On 15 Mar 2004 15:46:09 -0800,
[email protected] (mr wizard) wrote:
.Mike Vandeman <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>... .>
Have I forgotten anything? .Have I forgotten anything? .
.Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking .Michael
Vandeman, Ph.D. .March 5, 2004 . .First of all, what is
your Ph.D. in?
Psychology.
Because I'll be completely honest .and say that I'm not
impressed with your reasoning abilities,
And you are an expert because?
to say .nothing of the way you attempt (or, more
accurately, DON'T attempt) to .back up your arguments. .1.
Why do people mountain bike? .a. They are too lazy to walk.
When you claimed this, you announced to .the world that you
were not a mountain biker, nor a bike rider of any .kind.
Bicycling takes fitness, concentration and skill and
anybody .who goes trail riding knows this.
Laziness is relative. Mountain bikers obviously aren't too
lazy to mountain bike, but too lazy to HIKE.
Many of them say that using a bike .allows .them to get
much farther, in the same amount of time, than they can by
.walking. None of the trail riders, and I mean literally
NONE of the .trail riders would say this. This is
something you pulled out of your .own head, or maybe you
talked to people who ride road bikes?
No, I have read it many times in your newsgroups or
listservs.
The .point is, mtb riders don't go riding for the distance,
most don't even .know exactly how far they've ridden at the
end of the day. We go .trail riding to challenge ourselves
as much as for the exercise value, .just as hikers don't go
hiking just for the hell of it.
Not an appropriate use of a park. It's not a race course.
Nobody rides .trails on a bike because they can "get much
farther." .They also maintain constant pressure on land
managers, to open more .and more .trails to bikes. Of
course, all of these trails are already open to .them, if
.they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that
closing trails to .bikes ."excludes" them from the parks.
This could only be true if they .refused to walk. Where I
live, we recently received an area of land .from the local
wilderness authority to be used for trail riding. The
.only reason we needed and wanted this was because all the
other trails .in the area have been closed, most notably
the Otero Canyon.
That's a LIE. ALL trails are open to mountain bikers.
All you have to do is WALK (except that you are too lazy
to do so)!
And you .make me laugh when you say that the trails
wouldn't be closed to us if .we didn't refuse to walk,
because if we're walking we're not mountain .bikers
anymore, silly guy.
That's a LIE. You don't stop being a mountain biker, just
because you walk a few feet, or go to the bathroom, etc.
Apparently you haven't thought about the .tricky bits of
your statement, have you? Let me put it in what I hope .is
a painfully obvious way. I'll include quotation marks for
your .mental ease. "If a person is not on a bike, then
he/she is not a .mountain biker."
BS.
Unless you are taking up a quest against anybody who .would
IDENTIFY themselves as a mountain biker, I think you had
better .realize that as soon as you take the mountain bike
away from a person, .they're no longer a mountain biker.
Then why do people in public hearings identify themselves as
mountain bikers? Are they LYING again? By your reasoning,
they are LYING.
See how it works? So saying that .mountain bikers could
just walk the trails is contradictory, it just .doesn't
make sense. Mountain bikers aren't mountain bikers without
.the bike. We want access to trails, and that means access
WITH A .BIKE. See?
Yes. I see that you are too lazy to walk.
I hope I made that fairly major contradiction in your
.argument a little more clear for you. .(There's nothing
inherently wrong with laziness; we all like to save
.energy, .when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to
replace automobile use is .obviously .beneficial. However,
by the same token, replacing hiking with mountain .biking
is .obviously not beneficial.) .Funny that you should talk
about laziness and replacing cars with .bikes, because as I
stated above, you obviously don't ride bikes.
How would you know. Actually, I have been most likely biking
longer than you are alive.
In .fact, on what may be a rather unkind personal note, I'd
be willing to .bet that you drive either a 4x4 truck or
SUV, so you can reach those .hard-to-get-to habitats that
need your rescuing.
Sorry, I don't own a motor vehicle. But I am willing to bet
that YOU do!
