Did MV miss a memo?



S

S Curtiss

Guest
From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to further
protect wilderness.

Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of Cooperation
12/23/2002

Issued Jointly by the Following Organizations:

Bicyclists of Nevada County (BONC)
California Wild Heritage Campaign
California Wilderness Coalition
Campaign for America's Wilderness
Colorado Environmental Coalition
Colorado Mountain Club
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)
Nevada Wilderness Project
Oregon Natural Resources Council
Oregon Wild
Quiet Trails
Tahoe Rim Trail Association
The Wilderness Society

Joint Statement of Commitments Released
Seeking to initiate a new era of cooperation, mountain bicycling and
Wilderness advocates have agreed on a set of working principles that they
hope will improve their sometimes tumultuous relationship.

Because current federal regulations ban bicycles from designated
Wilderness, the negotiation of new Wilderness proposals has often been
difficult for these two groups in places where both opportunities exist. The
new agreement is intended to guide future relations between Wilderness and
mountain bicycling activists.

"Since most mountain bike enthusiasts support protection of primitive
federal lands through Wilderness and other designations, there is no reason
not to work closely with Wilderness groups. This agreement signals the start
of that cooperation," said Gary Sprung, senior national policy advisor for
the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA).

The newly released Statement of Commitments emphasizes early, open,
civil and continued dialogue on the Wilderness issue. Both groups hope that
adherence to these principles will preserve both the integrity of the
National Wilderness Preservation System and important trails for mountain
bike enthusiasts.

Representatives of the organizations listed above met in Reno, Nevada
on March 19-20, 2002. An extensive series of discussions followed,
culminating in the approval of the following Statement of Commitments by
their respective groups. Patagonia and Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI)
co-sponsored the Reno meeting. It was facilitated by the Osprey Group of
Boulder, Colorado, a well-known mediation organization.

Dan Smuts, Assistant Regional Director for The Wilderness Society in
California added, "Wilderness advocates and mountain bikers often seek the
same goals on public lands. Since mountain bikes aren't permitted in
Wilderness, we need to work together to find ways to accommodate both sides.
It's a worthy goal to protect pristine Wilderness and make sure that the
most valued mountain bike trails remain open."

The signatories invite other groups to endorse these commitments and
to join in the action steps identified.

Statement of Commitments
At the invitation of REI and Patagonia, Inc., a group of 14 mountain
bicycling and Wilderness advocates* met in Reno on March 19-20, 2002, to
address how their two communities can work more productively together. They
committed to the following:

Commitments Reflecting Our Shared Values
Because we value recreation and solitude in wild natural settings that
preserve clean air, clean water and wildlife habitat for this and future
generations:

We commit to early collaboration leading to joint
Wilderness/protection proposals where possible. Where not possible, we
commit to good faith negotiations and willingness to compromise where
feasible.

We commit to supporting and enhancing local communication, cooperation
and boundary decision-making by showcasing success stories and providing
strategic partnership advice.

Action Steps
We will take the results of the meeting back to our leadership,
colleagues and individual groups to be widely shared and discussed.

Wilderness organizations and IMBA will each assign a point person to
facilitate communication and cooperation among local, regional and national
groups.

Wilderness and mountain biking enthusiasts will use their
communication tools to share information about each other's views - e.g., we
will encourage publication of pro-Wilderness perspectives in mountain biking
media and pro-mountain biking perspectives in conservation media. Highlight
success stories whenever possible.

Create a password protected website for sharing information (e.g.,
Wilderness Act history, political overviews, mountain biking priorities,
contacts, perspectives).

We commit to clarify when unauthorized individuals misrepresent our
organizations.

Identify, support and publicize model Wilderness/protection projects
in which both Wilderness proponents and mountain bicycling groups engage in
a collaborative effort with mutually acceptable results. We commit to the
early sharing of and timely response to information, especially maps showing
initial proposals, boundary definitions and trail locations, as a means to
support collaborative planning and decision-making.

To encourage ongoing coordination, four to six representatives will be
selected from this group to participate in a series of conference calls
(May, July, September and November) with summaries of the calls shared with
the entire group.

We commit to encouraging mountain biker participation in Wilderness
events and Wilderness leader participation in mountain biking events.
 
* S Curtiss <[email protected]>:
> From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to further
> protect wilderness.
>
> Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of Cooperation
> 12/23/2002
>


Quite likely, he has missed the boat often enough so a memo would be
easy to miss. More likely they actually wanted real activists and riders
as opposed to crack pots involved.

Jason
--
The vandeman FAQ: http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32.
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:nPzze.55381$iU.24032@lakeread05...
> From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to
further
> protect wilderness.
>
> Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
Cooperation
> 12/23/2002
>

But all of these groups are known liars, so they must be lying. Duh!.
 
Jason wrote:

>
> Quite likely, he has missed the boat often enough so a memo would be
> easy to miss. More likely they actually wanted real activists and riders
> as opposed to crack pots involved.
>
> Jason
> --
> The vandeman FAQ: http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32.

Great FAQ! That about explains it all about Mikey V (the golfer...)
 
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:43:28 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to further
..protect wilderness.
..
..Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of Cooperation
.. 12/23/2002

Did you miss the date? ... :)

.. Issued Jointly by the Following Organizations:
..
.. Bicyclists of Nevada County (BONC)
.. California Wild Heritage Campaign
.. California Wilderness Coalition
.. Campaign for America's Wilderness
.. Colorado Environmental Coalition
.. Colorado Mountain Club
.. International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)
.. Nevada Wilderness Project
.. Oregon Natural Resources Council
.. Oregon Wild
.. Quiet Trails
.. Tahoe Rim Trail Association
.. The Wilderness Society
..
.. Joint Statement of Commitments Released
.. Seeking to initiate a new era of cooperation, mountain bicycling and
..Wilderness advocates have agreed on a set of working principles that they
..hope will improve their sometimes tumultuous relationship.
..
.. Because current federal regulations ban bicycles from designated
..Wilderness, the negotiation of new Wilderness proposals has often been
..difficult for these two groups in places where both opportunities exist. The
..new agreement is intended to guide future relations between Wilderness and
..mountain bicycling activists.
..
.. "Since most mountain bike enthusiasts support protection of primitive
..federal lands through Wilderness and other designations, there is no reason
..not to work closely with Wilderness groups. This agreement signals the start
..of that cooperation," said Gary Sprung, senior national policy advisor for
..the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA).
..
.. The newly released Statement of Commitments emphasizes early, open,
..civil and continued dialogue on the Wilderness issue. Both groups hope that
..adherence to these principles will preserve both the integrity of the
..National Wilderness Preservation System and important trails for mountain
..bike enthusiasts.
..
.. Representatives of the organizations listed above met in Reno, Nevada
..on March 19-20, 2002. An extensive series of discussions followed,
..culminating in the approval of the following Statement of Commitments by
..their respective groups. Patagonia and Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI)
..co-sponsored the Reno meeting. It was facilitated by the Osprey Group of
..Boulder, Colorado, a well-known mediation organization.
..
.. Dan Smuts, Assistant Regional Director for The Wilderness Society in
..California added, "Wilderness advocates and mountain bikers often seek the
..same goals on public lands. Since mountain bikes aren't permitted in
..Wilderness, we need to work together to find ways to accommodate both sides.
..It's a worthy goal to protect pristine Wilderness and make sure that the
..most valued mountain bike trails remain open."
..
.. The signatories invite other groups to endorse these commitments and
..to join in the action steps identified.
..
.. Statement of Commitments
.. At the invitation of REI and Patagonia, Inc., a group of 14 mountain
..bicycling and Wilderness advocates* met in Reno on March 19-20, 2002, to
..address how their two communities can work more productively together. They
..committed to the following:
..
.. Commitments Reflecting Our Shared Values
.. Because we value recreation and solitude in wild natural settings that
..preserve clean air, clean water and wildlife habitat for this and future
..generations:
..
.. We commit to early collaboration leading to joint
..Wilderness/protection proposals where possible. Where not possible, we
..commit to good faith negotiations and willingness to compromise where
..feasible.
..
.. We commit to supporting and enhancing local communication, cooperation
..and boundary decision-making by showcasing success stories and providing
..strategic partnership advice.
..
.. Action Steps
.. We will take the results of the meeting back to our leadership,
..colleagues and individual groups to be widely shared and discussed.
..
.. Wilderness organizations and IMBA will each assign a point person to
..facilitate communication and cooperation among local, regional and national
..groups.
..
.. Wilderness and mountain biking enthusiasts will use their
..communication tools to share information about each other's views - e.g., we
..will encourage publication of pro-Wilderness perspectives in mountain biking
..media and pro-mountain biking perspectives in conservation media. Highlight
..success stories whenever possible.
..
.. Create a password protected website for sharing information (e.g.,
..Wilderness Act history, political overviews, mountain biking priorities,
..contacts, perspectives).
..
.. We commit to clarify when unauthorized individuals misrepresent our
..organizations.
..
.. Identify, support and publicize model Wilderness/protection projects
..in which both Wilderness proponents and mountain bicycling groups engage in
..a collaborative effort with mutually acceptable results. We commit to the
..early sharing of and timely response to information, especially maps showing
..initial proposals, boundary definitions and trail locations, as a means to
..support collaborative planning and decision-making.
..
.. To encourage ongoing coordination, four to six representatives will be
..selected from this group to participate in a series of conference calls
..(May, July, September and November) with summaries of the calls shared with
..the entire group.
..
.. We commit to encouraging mountain biker participation in Wilderness
..events and Wilderness leader participation in mountain biking events.
..

