How Mountain Bikers "Enjoy Nature"

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:19:48 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message .news:[email protected]... .> Jeff Strickland
wrote: .> .> >>We aren't talking about impact per mile. All existing research says that .> >> .> >>
.> >they .> > .> > .> >>are the same. But impact PER USER is greater for mountain bikers. .> >> .>
>> .> >> .> > .> >Impact per mile is the accepted method of measuring impact. If we used an .>
>impact per user scale, then hikers that travel long distances could .easily .> >have a larger
impact than a biker that traveled a small distance. A group .of .> >people that hike 25 miles into
the wilderness would easily do more harm .than .> >two guys that ride a bike for five miles. Impact
per user is an invalid .> >measurement, the real discussion is impact per mile. And, since much of
.the .> >bikepath system is on hardpack, the impact per mile or the impact per .user .> >could
easily be less than the impact per user of a foot path where the .> >ground is softer. .> > .> > .>
> .> > .> > .> >> Besides, you said that the issue is that animals can .> >>.smell people on bikes,
but not on foot. .> >> .> >>BS. They can smell people either way. .> >> .> >> .> > .> >Yes, but your
agenda is only to ban people on bikes, animals can smell .> >people regardless of the mode of
transportation. .> > .> > .> > .> > .> > .> > .> > .> Jeff, .> .> You're pouring sand down a hole. A
really deeeeeeeeep hole. Keep in mind .> the zealotry behind "pure environment." The hate &
irrationality of that .> one phrase alone........ .> .> Pete H . . .That may be true, but I feel
compelled to expose his lies and ignorance at .every opportunity, even if it wears my fingers down
to bloody stumps ... . .His is a voice that must never drown out the voices of reason.

Too bad you haven't been able to "expose" ANYTHING. You know, some people are better off keeping
their mouth shut. You are one of them. You can't possibly do your cause any good, by LYING. You just
keep digging yourself in deeper.
===
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]

On 19 Mar 2003 09:01:35 -0800, [email protected] (Spider) wrote:

."Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... .>
"PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message . .> > > .> > Jeff, .> > .> > You're pouring sand down
a hole. A really deeeeeeeeep hole. Keep in mind .> > the zealotry behind "pure environment." The
hate & irrationality of that .> > one phrase alone........ .> > .> > Pete H .> .> .> That may be
true, but I feel compelled to expose his lies and ignorance at .> every opportunity, even if it
wears my fingers down to bloody stumps ... .> .> His is a voice that must never drown out the voices
of reason. . .Oh, it's fun to play around with it, but that's not productive in any .way. Sorta like
masturbation. . .MV reveals himself to be a wild-eyed mental case by his own writings, .and I
don't think that very many people take him seriously. Even the .folks *he thinks* take him seriously
are just humoring him, I suspect.
. There are misguided zealots everywhere you turn, and all you can do .is keep the bike on the
trail, and be polite to the other users. By .force of goodwill, we will render his raving moot,

Too bad you can't manage to demonstrate even a SHRED of goodwill here. Or anywhere else. Mountain
bikers are NOTORIOUS for riding roughshod over everyone in their path. Lying and pretending such
people don't exist won't get you very far.

and all his .trolling in a.m-b just a waste of electrons.

You are lying again. If that were true, you wouldn't be trying so hard (in vain) to refute me! For
example, you STILL have yet to find even ONE statement of mine that is incorrect. Not ONE!

.Spider

===
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]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:15:39 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. .> .> Oh, it's fun to play around with it, but that's not productive in any .> way. Sorta like
masturbation. .> .> MV reveals himself to be a wild-eyed mental case by his own writings, .> and
I don't think that very many people take him seriously. Even the .> folks *he thinks* take him
seriously are just humoring him, I suspect. .> There are misguided zealots everywhere you turn, and
all you can do .> is keep the bike on the trail, and be polite to the other users. By .> force of
goodwill, we will render his raving moot, and all his .> trolling in a.m-b just a waste of
electrons. .> .> Spider . .My interest is in driving my Jeep, and I have never encounter a hiker
that I .****** off with my fumes, smoke and dust. Indeed, most of the hikers I have .encountered on
the trail enjoyed the show that I (we) put on. Mike is a .loon, no question. What I fear is that
Mike, and other loons like him, have .the ear and hearts of our legislators, and we face an ever
widening system .of gates and fences.