.b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can
see, rather .than .the quality of their experience. Don't
even go there, bud. Again, .try riding before you pull
unsupported statements out of your head and .post them on
the internet. Speaking as someone who has been around .the
world (literally) more than once, you don't know what you're
.talking about. .While riding a bike, especially over
terrain as .rough as a trail, one has to be constantly
paying attention to not .crashing. .That make it almost
impossible to notice much else. I'm realizing at .this point
how much of your argument is based on simple ignorance.
Nope, EXPERIENCE.
A .fairly novice rider (I'm saying someone older than 13,
younger than .that I won't argue with you) can easily keep
track of the trail, and .still be caught up in the beauty
surrounding him/her. And someone who .is comfortable
riding trails can easily be immersed in what they're
.experiencing. I can jus hear the arguments, "He said
immersed! That .means they aren't paying attention!" Silly
people. If hikers are so .cosmically connected to nature,
why are they always spooked when mtb .riders go past them?
We can certainly hear them before we see them. .And that's
when we're going fast. Going slow, I'm sure mtb riders can
.all attest to hearing words like, "Whoa! Hey, I didn't
see you .coming!" even when going just jogging speed past
a hiker. .By contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all
the sounds and smells .all the odors of nature and can
stop instantly, if he/she finds .something interesting.
The brain thrives on .stimulation. A biker has to travel
several times as far as a hiker, to .get the .same
stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token,
motorcyclists .have to .travel several times as far as a
bicyclist, and an auto user several .times as .far as a
motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal box.) I
.disagree here for the same reason I disagree above. I
have hiked .through rainforests and deserts in Australia,
through beautiful .scenery in New Zealand all the way to
Scotland, and have been mountain .biking all across the
US. It's the biking trips that I remember in .far more
detail, the gnarly root, the tree that hung over the trail
.with pale green moss hanging from the branches and yellow-
brown ferns .at the base of it. Like I said, try it before
you knock it.
It is physically impossible to pay attention to nature &
controlling the bike at the same time.
.c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a
trail, .especially a .trail containing many obstacles, or a
trail one is not familiar with, .is very .challenging. (But
if mountain biking is the high point of your week, .as it
seems .to be for many mountain bikers, you must be leading a
pretty dull .life, off of .the bike!) Hahahah! Again, my
friend, try it before you knock it! .More seriously,
obstacles are far more underrated with the mountain .biking
crowd than you seem to think they are. The trail of choice,
.the holy grail of mountain bikers, is singletrack—beautiful
smooth .trail, with nothing to stop you from seeing how far
you can push .yourself. Mountain biking is about endurance,
fitness. People who .are in it for the thrills don't stay in
for much longer than a few .months.
So I guess no one races.... Liar.
.d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills
and .competing .with other mountain bikers. The thrill of
racing drives people to .spend more .money on their bike,
and ride it harder and more often. Racing, up to .and
.including the Olympics, drives a lot of mountain biking. Of
course, it .is also .extremely harmful to the parks and
natural areas that are used for .practice! It .is hard to
think of any other (legal) use of public lands, other than
.hunting, .that is as harmful as mountain biking. Hello,
mountain biking isn't an .Olympic event.
Yes, it, liar.
Good morning. Today I'll explain why mountain bikers .ride
in groups, or at least in pairs. S-A-F-E-T-Y. What is this
.word, class? That's right, safety. Any outdoorsman or
nature .activist or wilderness expert worth their weight
in mud would know .that it's downright stupid to go
hiking, mountain biking, or .horse-riding in any sort of
nature park by yourself. Isn't it also .stupid to
misinterpret this safe attitude for a desire to race, to
.compete? I will grant that there are mountain bike races,
but a .little research will show that most of these races
take place on .private property, much like most motocross
races, horse races, car .races, and what-have-you. On top
of that, the pro racers have their .own courses to
practice on. Just FYI. Sorry—that means "For Your
.Information."
I have seen many races on public lands, a totally
inappropriate use of public land.
.2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides
the .attraction for .participants, manufacturers and
retailers of mountain bikes and .mountain biking
.accessories, as well as "adventure" travel guides, make a
lot of money .from .promoting mountain biking. Even some
auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) .promote .and sponsor
mountain biking, and try to use its popularity to sell .more
cars. .Right. The thing that is driving mountain biking is
promotion. Now, .all of us readers can tell you don't run
any sort of business, either.