===
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
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:43:28 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to
> further
> .protect wilderness.
> .
> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
> Cooperation
> . 12/23/2002
>
> Did you miss the date? ... :)
>
You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between user
groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
written in 1995?
For Those Who Think Mountain Biking Damage Is Insignificant
"The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with
interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing
fertile topsoils
into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere" (_Wildlife and Recreationists_, p.340)"
If age of the piece is your criteria, then you are consistently guilty of
posting and reposting older articles or posting articles as current that
only recite older information. The piece you posted about Mule Deer and Elk
used references from 2002, 1998, 1997 and earlier. Did you not note the
dates as irrelevant because you posted the piece attempting to support your
view?
Just so I know the rules:
1. You can post older information, but I (we) can not.
2. I (we) am a liar because someone previously, who happens to ride a
mountain bike, may have lied to you. (Wait... that may be dated as you have
been calling "all mt bikers" liars for years. However, If I refer to rule
#1, then the dated reference becomes irrelevant)
3. I (we) can not challenge your theory or conclusions on merit, fact or
interpretation.
4. I (we) can not challenge your abusive, hostile and name-calling character
assassinations. You may at any time refer to me as stupid, ignorant or an
idiot without reproach while posting emails directed to you with that same
terminology as being "abusive".
5. I (we) can not possibly match the depth of concern for the environment
that you do because we do ride a mountain bike but do not eat olalieberry
pie, do not give 15 minute speeches to "like minded" audiences, have never
been kicked out of the Sierra Club, and finally - do not claim to.
6. This has all been posted before... refer back to rule #1
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sXWze.55474$iU.53538@lakeread05...
>
>>
>> Did you miss the date? ... :)
>>
> You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between user
> groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
> written in 1995?

Mike's slipping, he's getting to easy to setup lately, falling for almost
everything leaving himself wide open. Gotta love it!!!
 
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:02:09 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:43:28 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to
..> further
..> .protect wilderness.
..> .
..> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
..> Cooperation
..> . 12/23/2002
..>
..> Did you miss the date? ... :)
..>
..You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between user
..groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
..written in 1995?

Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are even WORSE than
when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water under the bridge.
Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something you can
understand.)

..For Those Who Think Mountain Biking Damage Is Insignificant
.."The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with
..interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing
..fertile topsoils
..into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the
..atmosphere" (_Wildlife and Recreationists_, p.340)"
..If age of the piece is your criteria, then you are consistently guilty of
..posting and reposting older articles or posting articles as current that
..only recite older information. The piece you posted about Mule Deer and Elk
..used references from 2002, 1998, 1997 and earlier. Did you not note the
..dates as irrelevant because you posted the piece attempting to support your
..view?
..Just so I know the rules:
..1. You can post older information, but I (we) can not.
..2. I (we) am a liar because someone previously, who happens to ride a
..mountain bike, may have lied to you. (Wait... that may be dated as you have
..been calling "all mt bikers" liars for years. However, If I refer to rule
..#1, then the dated reference becomes irrelevant)
..3. I (we) can not challenge your theory or conclusions on merit, fact or
..interpretation.
..4. I (we) can not challenge your abusive, hostile and name-calling character
..assassinations. You may at any time refer to me as stupid, ignorant or an
..idiot without reproach while posting emails directed to you with that same
..terminology as being "abusive".
..5. I (we) can not possibly match the depth of concern for the environment
..that you do because we do ride a mountain bike but do not eat olalieberry
..pie, do not give 15 minute speeches to "like minded" audiences, have never
..been kicked out of the Sierra Club, and finally - do not claim to.
..6. This has all been posted before... refer back to rule #1
..

===
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
 
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:33:27 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:sXWze.55474$iU.53538@lakeread05...
..>
..>>
..>> Did you miss the date? ... :)
..>>
..> You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between user
..> groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
..> written in 1995?
..
..Mike's slipping, he's getting to easy to setup lately, falling for almost
..everything leaving himself wide open. Gotta love it!!!

Dreamer.
===
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
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:33:27 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:sXWze.55474$iU.53538@lakeread05...
> .>
> .>>
> .>> Did you miss the date? ... :)
> .>>
> .> You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between
> user
> .> groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
> .> written in 1995?
> .
> .Mike's slipping, he's getting to easy to setup lately, falling for almost
> .everything leaving himself wide open. Gotta love it!!!
>
> Dreamer.


Fact
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:02:09 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:43:28 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to
> .> further
> .> .protect wilderness.
> .> .
> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
> .> Cooperation
> .> . 12/23/2002
> .>
> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
> .>
> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between
> user
> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
> .written in 1995?
>
> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are even WORSE
> than
> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water under the
> bridge.
> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something you can
> understand.)
And the post about cooperation is still valid. Cooperation between ALL
people interested in preserving outdoor space (for wildlife, recreation,
clear air and water, beauty, environmental health, etc) is the only way
"your" science has a chance at making a difference. Why do you think it has
gotten worse? Because interested people have been split into groups
bickering among themselves instead of standing in cooperation to maintain
these areas against expanded developement. If you want to preserve
greenspace and habitat, people have to understand the significance of these
areas, appreciate these areas and have an interest in preserving them.
As a student of psychology, you should understand this basic concept of
human identity. As long as the population at large is more concerned with
their SUV and next football game, nature goes unnoticed, unappreciated and
available for destruction because fewer people stand to protect it.
Your hatred of mt bikes (mt bikers) and other recreationists that you
attempt to exclude only focus the attention on access rather than
preservation. Unless you want more habitat to become "ancient history", I
suggest you turn on that PhD of yours so you can use it rather than
resorting to character assassination. Insulting me (or anyone else with a
different opinion) does not make wildlife any safer or preserve anything
except the status quo.
And as you stated, conditions are worse. Why? Becasue "status quo" is still
building roads, condos, malls and more forcing habitat to shrink and
wildlife to be forced into smaller areas to be further disturbed by the
recreationists (mt bikers) you rally against.


>
> .For Those Who Think Mountain Biking Damage Is Insignificant
> ."The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with
> .interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing
> .fertile topsoils
> .into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the
> .atmosphere" (_Wildlife and Recreationists_, p.340)"
> .If age of the piece is your criteria, then you are consistently guilty of
> .posting and reposting older articles or posting articles as current that
> .only recite older information. The piece you posted about Mule Deer and
> Elk
> .used references from 2002, 1998, 1997 and earlier. Did you not note the
> .dates as irrelevant because you posted the piece attempting to support
> your
> .view?
> .Just so I know the rules:
> .1. You can post older information, but I (we) can not.
> .2. I (we) am a liar because someone previously, who happens to ride a
> .mountain bike, may have lied to you. (Wait... that may be dated as you
> have
> .been calling "all mt bikers" liars for years. However, If I refer to rule
> .#1, then the dated reference becomes irrelevant)
> .3. I (we) can not challenge your theory or conclusions on merit, fact or
> .interpretation.
> .4. I (we) can not challenge your abusive, hostile and name-calling
> character
> .assassinations. You may at any time refer to me as stupid, ignorant or an
> .idiot without reproach while posting emails directed to you with that
> same
> .terminology as being "abusive".
> .5. I (we) can not possibly match the depth of concern for the environment
> .that you do because we do ride a mountain bike but do not eat olalieberry
> .pie, do not give 15 minute speeches to "like minded" audiences, have
> never
> .been kicked out of the Sierra Club, and finally - do not claim to.
> .6. This has all been posted before... refer back to rule #1
> .
>
> ===
> 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
 
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:10:20 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:02:09 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:43:28 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to
..> .> further
..> .> .protect wilderness.
..> .> .
..> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
..> .> Cooperation
..> .> . 12/23/2002
..> .>
..> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
..> .>
..> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between
..> user
..> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
..> .written in 1995?
..>
..> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are even WORSE
..> than
..> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water under the
..> bridge.
..> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something you can
..> understand.)
..And the post about cooperation is still valid.

BS. If that were true, IMBA wouldn't continually be begging its members to
oppose Wilderness bills. QED

Cooperation between ALL
..people interested in preserving outdoor space (for wildlife, recreation,
..clear air and water, beauty, environmental health, etc) is the only way
.."your" science has a chance at making a difference. Why do you think it has
..gotten worse? Because interested people have been split into groups
..bickering among themselves instead of standing in cooperation to maintain
..these areas against expanded developement. If you want to preserve
..greenspace and habitat, people have to understand the significance of these
..areas, appreciate these areas and have an interest in preserving them.
..As a student of psychology, you should understand this basic concept of
..human identity. As long as the population at large is more concerned with
..their SUV and next football game, nature goes unnoticed, unappreciated and
..available for destruction because fewer people stand to protect it.
..Your hatred of mt bikes (mt bikers) and other recreationists that you
..attempt to exclude only focus the attention on access rather than
..preservation. Unless you want more habitat to become "ancient history", I
..suggest you turn on that PhD of yours so you can use it rather than
..resorting to character assassination. Insulting me (or anyone else with a
..different opinion) does not make wildlife any safer or preserve anything
..except the status quo.
..And as you stated, conditions are worse. Why? Becasue "status quo" is still
..building roads, condos, malls and more forcing habitat to shrink and
..wildlife to be forced into smaller areas to be further disturbed by the
..recreationists (mt bikers) you rally against.
..
..
..>
..> .For Those Who Think Mountain Biking Damage Is Insignificant
..> ."The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with
..> .interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing
..> .fertile topsoils
..> .into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the
..> .atmosphere" (_Wildlife and Recreationists_, p.340)"
..> .If age of the piece is your criteria, then you are consistently guilty of
..> .posting and reposting older articles or posting articles as current that
..> .only recite older information. The piece you posted about Mule Deer and
..> Elk
..> .used references from 2002, 1998, 1997 and earlier. Did you not note the
..> .dates as irrelevant because you posted the piece attempting to support
..> your
..> .view?
..> .Just so I know the rules:
..> .1. You can post older information, but I (we) can not.
..> .2. I (we) am a liar because someone previously, who happens to ride a
..> .mountain bike, may have lied to you. (Wait... that may be dated as you
..> have
..> .been calling "all mt bikers" liars for years. However, If I refer to rule
..> .#1, then the dated reference becomes irrelevant)
..> .3. I (we) can not challenge your theory or conclusions on merit, fact or
..> .interpretation.
..> .4. I (we) can not challenge your abusive, hostile and name-calling
..> character
..> .assassinations. You may at any time refer to me as stupid, ignorant or an
..> .idiot without reproach while posting emails directed to you with that
..> same
..> .terminology as being "abusive".
..> .5. I (we) can not possibly match the depth of concern for the environment
..> .that you do because we do ride a mountain bike but do not eat olalieberry
..> .pie, do not give 15 minute speeches to "like minded" audiences, have
..> never
..> .been kicked out of the Sierra Club, and finally - do not claim to.
..> .6. This has all been posted before... refer back to rule #1
..> .
..>
..> ===
..> 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
 
