On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:53:56 GMT, Chris Foster <
[email protected]>
wrote:
..Did you notice how Mikey did not respond to serveral of your counter-
..auguements.
..
..For example
..
..MV Bikes aren't natural and don't belong in natural areas.
..
..SC 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.
But the difference is that mountain bikes are far more harmful.
..You kicked his ass on several points
BS.
.."S Curtiss" <
[email protected]> wrote in
..news:R8DCe.56331$iU.36385@lakeread05:
..
..>
..> "Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
..> news
[email protected]...
..>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:13:31 -0400, "S Curtiss"
..>> <
[email protected]> wrote:
..>>
..>> .
..>> ."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.
..>>
..>> It's not opinion. It's science. For example, when I say that a given
..>> article
..>> ignores distance, the word "distance" doesn't appear in the entire
..>> article! That
..>> is FACT, not opinion. Everything I say is verifiable by anyone who
..>> can read &
..>> think. That makes it science. You are full of it.
..> Still an opinion... Your interpretation or inclusion of the variable
..> of "distance" only reflects your opinion that distance is a factor in
..> the first place. Mostly, it is not applicable as the trails being
..> ridden have a finite length.
..>>
..>> .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
..>> .
..>>
..>> ===
..>> 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