. Promotion can't support a sport, much less drive one.
Honestly, I .don't even know where to begin with this one.
If you really are a .Ph.D., this must have been one of
your .high-on-things-you-grow-in-your-human-free-nature-
habitat theses.
Subaru and REI both pay for MTB trail construction. Just
2 examples.
.3. What harm does mountain biking do? .a. Most obvious is
the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip into .the
.soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They
also create .V-shaped .grooves that make walking difficult
or even dangerous. Now, I'm not .an expert in erosion, but
all the physics courses I've ever taken have .explained the
mechanics of motion pretty well. When something rests .on
the surface of the earth, there is the force of gravity
pushing .down, and something called the NORMAL FORCE,
denoted "N" pushing back .up in a manner equal and opposite
to the force of gravity. Motion, be .it forward or backwards
or sideways, is independent of how much force .is exerted on
the ground, because mass does not fluctuate from one .point
to another.
But whan you jump up or down, you increase the force on the
ground. Similarly, acceleration, braking, & turning
increases horizontal force on the ground.
With this knowledge, I hope even you realize the .truth.
The motion of anything—be it a horse, a human or a
bike—is .parallel to the ground, and so no extra force
is exerted on the ground .by motion.
So you never accelerate or brake or turn? Unlikely.
You following this so far? I agree that mountain biking
.accelerates erosion, but it would be (and in your case,
IS) silly to .argue that the rolling wheel causes more
erosion than walking.
No, it isn't.
To .illustrate this, we will once again turn to physics.
With a rolling .wheel, it isn't moving forward or backwards
when it touches the .ground, and it isn't moving forwards
or backwards when it stops .touching the ground. The
portion of the tire that touches the trail .at any point on
the tire is moving straight up and straight down .relative
to the trail.
So you never accelerate or brake or turn or skid? Liar.
I don't really feel explaining it all, you can .choose to
trust me or you can look into it yourself, I don't care
.which. We'll assume you trust me. So, the tire moves
straight up and .down, whereas the foot of the person
walking comes into contact with .the ground at an angle
and leaves at an angle. Ever seen some .footprints in the
perfectly smooth beach sand? Which is worse for a .trail,
straight up and down motion or footprints?
Tires, because of the horizontal forces.
And now you'll .argue that the bikes go farther—but if
you're on a trail, you'll hike .the same distance the
bikers were riding.
Impossible. They travel a lot farther than I can hike in a
day.
Onward, to the next .splatter of drivel! At The mechanical
advantagegiven by the gears and .ball bearings allow a
mountain biker to travel several times as fast .as a
hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike),
this .results in vastly increased momentum, and hence much
greater .horizontal .(shearing) forces on the soil.
(Witness the skid marks from stops, .starts, and .turns.)
According to Newton, every action has an equal and
opposite .reaction. .Mountain bikes were built much
stronger than other bikes, so that they .could .withstand
the greater forces they were subject to on rough trails.
.These same .forces, therefore, are being applied to the
trails! To start with, .bearings don't give mechanical
advantage. They're just a mechanism .for decreasing
friction in the system.
Right, which allows you to go faster.
Yes, bikes go faster than a .hiker, thank you. Glad you
noticed that much. However, as for .increased weight—most
trail bikes are around twenty pounds. Do your .research.
Twenty pounds.
You are lying. They weigh a lot more than that.
That's about equal (or less than) what an .experienced
hiker should carry, I know because I am one. Don't give
.me **** about there being 40+ pound bikes out there,
because those are .not for trail riding, Ph.D. Shearing
forces from corners are .legitimate, but unless the bikes
are somehow defying the laws of .momentum and friction
which you yourself are trying to draw upon, they .are not
skidding around the corners.
So all the skid marks I see are my imagination? Unlikely.
This means that the shearing .forces at the turns in a
trail are negligible for bikes, as much so as .they are
for horses and pedestrians. Skidding on stops happens,
yes, .as does tripping and falling, thereby scuffing the
dirt. Really, some .people even trip on those horrible V
shaped ruts that you urban-footed .people can't seem to
master…. But as far as skidding from starting? .Who are
you kidding?