> .> .>
> .> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to
> .> .> further
> .> .> .protect wilderness.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
> .> .> Cooperation
> .> .> . 12/23/2002
> .> .>
> .> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
> .> .>
> .> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between
> .> user
> .> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
> .> .written in 1995?
> .>
> .> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are even
> WORSE
> .> than
> .> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water under the
> .> bridge.
> .> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something you can
> .> understand.)
> .And the post about cooperation is still valid.
>
> BS. If that were true, IMBA wouldn't continually be begging its members to
> oppose Wilderness bills. QED
Not oppose but to modify. And not in all cases. The tight view of excluding
bicycles where they currently are allowed by changing a designation, or by
designating bicycle use as unfit in the realm of allowed recreation access
in a "wilderness" area is often opposed by IMBA and members. IMBA would not
even be in the debate if trails that had been previously available to
bicycles had not been closed because of narrow interpretations of acceptable
use. IMBA supports the expansion of wilderness AND by doing so, also
supports the expansion of acceptable bicycle use in areas that can also be
designated along with the wilderness.
Below from IMBA's website:
----------
"Public Lands And Open Space
The maginficent legacy of public lands in America -- hundreds of millions of
acres open to public travel, enjoyment and use -- is a key issue for IMBA
and all mountain bicyclists. Public lands are where we most often ride. The
health of public lands is critical to enjoyment.

IMBA gets involved in programs that expand recreation opportunities on
public lands. We oppose projects that might harm public lands health.

We support efforts to buy more public lands, especially in metropolitan
areas which need more parks and open spaces.

IMBA participates in a national effort to revitalize the federal Land and
water Conservation Fund, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars each
year to buy private lands for public conservation and recreation purposes."

--------------
You actually reinforce my point as stated below; that splintering groups
interested in preserving green space into arguments over access rather than
preservation does not advance the cause of wildlife at all. Rather, it
allows a weakened opposition to sprawl and development forcing the wildlife
into smaller areas and more stress from recreation. An effort by all
recreation groups to cooperate by uniting numbers would do much more to
preserve and expand wilderness and multi-use designations for public land.
You do not like IMBA and other mt bike organizations, which is actually a
little humorous because you and selfish people like you (meaning a "my human
presence is OK but yours is not" mentality) actually created IMBA. You (and
those like you) alienate hundreds of thousands of allies on purpose and then
act surprised when they band together, do their own scientific studies,
present their own findings and fight your narrow viewpoint. IMBA also does
much to educate the general public on the importance of preservation. By
advocating expanded definitions of acceptable and non-destructive
activities, IMBA creates a larger base of concern to be active in
preservation. More people interested means a louder voice from the
constituency to elected officials who may otherwise turn over land for
"economic development".
Which would you rather have? Access for mountain bikes or no access to
anyone unless they are shopping at the new WalMart?

>
> Cooperation between ALL
> .people interested in preserving outdoor space (for wildlife, recreation,
> .clear air and water, beauty, environmental health, etc) is the only way
> ."your" science has a chance at making a difference. Why do you think it
> has
> .gotten worse? Because interested people have been split into groups
> .bickering among themselves instead of standing in cooperation to maintain
> .these areas against expanded developement. If you want to preserve
> .greenspace and habitat, people have to understand the significance of
> these
> .areas, appreciate these areas and have an interest in preserving them.
> .As a student of psychology, you should understand this basic concept of
> .human identity. As long as the population at large is more concerned with
> .their SUV and next football game, nature goes unnoticed, unappreciated
> and
> .available for destruction because fewer people stand to protect it.
> .Your hatred of mt bikes (mt bikers) and other recreationists that you
> .attempt to exclude only focus the attention on access rather than
> .preservation. Unless you want more habitat to become "ancient history", I
> .suggest you turn on that PhD of yours so you can use it rather than
> .resorting to character assassination. Insulting me (or anyone else with a
> .different opinion) does not make wildlife any safer or preserve anything
> .except the status quo.
> .And as you stated, conditions are worse. Why? Becasue "status quo" is
> still
> .building roads, condos, malls and more forcing habitat to shrink and
> .wildlife to be forced into smaller areas to be further disturbed by the
> .recreationists (mt bikers) you rally against.
> .
> .
> .>
> .> .For Those Who Think Mountain Biking Damage Is Insignificant
> .> ."The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with
> .> .interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing
> .> .fertile topsoils
> .> .into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into
> the
> .> .atmosphere" (_Wildlife and Recreationists_, p.340)"
> .> .If age of the piece is your criteria, then you are consistently guilty
> of
> .> .posting and reposting older articles or posting articles as current
> that
> .> .only recite older information. The piece you posted about Mule Deer
> and
> .> Elk
> .> .used references from 2002, 1998, 1997 and earlier. Did you not note
> the
> .> .dates as irrelevant because you posted the piece attempting to support
> .> your
> .> .view?
> .> .Just so I know the rules:
> .> .1. You can post older information, but I (we) can not.
> .> .2. I (we) am a liar because someone previously, who happens to ride a
> .> .mountain bike, may have lied to you. (Wait... that may be dated as
> you
> .> have
> .> .been calling "all mt bikers" liars for years. However, If I refer to
> rule
> .> .#1, then the dated reference becomes irrelevant)
> .> .3. I (we) can not challenge your theory or conclusions on merit, fact
> or
> .> .interpretation.
> .> .4. I (we) can not challenge your abusive, hostile and name-calling
> .> character
> .> .assassinations. You may at any time refer to me as stupid, ignorant or
> an
> .> .idiot without reproach while posting emails directed to you with that
> .> same
> .> .terminology as being "abusive".
> .> .5. I (we) can not possibly match the depth of concern for the
> environment
> .> .that you do because we do ride a mountain bike but do not eat
> olalieberry
> .> .pie, do not give 15 minute speeches to "like minded" audiences, have
> .> never
> .> .been kicked out of the Sierra Club, and finally - do not claim to.
> .> .6. This has all been posted before... refer back to rule #1
> .> .
> .>
> .> ===
> .> 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
 
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:50:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..> .> .>
..> .> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order to
..> .> .> further
..> .> .> .protect wilderness.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
..> .> .> Cooperation
..> .> .> . 12/23/2002
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
..> .> .>
..> .> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation between
..> .> user
..> .> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a book
..> .> .written in 1995?
..> .>
..> .> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are even
..> WORSE
..> .> than
..> .> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water under the
..> .> bridge.
..> .> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something you can
..> .> understand.)
..> .And the post about cooperation is still valid.
..>
..> BS. If that were true, IMBA wouldn't continually be begging its members to
..> oppose Wilderness bills. QED
..Not oppose but to modify.

So "oppose as written". That's called "opposition". DUH! Why do mountain bikers
LIE so much????????????????????????????????

And not in all cases. The tight view of excluding
..bicycles where they currently are allowed by changing a designation, or by
..designating bicycle use as unfit in the realm of allowed recreation access
..in a "wilderness" area is often opposed by IMBA and members. IMBA would not
..even be in the debate if trails that had been previously available to
..bicycles had not been closed because of narrow interpretations of acceptable
..use.

Bicycles and other vehicles have no business being in natural areas. What part
of "natural" don't you understand?

.. IMBA supports the expansion of wilderness AND by doing so, also
..supports the expansion of acceptable bicycle use in areas that can also be
..designated along with the wilderness.

Bicycke use is NOT acceptable in natural areas. It is destructive &
unsustainable.