It isn't just me. MOST people hate to see vehicles of any kind where pristine nature is supposed
to be. Flail all you want, but we will NEVER accept you environmental rapists destroying
innocent wildlife.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:15:39 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . .> .> Oh, it's fun to play around with it, but that's not productive in any .> way. Sorta like
> masturbation. .> .> MV reveals himself to be a wild-eyed mental case by his own writings, .>
> and I don't think that very many people take him seriously. Even the .> folks *he thinks* take him
> seriously are just humoring him, I suspect. .> There are misguided zealots everywhere you turn,
> and all you can do .> is keep the bike on the trail, and be polite to the other users. By .> force
> of goodwill, we will render his raving moot, and all his .> trolling in a.m-b just a waste of
> electrons. .> .> Spider . .My interest is in driving my Jeep, and I have never encounter a hiker
that I
> .****** off with my fumes, smoke and dust. Indeed, most of the hikers I
have
> .encountered on the trail enjoyed the show that I (we) put on. Mike is a .loon, no question. What
> I fear is that Mike, and other loons like him,
have
> .the ear and hearts of our legislators, and we face an ever widening
system
> .of gates and fences.
>
> It isn't just me. MOST people hate to see vehicles of any kind where
pristine
> nature is supposed to be. Flail all you want, but we will NEVER accept you environmental rapists
> destroying innocent wildlife.

I accept the notion that nobody likes a rapist, but most vehicle traffic is not in pristine habitat,
it is in habitat that already has a route that has been there for decades, sometimes over a century.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:48:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:38:58 -0800, "Jeff
> Strickland" .<[email protected]> .> wrote: .> .> .I just noticed after a week that Mike
> completely ignored the important .> .points and keyed in on the least significant part of the
> discussion. .> .> Such as that mountain bikers have greater impacts per person than
hikers?
> .> .> .That shouldn't surprise me, I suppose. His agenda is insignificant
from
> .an .> .environemtnal perspective, yet devistating from a public access point
of
> .> .view. .> .> You make no sense. Mountain bikers have EXACTLY the same access as .everyone .>
> else. . .Not if you get your way.
>
> Regardless. The EXACT same rules apply to mountain bikers as to everyone
else,
> so there's no way you can claim to be "discriminated against". That's
OBVIOUS to
> everyone but you.

Regardless??? Your stated agenda it to change the rules! That is obvious to everyone but you, and
you are the one changing the rules.

I used to think you were an idiot, now I know it for certain.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:55:50 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .> We aren't talking about impact per mile. All existing research says
that
> .they .> are the same. But impact PER USER is greater for mountain bikers. .> . .Impact per mile
> is the accepted method of measuring impact. If we used an .impact per user scale, then hikers that
> travel long distances could
easily
> .have a larger impact than a biker that traveled a small distance.
>
> That's comparing apples and oranges. A good orange and a ROTTEN apple. You
and I
> both know that bikers travel several times as far as hikers. That's why
bikers
> are always whining that they want more trails: they USE UP the ones they
have
> access to, and get bored with them. I have NEVER heard a hiker complain
about
> not having enough trails.
>
> A group of .people that hike 25 miles into the wilderness would easily do more harm
than
> .two guys that ride a bike for five miles.
>
> Then you should stay on paved roads, so that you do NO damage to the
trails.
>

Why should hikers have sole access to public lands. Maybe if you stayed on the sidewalk, the trails
would be less crowded.

BTW, your comment here does not even approach addressing the issue.

> Impact per user is an invalid .measurement, the real discussion is impact per mile. And, since
> much of
the
> .bikepath system is on hardpack, the impact per mile or the impact per
user
> .could easily be less than the impact per user of a foot path where the .ground is softer.
>
> Good. Stay on pavement!
>

Again, total avoidance of the issue.

> .> Besides, you said that the issue is that animals can .> .smell people on bikes, but not on
> foot. .> .> BS. They can smell people either way. . .Yes, but your agenda is only to ban people
> on bikes,
>
> You are LYING. No one has ever asked for a ban on people, only BIKES. DUH!
>

But, when a biker is not on his bike, he is a hiker. If a person is walking, he is hiking, if a
person is riding, he is a biker, if a person is driving, he is a driver. Do you even begin to grasp
the concept?

Your own statement is that bears can smell a biker a mile away, and nobody disputes it (we wonder
what it has to do with anything, but we don't dispute
it), but you seem to say that the bear can't smell the the hiker, or doesn't care about the hiker --
either of these positions if false.

So, your agend is to ban people on bikes. It actually helps to read all of the words ...

> animals can smell .people regardless of the mode of transportation.
>
> Of course, although mountain bikers stink even before they get on a bike.