Acceleration creates shear forces, ripping the soil.
You know that bicycles are human-powered, right?
. How much horsepower do you think trail bikes have? Silly,
silly guy. .Yes, I know it's possible to skid your back
tire from a stop, and I .also know you have to try really,
really hard to do it; don't try to .argue that in an
official setting, you'll get laughed at. .b. A hiker must
be very careful not to accidentally step on small .animals
.and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is
almost impossible .to avoid .killing countless animals and
plants on and under the trail. They have .to pay
.attention to controlling the bike, and can't afford to
look carefully .at what is .on the trail, especially when
travelling fast. And even if they happen .to see, .for
example, a snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to
avoid .killing it. .Okay, something that apparently you,
in your infinite knowledge of all .things natural, didn't
know: Stick to the trails! Bikers know that, .that's why
they ask for more TRAILS (emphasis on the word TRAILS) to
.be opened up for them. There are no plants on the trail!
You are lying. There are always plants and animals on
the trail or next to it. Bikers also don't stay on the
trail. They even make new trails, killing even more
animals & plants.
If there .are it's not a trail! In all my years riding and
hiking, I've only .once encountered an animal on the road.
You don't even know what you have squashed, I guess you
forget that insects are also animals....
It was a young rattlesnake, .maybe a foot and a half long,
laying just a little to the side of the .trail. I stopped
about eight feet away, plotted a course around the .snake,
and went on my way. None of the death and mayhem that you
.predicted. On top of that, you rarely hear of a mountain
bike rider .being bitten by any sort of animal and dying.
Compare that to hikers, .most of whom don't carry the
right equipment when they go hiking. .What has a worse
impact on the fauna, a person passing through but not
.disturbing, or a person being attacked, be it in self-
defense or not, .and then having any number of humans
rushing around to get help? .Furthermore, as I said
earlier, it doesn't take nearly as much .attention to
control the bike as you seem to think—and even if it did,
.watching the trail is the most important aspect of
control (if you pay .more attention to trying to keeping
you balance then you shouldn't be .riding—you can't ride,
at all, period, without watching the trail .completely),
so even then how would we manage to miss something like
.an animal or bush on the trail?
You can't look right at the trail, or you will crash. Just
as a driver can't look down at the pavement.
.c. A hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid
getting wet, by .crossing on stepping stones or logs.
Mountain bikers, on the other .hand, simply .ride right
through the creek bed, crushing any animals or plants that
.happen to .be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
photos of mountain .bikers .throwing up spray, as they
barrel through creeks. .You got me there, pal. We sure do
kill all the aquatic life that has .already been trampled by
people crossing…
No, people don't walk through the water.
And gosh, you're right, .those horses are very careful
to pick their paths across streams so as .not to hurt
any animals…
Irrelevant.
.d. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far
as a hiker. .This .translates into several times the
impacts, both on the trail and on .the wildlife .(to say
nothing of the other trail users). Sure, except as I
.explained earlier, bikes don't impact, they roll, so the
motion while .in contact with the ground is zero.
When they roll, the knobs dig into the soil & rip it up.
Hikers and horses impact. Stay .with me, pal, you can do
it! .Existing parklands are already inadequate to protect
the wildlife that .live there. When they are crisscrossed
by mountain bikers and legal or .illegal trails, their
habitat becomes even more .inadequate. Mountain bikers
frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles .or more. .Have
you ever tried to walk that far in a day? Yes, I have tried
and .succeeded to walk that far in a day. People can easily
walk two miles .in twenty mintues. So, a 20-50 mile hike is
a day hike. Savvy?
So they never get tired? You are full of it.
On .top of that, you can't create new trails on a
mountain bike.
BS.
You have .to stick to ones already there, which translates:
the horrible bike .paths that mountain bikers use are
created by hikers. .e. Due to their width and speed, bikes
can't safely pass each other on .narrow trails. Therefore,
policies that permit mountain biking also .result in .more
habitat destruction, as trails are widened by bikers (or by
.hikers and .equestrians jumping out of their way). You're
just flat out wrong .there, funny-man. Do you know what the
width of a bike's handlebar .is? It's two inches longer
than most people's waist is wide. Not as .wide as most
people's shoulders, because it's uncomfortable and
.unstable if it is.