..Below from IMBA's website:
..----------
.."Public Lands And Open Space
..The maginficent legacy of public lands in America -- hundreds of millions of
..acres open to public travel, enjoyment and use -- is a key issue for IMBA
..and all mountain bicyclists. Public lands are where we most often ride. The
..health of public lands is critical to enjoyment.
..
..IMBA gets involved in programs that expand recreation opportunities on
..public lands. We oppose projects that might harm public lands health.
..
..We support efforts to buy more public lands, especially in metropolitan
..areas which need more parks and open spaces.
..
..IMBA participates in a national effort to revitalize the federal Land and
..water Conservation Fund, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars each
..year to buy private lands for public conservation and recreation purposes."
..
..--------------
..You actually reinforce my point as stated below; that splintering groups
..interested in preserving green space into arguments over access rather than
..preservation does not advance the cause of wildlife at all. Rather, it
..allows a weakened opposition to sprawl and development forcing the wildlife
..into smaller areas and more stress from recreation. An effort by all
..recreation groups to cooperate by uniting numbers would do much more to
..preserve and expand wilderness and multi-use designations for public land.
..You do not like IMBA and other mt bike organizations, which is actually a
..little humorous because you and selfish people like you (meaning a "my human
..presence is OK but yours is not" mentality) actually created IMBA. You (and
..those like you) alienate hundreds of thousands of allies on purpose and then
..act surprised when they band together, do their own scientific studies,
..present their own findings and fight your narrow viewpoint. IMBA also does
..much to educate the general public on the importance of preservation. By
..advocating expanded definitions of acceptable and non-destructive
..activities, IMBA creates a larger base of concern to be active in
..preservation. More people interested means a louder voice from the
..constituency to elected officials who may otherwise turn over land for
.."economic development".
..Which would you rather have? Access for mountain bikes or no access to
..anyone unless they are shopping at the new WalMart?
..
..>
..> Cooperation between ALL
..> .people interested in preserving outdoor space (for wildlife, recreation,
..> .clear air and water, beauty, environmental health, etc) is the only way
..> ."your" science has a chance at making a difference. Why do you think it
..> has
..> .gotten worse? Because interested people have been split into groups
..> .bickering among themselves instead of standing in cooperation to maintain
..> .these areas against expanded developement. If you want to preserve
..> .greenspace and habitat, people have to understand the significance of
..> these
..> .areas, appreciate these areas and have an interest in preserving them.
..> .As a student of psychology, you should understand this basic concept of
..> .human identity. As long as the population at large is more concerned with
..> .their SUV and next football game, nature goes unnoticed, unappreciated
..> and
..> .available for destruction because fewer people stand to protect it.
..> .Your hatred of mt bikes (mt bikers) and other recreationists that you
..> .attempt to exclude only focus the attention on access rather than
..> .preservation. Unless you want more habitat to become "ancient history", I
..> .suggest you turn on that PhD of yours so you can use it rather than
..> .resorting to character assassination. Insulting me (or anyone else with a
..> .different opinion) does not make wildlife any safer or preserve anything
..> .except the status quo.
..> .And as you stated, conditions are worse. Why? Becasue "status quo" is
..> still
..> .building roads, condos, malls and more forcing habitat to shrink and
..> .wildlife to be forced into smaller areas to be further disturbed by the
..> .recreationists (mt bikers) you rally against.
..> .
..> .
..> .>
..> .> .For Those Who Think Mountain Biking Damage Is Insignificant
..> .> ."The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with
..> .> .interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing
..> .> .fertile topsoils
..> .> .into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into
..> the
..> .> .atmosphere" (_Wildlife and Recreationists_, p.340)"
..> .> .If age of the piece is your criteria, then you are consistently guilty
..> of
..> .> .posting and reposting older articles or posting articles as current
..> that
..> .> .only recite older information. The piece you posted about Mule Deer
..> and
..> .> Elk
..> .> .used references from 2002, 1998, 1997 and earlier. Did you not note
..> the
..> .> .dates as irrelevant because you posted the piece attempting to support
..> .> your
..> .> .view?
..> .> .Just so I know the rules:
..> .> .1. You can post older information, but I (we) can not.
..> .> .2. I (we) am a liar because someone previously, who happens to ride a
..> .> .mountain bike, may have lied to you. (Wait... that may be dated as
..> you
..> .> have
..> .> .been calling "all mt bikers" liars for years. However, If I refer to
..> rule
..> .> .#1, then the dated reference becomes irrelevant)
..> .> .3. I (we) can not challenge your theory or conclusions on merit, fact
..> or
..> .> .interpretation.
..> .> .4. I (we) can not challenge your abusive, hostile and name-calling
..> .> character
..> .> .assassinations. You may at any time refer to me as stupid, ignorant or
..> an
..> .> .idiot without reproach while posting emails directed to you with that
..> .> same
..> .> .terminology as being "abusive".
..> .> .5. I (we) can not possibly match the depth of concern for the
..> environment
..> .> .that you do because we do ride a mountain bike but do not eat
..> olalieberry
..> .> .pie, do not give 15 minute speeches to "like minded" audiences, have
..> .> never
..> .> .been kicked out of the Sierra Club, and finally - do not claim to.
..> .> .6. This has all been posted before... refer back to rule #1
..> .> .
..> .>
..> .> ===
..> .> 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
..

===
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
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:50:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order
> to
> .> .> .> further
> .> .> .> .protect wilderness.
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
> .> .> .> Cooperation
> .> .> .> . 12/23/2002
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation
> between
> .> .> user
> .> .> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a
> book
> .> .> .written in 1995?
> .> .>
> .> .> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are even
> .> WORSE
> .> .> than
> .> .> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water under
> the
> .> .> bridge.
> .> .> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something you
> can
> .> .> understand.)
> .> .And the post about cooperation is still valid.
> .>
> .> BS. If that were true, IMBA wouldn't continually be begging its members
> to
> .> oppose Wilderness bills. QED
> .Not oppose but to modify.
>
> So "oppose as written". That's called "opposition". DUH! Why do mountain
> bikers
> LIE so much????????????????????????????????

Lie...? No... merely a different opinion, conclusion or interpretation.
But now we come full circle.... You read "oppose as written" as the
complete and total opposition to all wilderness designations because the
inclusion of mountain bike access in some of these areas is, for you, not
acceptable.
We come back to the original face of the problem: The debate of the
acceptance of off-road cycling in park systems and public lands. IMBA
maintains that off road cycling is nonobtrusive and acceptable in many (not
ALL, but many) of these areas. You maintain bicycles are not acceptable for
use in ANY park system or non-paved environment. IMBA supports the expansion
and preservation of natural areas. So do you. IMBA supports the opposition
to urban encroachment into natural areas. You say you do also by fighting
road construction. IMBA supports the aquisition of land to be designated as
natural and wilderness. As do you. IMBA supports the position that cycling
should be allowed in some of these areas, that standards be set to allow
cycling access and that the same rules apply in designating these areas
nationwide. The impasse rests on the bicycle.
My point is, and always has been, that allowing bicycles into some of these
areas that have a natural surrounding is a beneficial compromise. Off road
cycling enthusiasts get sanctioned access to ride and environmentalists get
an active and focused lobbying ally with common goals in preservation. By
allowing access for bicycles in some of these areas, the designation for
wilderness, (actual and true wilderness) becomes a mutual concern. By
increasing wilderness acreage, it becomes easier to also expand cycling into
some (not ALL) of these areas.
Your view that off road cycling is completely unacceptable in each and every
case is, and always has been puzzling. I understand your concern for
wildlife. I understand your concern for preserving habitat. I have never
understood your total bicycle exclusion policy in every case in every area.
Even in areas that are more urban than natural. I do not see your views of
wildlife habitat preservation and expansion to be in total conflict with off
road cycling enthusiasts views of habitat and
wildlife. It is the common ground to be explored to benefit everyone
(wildlife included) that should be the focus of the issue.
>
> And not in all cases. The tight view of excluding
> .bicycles where they currently are allowed by changing a designation, or
> by
> .designating bicycle use as unfit in the realm of allowed recreation
> access
> .in a "wilderness" area is often opposed by IMBA and members. IMBA would
> not
> .even be in the debate if trails that had been previously available to
> .bicycles had not been closed because of narrow interpretations of
> acceptable
> .use.
>
> Bicycles and other vehicles have no business being in natural areas. What
> part
> of "natural" don't you understand?
"Natural" I understand. It is the interpretation of information about off
road cycling that we differ on.
>
> . IMBA supports the expansion of wilderness AND by doing so, also
> .supports the expansion of acceptable bicycle use in areas that can also
> be
> .designated along with the wilderness.
>
> Bicycke use is NOT acceptable in natural areas. It is destructive &
> unsustainable.
That is your interpretation and viewpont. It does not make it the only
interpretation or view and it doesn't make it a fact simply because you say
so.
>
> .Below from IMBA's website:
> .----------
> ."Public Lands And Open Space
> .The maginficent legacy of public lands in America -- hundreds of millions
> of
> .acres open to public travel, enjoyment and use -- is a key issue for IMBA
> .and all mountain bicyclists. Public lands are where we most often ride.
> The
> .health of public lands is critical to enjoyment.
> .
> .IMBA gets involved in programs that expand recreation opportunities on
> .public lands. We oppose projects that might harm public lands health.
> .
> .We support efforts to buy more public lands, especially in metropolitan
> .areas which need more parks and open spaces.
> .
> .IMBA participates in a national effort to revitalize the federal Land and
> .water Conservation Fund, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars
> each
> .year to buy private lands for public conservation and recreation
> purposes."
> .
> .--------------
> .You actually reinforce my point as stated below; that splintering groups
> .interested in preserving green space into arguments over access rather
> than
> .preservation does not advance the cause of wildlife at all. Rather, it
> .allows a weakened opposition to sprawl and development forcing the
> wildlife
> .into smaller areas and more stress from recreation. An effort by all
> .recreation groups to cooperate by uniting numbers would do much more to
> .preserve and expand wilderness and multi-use designations for public
> land.
> .You do not like IMBA and other mt bike organizations, which is actually a
> .little humorous because you and selfish people like you (meaning a "my
> human
> .presence is OK but yours is not" mentality) actually created IMBA. You
> (and
> .those like you) alienate hundreds of thousands of allies on purpose and
> then
> .act surprised when they band together, do their own scientific studies,
> .present their own findings and fight your narrow viewpoint. IMBA also
> does
> .much to educate the general public on the importance of preservation. By
> .advocating expanded definitions of acceptable and non-destructive
> .activities, IMBA creates a larger base of concern to be active in
> .preservation. More people interested means a louder voice from the
> .constituency to elected officials who may otherwise turn over land for
> ."economic development".
> .Which would you rather have? Access for mountain bikes or no access to
> .anyone unless they are shopping at the new WalMart?
> .
> .>
> .> Cooperation between ALL
> .> .people interested in preserving outdoor space (for wildlife,
> recreation,
> .> .clear air and water, beauty, environmental health, etc) is the only
> way
> .> ."your" science has a chance at making a difference. Why do you think
> it
> .> has
> .> .gotten worse? Because interested people have been split into groups
> .> .bickering among themselves instead of standing in cooperation to
> maintain
> .> .these areas against expanded developement. If you want to preserve
> .> .greenspace and habitat, people have to understand the significance of
> .> these
> .> .areas, appreciate these areas and have an interest in preserving them.
> .> .As a student of psychology, you should understand this basic concept
> of
> .> .human identity. As long as the population at large is more concerned
> with
> .> .their SUV and next football game, nature goes unnoticed, unappreciated
> .> and
> .> .available for destruction because fewer people stand to protect it.
> .> .Your hatred of mt bikes (mt bikers) and other recreationists that you
> .> .attempt to exclude only focus the attention on access rather than
> .> .preservation. Unless you want more habitat to become "ancient
> history", I
> .> .suggest you turn on that PhD of yours so you can use it rather than
> .> .resorting to character assassination. Insulting me (or anyone else
> with a
> .> .different opinion) does not make wildlife any safer or preserve
> anything
> .> .except the status quo.
> .> .And as you stated, conditions are worse. Why? Becasue "status quo" is
> .> still
> .> .building roads, condos, malls and more forcing habitat to shrink and
> .> .wildlife to be forced into smaller areas to be further disturbed by
> the
> .> .recreationists (mt bikers) you rally against.
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .>
> .> .> .For Those Who Think Mountain Biking Damage Is Insignificant
> .> .> ."The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page
> with
> .> .> .interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests,
> washing
> .> .> .fertile topsoils
> .> .> .into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into
> .> the
> .> .> .atmosphere" (_Wildlife and Recreationists_, p.340)"
> .> .> .If age of the piece is your criteria, then you are consistently
> guilty
> .> of
> .> .> .posting and reposting older articles or posting articles as current
> .> that
> .> .> .only recite older information. The piece you posted about Mule Deer
> .> and
> .> .> Elk
> .> .> .used references from 2002, 1998, 1997 and earlier. Did you not note
> .> the
> .> .> .dates as irrelevant because you posted the piece attempting to
> support
> .> .> your
> .> .> .view?
> .> .> .Just so I know the rules:
> .> .> .1. You can post older information, but I (we) can not.
> .> .> .2. I (we) am a liar because someone previously, who happens to ride
> a
> .> .> .mountain bike, may have lied to you. (Wait... that may be dated as
> .> you
> .> .> have
> .> .> .been calling "all mt bikers" liars for years. However, If I refer
> to
> .> rule
> .> .> .#1, then the dated reference becomes irrelevant)
> .> .> .3. I (we) can not challenge your theory or conclusions on merit,
> fact
> .> or
> .> .> .interpretation.
> .> .> .4. I (we) can not challenge your abusive, hostile and name-calling
> .> .> character
> .> .> .assassinations. You may at any time refer to me as stupid, ignorant
> or
> .> an
> .> .> .idiot without reproach while posting emails directed to you with
> that
> .> .> same
> .> .> .terminology as being "abusive".
> .> .> .5. I (we) can not possibly match the depth of concern for the
> .> environment
> .> .> .that you do because we do ride a mountain bike but do not eat
> .> olalieberry
> .> .> .pie, do not give 15 minute speeches to "like minded" audiences,
> have
> .> .> never
> .> .> .been kicked out of the Sierra Club, and finally - do not claim to.
> .> .> .6. This has all been posted before... refer back to rule #1
> .> .> .
> .> .>
> .> .> ===
> .> .> 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
> .
>
> ===
> 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
 