That is just plain rude and well below your claimed intellect. It seems to be on par with your
actual intellect, but it is still well below the intellect you claim to have. And, it is false. So
you are lying.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 19 Mar 2003 09:01:35 -0800, [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>
> ."Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> .> "PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message . .> > > .> > Jeff, .> > .> > You're pouring sand
> down a hole. A really deeeeeeeeep hole. Keep in
mind
> .> > the zealotry behind "pure environment." The hate & irrationality of
that
> .> > one phrase alone........ .> > .> > Pete H .> .> .> That may be true, but I feel compelled to
> expose his lies and ignorance
at
> .> every opportunity, even if it wears my fingers down to bloody stumps
...
> .> .> His is a voice that must never drown out the voices of reason. . .Oh, it's fun to play
> around with it, but that's not productive in any .way. Sorta like masturbation. . .MV reveals
> himself to be a wild-eyed mental case by his own writings, .and I don't think that very many
> people take him seriously. Even the .folks *he thinks* take him seriously are just humoring him, I
> suspect.
> . There are misguided zealots everywhere you turn, and all you can do .is keep the bike on the
> trail, and be polite to the other users. By .force of goodwill, we will render his raving moot,
>
> Too bad you can't manage to demonstrate even a SHRED of goodwill here. Or anywhere else. Mountain
> bikers are NOTORIOUS for riding roughshod over
everyone
> in their path. Lying and pretending such people don't exist won't get you
very
> far.
>

I am not a moutnain biker, and I am loaded with goodwill. I NEVER (and I hate to use absolute
words such as "never") ride roughshod over everyone -- not to mention "anyone" -- in my path. I
do not pretend that such people do not exist, I only pretend that your approach to deal with them
is flawed.

> and all his .trolling in a.m-b just a waste of electrons.
>
> You are lying again. If that were true, you wouldn't be trying so hard (in
vain)
> to refute me! For example, you STILL have yet to find even ONE statement
of mine
> that is incorrect. Not ONE!
>

Actually, it is common for reasonable people to rise agains the shrill voice of unreason.

You have made many statements that are not correct. One, you say that bikes are bad because bears
can smell a bike rider a mile away, but you allow hiking -- as if hikers can not be smelled by
bears. This is a false notion.

Another is that a factual matter is that your goal will protect a mere .0009% of habitat. Let's
say that my estimation is off by a factor of 10, your stated goal is still able to protect less
than 0.009%.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:19:48 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . ."PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message .news:[email protected]... .> Jeff
> Strickland wrote: .> .> >>We aren't talking about impact per mile. All existing research says
that
> .> >> .> >> .> >they .> > .> > .> >>are the same. But impact PER USER is greater for mountain
> bikers. .> >> .> >> .> >> .> > .> >Impact per mile is the accepted method of measuring impact.
> If we used
an
> .> >impact per user scale, then hikers that travel long distances could .easily .> >have a larger
> impact than a biker that traveled a small distance. A
group
> .of .> >people that hike 25 miles into the wilderness would easily do more
harm
> .than .> >two guys that ride a bike for five miles. Impact per user is an
invalid
> .> >measurement, the real discussion is impact per mile. And, since much
of
> .the .> >bikepath system is on hardpack, the impact per mile or the impact per .user .> >could
> easily be less than the impact per user of a foot path where the .> >ground is softer. .> > .> >
> .> > .> > .> > .> >> Besides, you said that the issue is that animals can .> >>.smell people on
> bikes, but not on foot. .> >> .> >>BS. They can smell people either way. .> >> .> >> .> > .> >Yes,
> but your agenda is only to ban people on bikes, animals can smell .> >people regardless of the
> mode of transportation. .> > .> > .> > .> > .> > .> > .> > .> Jeff, .> .> You're pouring sand down
> a hole. A really deeeeeeeeep hole. Keep in
mind
> .> the zealotry behind "pure environment." The hate & irrationality of
that
> .> one phrase alone........ .> .> Pete H . . .That may be true, but I feel compelled to expose his
> lies and ignorance
at
> .every opportunity, even if it wears my fingers down to bloody stumps ... . .His is a voice that
> must never drown out the voices of reason.
>
> Too bad you haven't been able to "expose" ANYTHING. You know, some people
are
> better off keeping their mouth shut. You are one of them. You can't
possibly do
> your cause any good, by LYING. You just keep digging yourself in deeper.