BS.
And what of the wheel width? Most trail bikes run .between
2.1" and 2.5" tires, considerably narrower than even a
single .human foot. So, your idea that somehow trails are
made wider by bikes .is bogus.
So the tracks I see off the trail are just in my
imagination? Liar.
And it's common knowledge, (Or maybe not, to you anyway)
.that when you encounter equestrians on the trail,
bicycles give way, .and when hikers encounter bicycles,
pedestrians give way. Most hikers .don't read the
brochures at Ranger stations and the like. Yet they
.complain anyway. .f. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal
for carrying mud, and .consequently .exotic plants and
fungi, from place to place, resulting in the spread .of
exotic .invasive species, such as weeds and Sudden Oak
Death. Gee, knobbys .carry mud? Down with the 4x4's,
motorcycles, hikers with hiking boots .on, walking sticks,
and anything else that carrys mud! Evil! The lot .of them!
.g. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off
of the trails .and .hence out of the parks. Even able-
bodied hikers and equestrians fear .for their .safety, and
don't enjoy sharing the trails with bikes. Again, pulling
.thoughts out of your head without a shred of evidence.
Even an .unofficial poll of people would be better than
just stupidly stating .that people fear to go into parks.
Don't cast your own paranoia on .the communities that have
to put up with your presence.
Many people have told me that, and I have seen the results.
(The mountain .bikers .claim that they are simply being
selfish and "unwilling to share", but .actually .they have
no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only
.their bikes .that are a problem!) Again we come back to
this problem of pulling .things out of your head; I don't
know a single mountain biker who .would make that argument,
and believe me I know many from all over the .world.
I have heard them do so many times.
Also, we encounter your earlier contradiction, so I'll say
.again: Mountain bikers without bikes aren't mountain
bikers, they're .hikers. Okay?
Liar.
.h. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go
anywhere, teach .children .and anyone else who sees them
that the rough treatment of nature is .acceptable. .This
undoubtedly has a negative effect on people's treatment of
.nature. Thank god for Ph.D.'s like you who can set our
youth back on .the straight and narrow! Wacko…. .i. In order
to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have been
.resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting
a plastic .matrix or .other exotic material under the trail
(e.g. in Pleasanton Ridge .Regional .Preserve, near
Pleasanton, California)! It's hard to imagine that this
.will have .a beneficial effect on the park and its
wildlife…. And it's also .fanciful thinking to believe or
argue that hiker and horse traffic .didn't play a major role
in the problems there.
They didn't. This has never been done to hiker- or
horse trails.
.3. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater
environmental .impact .than hiking. Is that true? If you
read the "studies" that make that .claim, you .find that
they don't really compare the impacts of hiking and
mountain .biking, .but only the impacts per foot. If, for a
moment, we assume that the .studies are .correct in their
having equivalent impacts per foot, it would still .follow
that .mountain biking has far greater impact per person,
since mountain .bikers .typically travel so much farther
than hikers. Here you go again! .I've explained earlier the
physics behind this, and how someone is .going to hike the
same distance that bikers ride, so this whole .argument is
bunk. Besides overlooking distances .travelled, those
"studies" almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And .they
don't .study mountain biking under normal conditions --
only at a very slow .speed. It's apparent that you don't
know what normal conditions are. .However, since yet again
you don't elaborate, it's not worth creating .a whole set
of things you might have said so that I can refute them. .
.4. Where should mountain biking allowed? Obviously, in a
sustainable .and low impact environment. A model for this
is in Wales, try doing a .google search for Dafydd Davis.
Unsupported arguments and fanatical .frenzy are not a good
way to make public policy. .A couple of role models for
wildlife protection are Yosemite National .Park and East
Bay Municipal Utility District (in Alameda and Contra
.Costa counties, California). They both restrict bicycles
.to paved roads, where they can't do much harm. Somehow
bicyclists have .managed .to enjoy their sport for over a
hundred years, without riding .off-road. You wrote this
entire article, and forgot that you're .writing about
mountain bikes?
No.