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:10:13 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:50:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in order
..> to
..> .> .> .> further
..> .> .> .> .protect wilderness.
..> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of
..> .> .> .> Cooperation
..> .> .> .> . 12/23/2002
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation
..> between
..> .> .> user
..> .> .> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from a
..> book
..> .> .> .written in 1995?
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are even
..> .> WORSE
..> .> .> than
..> .> .> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water under
..> the
..> .> .> bridge.
..> .> .> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something you
..> can
..> .> .> understand.)
..> .> .And the post about cooperation is still valid.
..> .>
..> .> BS. If that were true, IMBA wouldn't continually be begging its members
..> to
..> .> oppose Wilderness bills. QED
..> .Not oppose but to modify.
..>
..> So "oppose as written". That's called "opposition". DUH! Why do mountain
..> bikers
..> LIE so much????????????????????????????????
..
..Lie...? No... merely a different opinion, conclusion or interpretation.
..But now we come full circle.... You read "oppose as written" as the
..complete and total opposition to all wilderness designations because the
..inclusion of mountain bike access in some of these areas is, for you, not
..acceptable.
..We come back to the original face of the problem: The debate of the
..acceptance of off-road cycling in park systems and public lands. IMBA
..maintains that off road cycling is nonobtrusive

BS. Tell that to the hikers & equestrians displaced by mountain biking!

and acceptable in many (not
..ALL, but many) of these areas. You maintain bicycles are not acceptable for
..use in ANY park system or non-paved environment.

Right.

IMBA supports the expansion
..and preservation of natural areas.

BS. They support the abuse of those natural areas via mountain biking.

So do you. IMBA supports the opposition
..to urban encroachment into natural areas.

BS. Bikes ARE urban encroachment.

You say you do also by fighting
..road construction. IMBA supports the aquisition of land to be designated as
..natural and wilderness. As do you. IMBA supports the position that cycling
..should be allowed in some of these areas, that standards be set to allow
..cycling access and that the same rules apply in designating these areas
..nationwide. The impasse rests on the bicycle.
..My point is, and always has been, that allowing bicycles into some of these
..areas that have a natural surrounding is a beneficial compromise.

Beneficial TO WHOM? NOT to the wildlife or other trail users!

Off road
..cycling enthusiasts get sanctioned access to ride and environmentalists get
..an active and focused lobbying ally with common goals in preservation. By
..allowing access for bicycles in some of these areas, the designation for
..wilderness, (actual and true wilderness) becomes a mutual concern. By
..increasing wilderness acreage, it becomes easier to also expand cycling into
..some (not ALL) of these areas.

That's not wilderness. Bikes are urban machinery.

..Your view that off road cycling is completely unacceptable in each and every
..case is, and always has been puzzling. I understand your concern for
..wildlife. I understand your concern for preserving habitat. I have never
..understood your total bicycle exclusion policy in every case in every area.

The laws of physics & biology are the SAME everywhere. So where's the
justification for treating some areas differently???

..Even in areas that are more urban than natural. I do not see your views of
..wildlife habitat preservation and expansion to be in total conflict with off
..road cycling enthusiasts views of habitat and
..wildlife. It is the common ground to be explored to benefit everyone
..(wildlife included) that should be the focus of the issue.

That won't protect wildlife. Mountain bikers are NEVER satisfied with the amount
of trals they have access to. NEVER! They won't stop pushing till they drive
wildlife, hikers, & equestrians out of the parks. Mountain biking is
INCOMPATIBLE with those 3.

..> And not in all cases. The tight view of excluding
..> .bicycles where they currently are allowed by changing a designation, or
..> by
..> .designating bicycle use as unfit in the realm of allowed recreation
..> access
..> .in a "wilderness" area is often opposed by IMBA and members. IMBA would
..> not
..> .even be in the debate if trails that had been previously available to
..> .bicycles had not been closed because of narrow interpretations of
..> acceptable
..> .use.
..>
..> Bicycles and other vehicles have no business being in natural areas. What
..> part
..> of "natural" don't you understand?
.."Natural" I understand. It is the interpretation of information about off
..road cycling that we differ on.
..>
..> . IMBA supports the expansion of wilderness AND by doing so, also
..> .supports the expansion of acceptable bicycle use in areas that can also
..> be
..> .designated along with the wilderness.
..>
..> Bicycke use is NOT acceptable in natural areas. It is destructive &
..> unsustainable.
..That is your interpretation and viewpont. It does not make it the only
..interpretation or view and it doesn't make it a fact simply because you say
..so.

It is backed up by science.

===
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
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:10:13 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:50:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in
> order
> .> to
> .> .> .> .> further
> .> .> .> .> .protect wilderness.
> .> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit
> of
> .> .> .> .> Cooperation
> .> .> .> .> . 12/23/2002
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation
> .> between
> .> .> .> user
> .> .> .> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from
> a
> .> book
> .> .> .> .written in 1995?
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are
> even
> .> .> WORSE
> .> .> .> than
> .> .> .> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water
> under
> .> the
> .> .> .> bridge.
> .> .> .> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something
> you
> .> can
> .> .> .> understand.)
> .> .> .And the post about cooperation is still valid.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. If that were true, IMBA wouldn't continually be begging its
> members
> .> to
> .> .> oppose Wilderness bills. QED
> .> .Not oppose but to modify.
> .>
> .> So "oppose as written". That's called "opposition". DUH! Why do
> mountain
> .> bikers
> .> LIE so much????????????????????????????????
> .
> .Lie...? No... merely a different opinion, conclusion or interpretation.
> .But now we come full circle.... You read "oppose as written" as the
> .complete and total opposition to all wilderness designations because the
> .inclusion of mountain bike access in some of these areas is, for you, not
> .acceptable.
> .We come back to the original face of the problem: The debate of the
> .acceptance of off-road cycling in park systems and public lands. IMBA
> .maintains that off road cycling is nonobtrusive
>
> BS. Tell that to the hikers & equestrians displaced by mountain biking!
Oh... now I see. You finally said it! "hikers and equestrians" being
displaced. "Hikers and equestrians" upset about sharing the trails...
Finally you shine some light of truth on the opinions you constantly
present. It is now obvious you want bikes off trails because they upset you
as a hiker.
>
> and acceptable in many (not
> .ALL, but many) of these areas. You maintain bicycles are not acceptable
> for
> .use in ANY park system or non-paved environment.
>
> Right.
>
> IMBA supports the expansion
> .and preservation of natural areas.
>
> BS. They support the abuse of those natural areas via mountain biking.

No more so than any other form of non-powered "abuse", despite your opinion.
If "hikers and equestrians" are allowed, then some accommodation for cycling
can also be made. These user groups co-exists within the "multi-use"
definition and your opinion of off-road cycling is just one of many.
>
> So do you. IMBA supports the opposition
> .to urban encroachment into natural areas.
>
> BS. Bikes ARE urban encroachment.

Your opinion. Does not make it fact or any more valid than my, or anyone
else's, opinion.
>
> You say you do also by fighting
> .road construction. IMBA supports the aquisition of land to be designated
> as
> .natural and wilderness. As do you. IMBA supports the position that
> cycling
> .should be allowed in some of these areas, that standards be set to allow
> .cycling access and that the same rules apply in designating these areas
> .nationwide. The impasse rests on the bicycle.
> .My point is, and always has been, that allowing bicycles into some of
> these
> .areas that have a natural surrounding is a beneficial compromise.
>
> Beneficial TO WHOM? NOT to the wildlife or other trail users!

