post. They also disappeared from N America 8000-10,000 years ago.
At this point they would be about as native on the trails as a mammoth or saber tooth cat.