.5. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes,
unless marked .open. .Signs that say "No Bikes" are
quickly and repeatedly ripped out of the .ground by
.mountain bikers. I agree, except on your contention that
bikers are .vandals.
It's true. I have seen it several times.
I also think this policy should apply to equestrians,
.because I'm sick of tip-toeing through horse piles when I
go hiking. . .6. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers
and equestrians on trails, .but not .mountain bikers? Yes,
and if you look at those studies that you so .lovingly
mislead readers about, you would understand why. Mountain
.bikers love to tell this lie, apparently because they
.think it will gain them some sympathy. Sure thing, bud.
The truth is .that mountain bikers have .exactly the same
access to trails that everyone else has! It is only .their
bikes .that are banned. If mountain bikers were really
being discriminated .against, .they could easily go to
court to gain access. But we don't find it .that much of
an issue. Why do you continue to fight when you are
.wrong? And more and more studies are showing that you are
wrong? And .why do you continue to not see the ridiculous
puzzle of having .mountain bikers with no bikes? They are
hikers, you silly guy! . .7. Don't I have a right to
mountain bike on all public lands? I am a .taxpayer! Yes!
However…. .The public has the right, through its elected
representatives, to .restrict how .land is used. As you
say. A federal court has already ruled that .there is no
right to .mountain bike. It is a privilege, and any land
manager who gives a .good reason .(such as safety or
protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of .trails
(see .
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm). . .8.
Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail
construction .and trail .maintenance? Trail construction
destroys wildlife habitat both .directly (by .killing
plants and animals) and indirectly (by reducing the size
of .the .intervening "islands" of habitat). Indeed we do,
and what you are .deliberately neglecting is that hiking
and particularly equestrian .trails take far more
maintenance and construction due to the more .destructive
nature of the forces upon it. Moreover, mountain bikers
.favor trails that .are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and
full of obstacles that provide .thrills for .mountain
bikers. Again, you're wrong, you're not a rider, it's
.foolish for you to make pronouncements as to what riders
like and .dislike. Please read again my response to item
1.c . Such designs .increase habitat destruction (by
lengthening the .trail) and make the trails less useful
for hikers and equestrians. .Trail .maintenance sounds
good, until you realize that it would hardly be
.necessary, if .bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain
bikers are the main reason .why trail .maintenance is
necessary! Trails used only by hikers require hardly .any
.maintenance. Fanciful thinking. You're no Ph.D. Nor are
you even .aware of what maintenance goes in to hiking
trails, much less .hiking-equestrian trails. Therefore,
admitting bicycles to a park .greatly increases its cost
of maintenance. Nothing is really "free", .including trail
construction and .maintenance. (How does the saying go?
"Beware of Trojans bearing .gifts"?) Vegitarians eat
vegetables. Beware of humanitarians. . .9. But don't
mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to
.quickly .summon help in the event of an emergency? I
would rather trust in a .cell phone, .than a speeding
mountain biker. Of course you would, so that fifteen .more
people can trample through nature to rescue you. Besides,
.natural areas are already one of the .safest places you
can be. In over 50 years of hiking and backpacking, .I
have .never witnessed any situation requiring emergency
aid. Most people go .to natural .areas partly for
solitude. As do mountain bikers my friend. As do we .all.
If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces of
.machinery, we would stay in the city! From the sound of
it, you spend .most of your time in the city and not
enough time around the things .that you argue against.
Where is your study on the erosion caused by .bicycles
relative to equestrians and hikers? If the common sense
.answer and the many studies done on the issue aren't
enough for you, .why haven't you posted your own results
instead of an attempt to sound .authoritative in which you
ended up looking rather foolish? Please, .don't
misunderstand me. I'm a supporter of what you're trying to
do, .and I agree that humanity has a huge, most likely
irreparable impact .on nature. However, I think that to
advocate the end of biking .without supporting similar
limitation to ALL human excursions into .nature is a
foolish and biased approach to a problem that most bikers
.understand and appreciate more fully than any other
singular group of .outdoorsmen. Like I said, get out there
and find out what you're even .fighting for, and stop
wasting people's time with baseless arguments.
Yawn.
.mrwizard . .=== .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 .Post a follow-up to
this message
===
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