Now you mention "wildlife"... and in the context of "other trail users". By
"wildlife", you mean the natural inhabitants such as animals, plants and
insects. By "other trail users", you mean the hikers that wear rugged boots
and often carry heavy packs of gear and equestrians that ride atop another
animal several times their own weight. No real difference between these
"other" users and a person on a 24 pound bicycle. As for "beneficial to
whom?", it is beneficial to people and nature that more people have an
appreciation for these natural areas. It is basic psychology that humans are
unconcerned with things they have not experienced, seen or understand.
Getting more people involved in visiting these areas gets more people
involved in preserving them. Off road cycling is a viable method for people
to visit these areas with (despite your opinion) no more real impact than
"other trail users".
>
> Off road
> .cycling enthusiasts get sanctioned access to ride and environmentalists
> get
> .an active and focused lobbying ally with common goals in preservation. By
> .allowing access for bicycles in some of these areas, the designation for
> .wilderness, (actual and true wilderness) becomes a mutual concern. By
> .increasing wilderness acreage, it becomes easier to also expand cycling
> into
> .some (not ALL) of these areas.
>
> That's not wilderness. Bikes are urban machinery.

If your definition of "wildrness" is "human-free habitat", then your
statement above is a non-issue. If a park system is designated "multi-use"
or an area allows human recreation, then bicycles are also viable within
that definition. "Human free habitat" is a seperate area and a seperate
issue.
>
> .Your view that off road cycling is completely unacceptable in each and
> every
> .case is, and always has been puzzling. I understand your concern for
> .wildlife. I understand your concern for preserving habitat. I have never
> .understood your total bicycle exclusion policy in every case in every
> area.
>
> The laws of physics & biology are the SAME everywhere. So where's the
> justification for treating some areas differently???

Exactly. Either human interaction is allowed or it isn't. If it is allowed,
then off-road cycling should be also as it is non-obtrusive in the same
sense as other human interaction, such as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing,
climbing, kayaking, etc. If the "laws of physics and biology are the same
everywhere", how can you insist on "human free habitat" on one hand and
include hiking on the other? Your recreation is no more viable than mine and
mine is no more harmful than yours.
>
> .Even in areas that are more urban than natural. I do not see your views
> of
> .wildlife habitat preservation and expansion to be in total conflict with
> off
> .road cycling enthusiasts views of habitat and
> .wildlife. It is the common ground to be explored to benefit everyone
> .(wildlife included) that should be the focus of the issue.
>
> That won't protect wildlife. Mountain bikers are NEVER satisfied with the
> amount
> of trals they have access to. NEVER! They won't stop pushing till they
> drive
> wildlife, hikers, & equestrians out of the parks. Mountain biking is
> INCOMPATIBLE with those 3.

Genralization: "Mountain bikers are NEVER satisfied..." Actually, it could
be stated in the reverse. Cyclists have seen access decrease, so it is more
accurate to state hikers "you" are never satisfied. It is your opinion that
cycling is more harmful and now that cyclist organizations are presenting
information counter to yours and cycling groups are regaining access to some
of these areas, you are faced with a reallity that off-road cycling is still
active. You have not presented any evidence that can not be factually
challenged that riding a bicycle off road is more harmful to wildlife than
other human presence in the same context. Your assumption that "hikers and
equestrians" are being driven out is also unfounded. These activities, and
others, are not losing popularity. A quick Yahoo search reveals several
sources and statistics to show it. One of those would be the National Park
Service Public Use Statistics Office. Your context of including "wildlife"
with "hikers & equestrians" clearly shows it is your position that human
presence is acceptable. It is only your opinion that a bicycle alters that
context.
>
> .> And not in all cases. The tight view of excluding
> .> .bicycles where they currently are allowed by changing a designation,
> or
> .> by
> .> .designating bicycle use as unfit in the realm of allowed recreation
> .> access
> .> .in a "wilderness" area is often opposed by IMBA and members. IMBA
> would
> .> not
> .> .even be in the debate if trails that had been previously available to
> .> .bicycles had not been closed because of narrow interpretations of
> .> acceptable
> .> .use.
> .>
> .> Bicycles and other vehicles have no business being in natural areas.
> What
> .> part
> .> of "natural" don't you understand?
> ."Natural" I understand. It is the interpretation of information about off
> .road cycling that we differ on.
> .>
> .> . IMBA supports the expansion of wilderness AND by doing so, also
> .> .supports the expansion of acceptable bicycle use in areas that can
> also
> .> be
> .> .designated along with the wilderness.
> .>
> .> Bicycke use is NOT acceptable in natural areas. It is destructive &
> .> unsustainable.
> .That is your interpretation and viewpont. It does not make it the only
> .interpretation or view and it doesn't make it a fact simply because you
> say
> .so.
>
> It is backed up by science.

So you say... However, science works both ways. You only pick and choose
"science" that fits your view. You begin with a bias against the bicycle so
look for specifics that illustrate that idea. When science is presented that
broadens or counters your conclusion, you dismiss it as "junk". You call the
writer a "liar". You claim it is done by "stupid mt bikers" and means
nothing because it is "biased". Nothing makes your "bias" and "science" any
more valid than any other.
>
> ===
> 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
 
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:15:01 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> BS. Bikes ARE urban encroachment.
>
>Your opinion. Does not make it fact or any more valid than my, or anyone
>else's, opinion.
>>
Mountain bikes are urban encroachment, but condo developments built on
woodlands are fine? You have never opposed condos, just mountain
bikes.

Good thing that REAL environmentalists have a sensible ordering of
their priorities.

>> Beneficial TO WHOM? NOT to the wildlife or other trail users!
>
>Now you mention "wildlife"... and in the context of "other trail users". By
>"wildlife", you mean the natural inhabitants such as animals, plants and
>insects. By "other trail users", you mean the hikers that wear rugged boots
>and often carry heavy packs of gear and equestrians that ride atop another
>animal several times their own weight. No real difference between these
>"other" users and a person on a 24 pound bicycle. As for "beneficial to
>whom?", it is beneficial to people and nature that more people have an
>appreciation for these natural areas. It is basic psychology that humans are
>unconcerned with things they have not experienced, seen or understand.
>Getting more people involved in visiting these areas gets more people
>involved in preserving them. Off road cycling is a viable method for people
>to visit these areas with (despite your opinion) no more real impact than
>"other trail users".

Mikey does not care about the environment anywhere near as much as he
cares about "winning" by his own rules and scorecard. His crusade is
all about his ego and psychological issues.

>> That's not wilderness. Bikes are urban machinery.
>
Amazing how Mikie's special dictionary alsways supports his opinions
stated as facts.

>> The laws of physics & biology are the SAME everywhere. So where's the
>> justification for treating some areas differently???
>
>Exactly. Either human interaction is allowed or it isn't. If it is allowed,
>then off-road cycling should be also as it is non-obtrusive in the same
>sense as other human interaction, such as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing,
>climbing, kayaking, etc. If the "laws of physics and biology are the same
>everywhere", how can you insist on "human free habitat" on one hand and
>include hiking on the other? Your recreation is no more viable than mine and
>mine is no more harmful than yours.

Mikie is no more representative of real hikers than he is of real
environmentalists.

>> It is backed up by science.
>
>So you say... However, science works both ways. You only pick and choose
>"science" that fits your view. You begin with a bias against the bicycle so
>look for specifics that illustrate that idea. When science is presented that
>broadens or counters your conclusion, you dismiss it as "junk". You call the
>writer a "liar". You claim it is done by "stupid mt bikers" and means
>nothing because it is "biased". Nothing makes your "bias" and "science" any
>more valid than any other.

Typical for Mikie. He cannot ever admit that he is not 100% right,
even when he contradicts himself. His fragile ego is in the balance.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
 
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:15:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:10:13 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:50:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in
..> order
..> .> to
..> .> .> .> .> further
..> .> .> .> .> .protect wilderness.
..> .> .> .> .> .
..> .> .> .> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit
..> of
..> .> .> .> .> Cooperation
..> .> .> .> .> . 12/23/2002
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation
..> .> between
..> .> .> .> user
..> .> .> .> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this from
..> a
..> .> book
..> .> .> .> .written in 1995?
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are
..> even
..> .> .> WORSE
..> .> .> .> than
..> .> .> .> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water
..> under
..> .> the
..> .> .> .> bridge.
..> .> .> .> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's something
..> you
..> .> can
..> .> .> .> understand.)
..> .> .> .And the post about cooperation is still valid.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> BS. If that were true, IMBA wouldn't continually be begging its
..> members
..> .> to
..> .> .> oppose Wilderness bills. QED
..> .> .Not oppose but to modify.
..> .>
..> .> So "oppose as written". That's called "opposition". DUH! Why do
..> mountain
..> .> bikers
..> .> LIE so much????????????????????????????????
..> .
..> .Lie...? No... merely a different opinion, conclusion or interpretation.
..> .But now we come full circle.... You read "oppose as written" as the
..> .complete and total opposition to all wilderness designations because the
..> .inclusion of mountain bike access in some of these areas is, for you, not
..> .acceptable.
..> .We come back to the original face of the problem: The debate of the
..> .acceptance of off-road cycling in park systems and public lands. IMBA
..> .maintains that off road cycling is nonobtrusive
..>
..> BS. Tell that to the hikers & equestrians displaced by mountain biking!
..Oh... now I see. You finally said it! "hikers and equestrians" being
..displaced. "Hikers and equestrians" upset about sharing the trails...
..Finally you shine some light of truth on the opinions you constantly
..present. It is now obvious you want bikes off trails because they upset you
..as a hiker.

BS. That's only ONE reason. Can't you count above ONE?

..> and acceptable in many (not
..> .ALL, but many) of these areas. You maintain bicycles are not acceptable
..> for
..> .use in ANY park system or non-paved environment.
..>
..> Right.
..>
..> IMBA supports the expansion
..> .and preservation of natural areas.
..>
..> BS. They support the abuse of those natural areas via mountain biking.
..
..No more so than any other form of non-powered "abuse", despite your opinion.
..If "hikers and equestrians" are allowed, then some accommodation for cycling
..can also be made. These user groups co-exists within the "multi-use"
..definition and your opinion of off-road cycling is just one of many.

Bicycles are inanimate objects and have no rights to be on trails. DUH!

..> So do you. IMBA supports the opposition
..> .to urban encroachment into natural areas.
..>
..> BS. Bikes ARE urban encroachment.
..
..Your opinion. Does not make it fact or any more valid than my, or anyone
..else's, opinion.

It's OBVIOUS. Only a mountain biker would lie about that.

..> You say you do also by fighting
..> .road construction. IMBA supports the aquisition of land to be designated
..> as
..> .natural and wilderness. As do you. IMBA supports the position that
..> cycling
..> .should be allowed in some of these areas, that standards be set to allow
..> .cycling access and that the same rules apply in designating these areas
..> .nationwide. The impasse rests on the bicycle.
..> .My point is, and always has been, that allowing bicycles into some of
..> these
..> .areas that have a natural surrounding is a beneficial compromise.
..>
..> Beneficial TO WHOM? NOT to the wildlife or other trail users!
..
..Now you mention "wildlife"... and in the context of "other trail users". By
.."wildlife", you mean the natural inhabitants such as animals, plants and
..insects. By "other trail users", you mean the hikers that wear rugged boots
..and often carry heavy packs of gear and equestrians that ride atop another
..animal several times their own weight. No real difference between these
.."other" users and a person on a 24 pound bicycle.

Not according to the science: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

As for "beneficial to
..whom?", it is beneficial to people and nature that more people have an
..appreciation for these natural areas. It is basic psychology that humans are
..unconcerned with things they have not experienced, seen or understand.
..Getting more people involved in visiting these areas gets more people
..involved in preserving them. Off road cycling is a viable method for people
..to visit these areas with (despite your opinion) no more real impact than
.."other trail users".

BS. They can WALK there. There's no reason to allow BIKES off-road.

..>
..> Off road
..> .cycling enthusiasts get sanctioned access to ride and environmentalists
..> get
..> .an active and focused lobbying ally with common goals in preservation. By
..> .allowing access for bicycles in some of these areas, the designation for
..> .wilderness, (actual and true wilderness) becomes a mutual concern. By
..> .increasing wilderness acreage, it becomes easier to also expand cycling
..> into
..> .some (not ALL) of these areas.
..>
..> That's not wilderness. Bikes are urban machinery.
..
..If your definition of "wildrness" is "human-free habitat", then your
..statement above is a non-issue. If a park system is designated "multi-use"
..or an area allows human recreation, then bicycles are also viable within
..that definition. "Human free habitat" is a seperate area and a seperate
..issue.

Bikes aren't natural and don't belong in natural areas.

..> .Your view that off road cycling is completely unacceptable in each and
..> every
..> .case is, and always has been puzzling. I understand your concern for
..> .wildlife. I understand your concern for preserving habitat. I have never
..> .understood your total bicycle exclusion policy in every case in every
..> area.
..>
..> The laws of physics & biology are the SAME everywhere. So where's the
..> justification for treating some areas differently???
..
..Exactly. Either human interaction is allowed or it isn't. If it is allowed,
..then off-road cycling should be also as it is non-obtrusive in the same
..sense as other human interaction, such as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing,
..climbing, kayaking, etc.

BS. It multiplies human range by about 5 times or more.

If the "laws of physics and biology are the same
..everywhere", how can you insist on "human free habitat" on one hand and
..include hiking on the other? Your recreation is no more viable than mine and
..mine is no more harmful than yours.
..>
..> .Even in areas that are more urban than natural. I do not see your views
..> of
..> .wildlife habitat preservation and expansion to be in total conflict with
..> off
..> .road cycling enthusiasts views of habitat and
..> .wildlife. It is the common ground to be explored to benefit everyone
..> .(wildlife included) that should be the focus of the issue.
..>
..> That won't protect wildlife. Mountain bikers are NEVER satisfied with the
..> amount
..> of trals they have access to. NEVER! They won't stop pushing till they
..> drive
..> wildlife, hikers, & equestrians out of the parks. Mountain biking is
..> INCOMPATIBLE with those 3.
..
..Genralization: "Mountain bikers are NEVER satisfied..."

But TRUE.

Actually, it could
..be stated in the reverse. Cyclists have seen access decrease, so it is more
..accurate to state hikers "you" are never satisfied. It is your opinion that
..cycling is more harmful and now that cyclist organizations are presenting
..information counter to yours and cycling groups are regaining access to some
..of these areas, you are faced with a reallity that off-road cycling is still
..active. You have not presented any evidence that can not be factually
..challenged that riding a bicycle off road is more harmful to wildlife than
..other human presence in the same context. Your assumption that "hikers and
..equestrians" are being driven out is also unfounded. These activities, and
..others, are not losing popularity. A quick Yahoo search reveals several
..sources and statistics to show it. One of those would be the National Park
..Service Public Use Statistics Office. Your context of including "wildlife"
..with "hikers & equestrians" clearly shows it is your position that human
..presence is acceptable. It is only your opinion that a bicycle alters that
..context.
..>
..> .> And not in all cases. The tight view of excluding
..> .> .bicycles where they currently are allowed by changing a designation,
..> or
..> .> by
..> .> .designating bicycle use as unfit in the realm of allowed recreation
..> .> access
..> .> .in a "wilderness" area is often opposed by IMBA and members. IMBA
..> would
..> .> not
..> .> .even be in the debate if trails that had been previously available to
..> .> .bicycles had not been closed because of narrow interpretations of
..> .> acceptable
..> .> .use.
..> .>
..> .> Bicycles and other vehicles have no business being in natural areas.
..> What
..> .> part
..> .> of "natural" don't you understand?
..> ."Natural" I understand. It is the interpretation of information about off
..> .road cycling that we differ on.
..> .>
..> .> . IMBA supports the expansion of wilderness AND by doing so, also
..> .> .supports the expansion of acceptable bicycle use in areas that can
..> also
..> .> be
..> .> .designated along with the wilderness.
..> .>
..> .> Bicycke use is NOT acceptable in natural areas. It is destructive &
..> .> unsustainable.
..> .That is your interpretation and viewpont. It does not make it the only
..> .interpretation or view and it doesn't make it a fact simply because you
..> say
..> .so.
..>
..> It is backed up by science.
..
..So you say... However, science works both ways. You only pick and choose
.."science" that fits your view.

BS. I used the "science" presented (dishonestly) by IMBA.

You begin with a bias against the bicycle so
..look for specifics that illustrate that idea. When science is presented that
..broadens or counters your conclusion, you dismiss it as "junk". You call the
..writer a "liar". You claim it is done by "stupid mt bikers" and means
..nothing because it is "biased". Nothing makes your "bias" and "science" any
..more valid than any other.
..>
..> ===
..> 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
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:15:01 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:10:13 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:50:57 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .> .From 2002: Several groups work with cooperation in mind in
> .> order
> .> .> to
> .> .> .> .> .> further
> .> .> .> .> .> .protect wilderness.
> .> .> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .> .> .Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New
> Spirit
> .> of
> .> .> .> .> .> Cooperation
> .> .> .> .> .> . 12/23/2002
> .> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .> Did you miss the date? ... :)
> .> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .You're kidding, right? You disregard this note of cooperation
> .> .> between
> .> .> .> .> user
> .> .> .> .> .groups because it is from 2002? Why then, do you post this
> from
> .> a
> .> .> book
> .> .> .> .> .written in 1995?
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> Because it's science, and still valid. In fact, conditions are
> .> even
> .> .> .> WORSE
> .> .> .> .> than
> .> .> .> .> when that was written. A memo from 2002 is nothing but water
> .> under
> .> .> the
> .> .> .> .> bridge.
> .> .> .> .> Ancient history. DUH! (I have to add that, so there's
> something
> .> you
> .> .> can
> .> .> .> .> understand.)
> .> .> .> .And the post about cooperation is still valid.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> BS. If that were true, IMBA wouldn't continually be begging its
> .> members
> .> .> to
> .> .> .> oppose Wilderness bills. QED
> .> .> .Not oppose but to modify.
> .> .>
> .> .> So "oppose as written". That's called "opposition". DUH! Why do
> .> mountain
> .> .> bikers
> .> .> LIE so much????????????????????????????????
> .> .
> .> .Lie...? No... merely a different opinion, conclusion or
> interpretation.
> .> .But now we come full circle.... You read "oppose as written" as the
> .> .complete and total opposition to all wilderness designations because
> the
> .> .inclusion of mountain bike access in some of these areas is, for you,
> not
> .> .acceptable.
> .> .We come back to the original face of the problem: The debate of the
> .> .acceptance of off-road cycling in park systems and public lands. IMBA
> .> .maintains that off road cycling is nonobtrusive
> .>
> .> BS. Tell that to the hikers & equestrians displaced by mountain biking!
> .Oh... now I see. You finally said it! "hikers and equestrians" being
> .displaced. "Hikers and equestrians" upset about sharing the trails...
> .Finally you shine some light of truth on the opinions you constantly
> .present. It is now obvious you want bikes off trails because they upset
> you
> .as a hiker.
>
> BS. That's only ONE reason. Can't you count above ONE?
It is the reason you stated. My number skills are not the issue.
>
> .> and acceptable in many (not
> .> .ALL, but many) of these areas. You maintain bicycles are not
> acceptable
> .> for
> .> .use in ANY park system or non-paved environment.
> .>
> .> Right.
> .>
> .> IMBA supports the expansion
> .> .and preservation of natural areas.
> .>
> .> BS. They support the abuse of those natural areas via mountain biking.
> .
> .No more so than any other form of non-powered "abuse", despite your
> opinion.
> .If "hikers and equestrians" are allowed, then some accommodation for
> cycling
> .can also be made. These user groups co-exists within the "multi-use"
> .definition and your opinion of off-road cycling is just one of many.
>
> Bicycles are inanimate objects and have no rights to be on trails. DUH!
People who choose to ride bicycles (inanimate objects) do.
>
> .> So do you. IMBA supports the opposition
> .> .to urban encroachment into natural areas.
> .>
> .> BS. Bikes ARE urban encroachment.
> .
> .Your opinion. Does not make it fact or any more valid than my, or anyone
> .else's, opinion.
>
> It's OBVIOUS. Only a mountain biker would lie about that.
Saying it's "obvious" because your opinion leads you to that conclusion is
meaningless. Your obvious generalization about mountain bikers, however, is
in plain view to all.
>
> .> You say you do also by fighting
> .> .road construction. IMBA supports the aquisition of land to be
> designated
> .> as
> .> .natural and wilderness. As do you. IMBA supports the position that
> .> cycling
> .> .should be allowed in some of these areas, that standards be set to
> allow
> .> .cycling access and that the same rules apply in designating these
> areas
> .> .nationwide. The impasse rests on the bicycle.
> .> .My point is, and always has been, that allowing bicycles into some of
> .> these
> .> .areas that have a natural surrounding is a beneficial compromise.
> .>
> .> Beneficial TO WHOM? NOT to the wildlife or other trail users!
> .
> .Now you mention "wildlife"... and in the context of "other trail users".
> By
> ."wildlife", you mean the natural inhabitants such as animals, plants and
> .insects. By "other trail users", you mean the hikers that wear rugged
> boots
> .and often carry heavy packs of gear and equestrians that ride atop
> another
> .animal several times their own weight. No real difference between these
> ."other" users and a person on a 24 pound bicycle.
>
> Not according to the science: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
Now you claim your "review" and interpretation of available information is
"science". You draw conclusions from available information (science), yet
these conclusions outlined in "scb7" are still your interpretation... which
makes it an opinion.
Your "review" of the "science" you cite is no more valid than the
interpretations of "science" you claim is "bunk" highlighting other
viewpoints.
>
> As for "beneficial to
> .whom?", it is beneficial to people and nature that more people have an
> .appreciation for these natural areas. It is basic psychology that humans
> are
> .unconcerned with things they have not experienced, seen or understand.
> .Getting more people involved in visiting these areas gets more people
> .involved in preserving them. Off road cycling is a viable method for
> people
> .to visit these areas with (despite your opinion) no more real impact than
> ."other trail users".
>
> BS. They can WALK there. There's no reason to allow BIKES off-road.
When the impact has no real difference, there is no reason to ban the bikes.
>
> .>
> .> Off road
> .> .cycling enthusiasts get sanctioned access to ride and
> environmentalists
> .> get
> .> .an active and focused lobbying ally with common goals in preservation.
> By
> .> .allowing access for bicycles in some of these areas, the designation
> for
> .> .wilderness, (actual and true wilderness) becomes a mutual concern. By
> .> .increasing wilderness acreage, it becomes easier to also expand
> cycling
> .> into
> .> .some (not ALL) of these areas.
> .>
> .> That's not wilderness. Bikes are urban machinery.
> .
> .If your definition of "wildrness" is "human-free habitat", then your
> .statement above is a non-issue. If a park system is designated
> "multi-use"
> .or an area allows human recreation, then bicycles are also viable within
> .that definition. "Human free habitat" is a seperate area and a seperate
> .issue.
>
> Bikes aren't natural and don't belong in natural areas.
Your hiking shoes are a composite of non-natural materials. A backpack is
nylon, plastic and aluminum.
Your "tools" to assist your experience are no more natural than my bicycle.
>
> .> .Your view that off road cycling is completely unacceptable in each and
> .> every
> .> .case is, and always has been puzzling. I understand your concern for
> .> .wildlife. I understand your concern for preserving habitat. I have
> never
> .> .understood your total bicycle exclusion policy in every case in every
> .> area.
> .>
> .> The laws of physics & biology are the SAME everywhere. So where's the
> .> justification for treating some areas differently???
> .
> .Exactly. Either human interaction is allowed or it isn't. If it is
> allowed,
> .then off-road cycling should be also as it is non-obtrusive in the same
> .sense as other human interaction, such as hiking, camping, hunting,
> fishing,
> .climbing, kayaking, etc.
>
> BS. It multiplies human range by about 5 times or more.
This one is getting really tired. Cyclists are on the trail for a finite
amount of time. The trails are a finite length. The cyclist may cover the
trail faster than a hiker, but it also means the cyclist is leaving the area
sooner. Cyclists are not traveling deeper into an area, they are covering
the same available trail system in less time. You should be pleased with
this. It means the cyclist is in and out of the park in less time,
minimizing presence. Saying a cyclist travels faster does not translate to
further on a trail system that has a finite length. Your use of "human
range" is misleading in the context of trail use as the cyclists are not
tavelling further than hikers.

>
> If the "laws of physics and biology are the same
> .everywhere", how can you insist on "human free habitat" on one hand and
> .include hiking on the other? Your recreation is no more viable than mine
> and
> .mine is no more harmful than yours.
> .>
> .> .Even in areas that are more urban than natural. I do not see your
> views
> .> of
> .> .wildlife habitat preservation and expansion to be in total conflict
> with
> .> off
> .> .road cycling enthusiasts views of habitat and
> .> .wildlife. It is the common ground to be explored to benefit everyone
> .> .(wildlife included) that should be the focus of the issue.
> .>
> .> That won't protect wildlife. Mountain bikers are NEVER satisfied with
> the
> .> amount
> .> of trals they have access to. NEVER! They won't stop pushing till they
> .> drive
> .> wildlife, hikers, & equestrians out of the parks. Mountain biking is
> .> INCOMPATIBLE with those 3.
> .
> .Genralization: "Mountain bikers are NEVER satisfied..."
>
> But TRUE.
Your claim does not change it as a generalization or make it "true" because
you say so.
>
> Actually, it could
> .be stated in the reverse. Cyclists have seen access decrease, so it is
> more
> .accurate to state hikers "you" are never satisfied. It is your opinion
> that
> .cycling is more harmful and now that cyclist organizations are presenting
> .information counter to yours and cycling groups are regaining access to
> some
> .of these areas, you are faced with a reallity that off-road cycling is
> still
> .active. You have not presented any evidence that can not be factually
> .challenged that riding a bicycle off road is more harmful to wildlife
> than
> .other human presence in the same context. Your assumption that "hikers
> and
> .equestrians" are being driven out is also unfounded. These activities,
> and
> .others, are not losing popularity. A quick Yahoo search reveals several
> .sources and statistics to show it. One of those would be the National
> Park
> .Service Public Use Statistics Office. Your context of including
> "wildlife"
> .with "hikers & equestrians" clearly shows it is your position that human
> .presence is acceptable. It is only your opinion that a bicycle alters
> that
> .context.
> .>
> .> .> And not in all cases. The tight view of excluding
> .> .> .bicycles where they currently are allowed by changing a
> designation,
> .> or
> .> .> by
> .> .> .designating bicycle use as unfit in the realm of allowed recreation
> .> .> access
> .> .> .in a "wilderness" area is often opposed by IMBA and members. IMBA
> .> would
> .> .> not
> .> .> .even be in the debate if trails that had been previously available
> to
> .> .> .bicycles had not been closed because of narrow interpretations of
> .> .> acceptable
> .> .> .use.
> .> .>
> .> .> Bicycles and other vehicles have no business being in natural areas.
> .> What
> .> .> part
> .> .> of "natural" don't you understand?
> .> ."Natural" I understand. It is the interpretation of information about
> off
> .> .road cycling that we differ on.
> .> .>
> .> .> . IMBA supports the expansion of wilderness AND by doing so, also
> .> .> .supports the expansion of acceptable bicycle use in areas that can
> .> also
> .> .> be
> .> .> .designated along with the wilderness.
> .> .>
> .> .> Bicycke use is NOT acceptable in natural areas. It is destructive &
> .> .> unsustainable.
> .> .That is your interpretation and viewpont. It does not make it the only
> .> .interpretation or view and it doesn't make it a fact simply because
> you
> .> say
> .> .so.
> .>
> .> It is backed up by science.
> .
> .So you say... However, science works both ways. You only pick and choose
> ."science" that fits your view.
>
> BS. I used the "science" presented (dishonestly) by IMBA.
If it was presented dishonestly, why would you use it? Why is your
interpretation of any "science" any better than any other interpretation?
>
> You begin with a bias against the bicycle so
> .look for specifics that illustrate that idea. When science is presented
> that
> .broadens or counters your conclusion, you dismiss it as "junk". You call
> the
> .writer a "liar". You claim it is done by "stupid mt bikers" and means
> .nothing because it is "biased". Nothing makes your "bias" and "science"
> any
> .more valid than any other.
> .>
> .> ===
> .> 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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tomUK
TSB - Did I miss something?
Replies
35
Views
3K
Power meters
swampy1970
swampy1970
Bro Deal
How did I miss this?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Professional Cycling
jimmypop
jimmypop
B
How did you all miss this
Replies
12
Views
443
UK and Europe
JNugent
J
D
Re: Did Duhg miss this
Replies
1
Views
278
UK and Europe
The other view point, there is one you know...
T
B
What did I miss re Ti-frame makers?
Replies
51
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
Ben C
B
SuzieB
Did I miss someone post this???
Replies
9
Views
714
Australia and New Zealand
Stomper
S
B
Did Simoni miss the cut?
Replies
2
Views
406
Road Cycling
Morgan Fletcher
M
D
Did I miss anything?
Replies
0
Views
401
Road Cycling
Davey Crockett
D
R
did I miss something - sbs tour coverage?
Replies
14
Views
679
Australia and New Zealand
Marty
M
jackaninny
did i miss something?! where is the streaming audio for the tour?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Professional Cycling
glh
glh
Top Bottom Back