What? You sir, have dilusions of granduer. You have told substantially more lies on this board
than I have.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:17:23 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Jeff Strickland wrote: . .>>We aren't talking about impact per mile. All existing research says
that
> .>> .>> .>they .> .> .>>are the same. But impact PER USER is greater for mountain bikers. .>> .>>
> .>> .> .>Impact per mile is the accepted method of measuring impact. If we used
an
> .>impact per user scale, then hikers that travel long distances could
easily
> .>have a larger impact than a biker that traveled a small distance. A
group of
> .>people that hike 25 miles into the wilderness would easily do more harm
than
> .>two guys that ride a bike for five miles. Impact per user is an invalid .>measurement, the real
> discussion is impact per mile. And, since much of
the
> .>bikepath system is on hardpack, the impact per mile or the impact per
user
> .>could easily be less than the impact per user of a foot path where the .>ground is softer. .> .>
> .> .> .> .>> Besides, you said that the issue is that animals can .>>.smell people on bikes, but
> not on foot. .>> .>>BS. They can smell people either way. .>> .>> .> .>Yes, but your agenda is
> only to ban people on bikes, animals can smell .>people regardless of the mode of transportation.
> .> .> .> .> .> .> .> .Jeff, . .You're pouring sand down a hole. A really deeeeeeeeep hole. Keep in
> mind .the zealotry behind "pure environment." The hate & irrationality of that .one phrase
> alone........
>
> Whose phrase is that? You are the only person I have ever heard say that.
And
> you obviously exemplify hate and irrationality.

Your entire demeanor is hate and irrationality. You are indeed a zealot by every definition of the
word, with the possible exception of your own.

 

[James Connell]

PLONK!

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:22:25 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On 19 Mar 2003 09:01:35 -0800,
[email protected] (Spider) wrote: .> .> ."Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:<[email protected]>... .> .> "PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message .> .
.> .> > > .> .> > Jeff, .> .> > .> .> > You're pouring sand down a hole. A really deeeeeeeeep hole.
Keep in .mind .> .> > the zealotry behind "pure environment." The hate & irrationality of .that .>
.> > one phrase alone........ .> .> > .> .> > Pete H .> .> .> .> .> .> That may be true, but I feel
compelled to expose his lies and ignorance .at .> .> every opportunity, even if it wears my fingers
down to bloody stumps .... .> .> .> .> His is a voice that must never drown out the voices of
reason. .> . .> .Oh, it's fun to play around with it, but that's not productive in any .> .way.
Sorta like masturbation. .> . .> .MV reveals himself to be a wild-eyed mental case by his own
writings, .> .and I don't think that very many people take him seriously. Even the .> .folks *he
thinks* take him seriously are just humoring him, I suspect. .> . There are misguided zealots
everywhere you turn, and all you can do .> .is keep the bike on the trail, and be polite to the
other users. By .> .force of goodwill, we will render his raving moot, .> .> Too bad you can't
manage to demonstrate even a SHRED of goodwill here. Or .> anywhere else. Mountain bikers are
NOTORIOUS for riding roughshod over .everyone .> in their path. Lying and pretending such people
don't exist won't get you .very .> far. .> . .I am not a moutnain biker, and I am loaded with
goodwill. I NEVER (and I .hate to use absolute words such as "never") ride roughshod over everyone
-- .not to mention "anyone" -- in my path. I do not pretend that such people do .not exist, I only
pretend that your approach to deal with them is flawed. . . . .> and all his .> .trolling in a.m-b
just a waste of electrons. .> .> You are lying again. If that were true, you wouldn't be trying so
hard (in .vain) .> to refute me! For example, you STILL have yet to find even ONE statement .of mine
.> that is incorrect. Not ONE! .> . .Actually, it is common for reasonable people to rise agains the
shrill voice .of unreason. . .You have made many statements that are not correct. One, you say that
bikes .are bad because bears can smell a bike rider a mile away, but you allow .hiking -- as if
hikers can not be smelled by bears. This is a false notion.

The only thing that's false is your characerization of my position. I said that human presence
should be minimized, and that the best way to do that is to ban bikes. Keep on lying. You are
helping me no end.

===
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]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:24:04 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:19:48 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> ."PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
.news:[email protected]... .> .> Jeff Strickland wrote: .> .> .> .> >>We aren't talking about
impact per mile. All existing research says .that .> .> >> .> .> >> .> .> >they .> .> > .> .> > .>
.> >>are the same. But impact PER USER is greater for mountain bikers. .> .> >> .> .> >> .> .> >> .>
.> > .> .> >Impact per mile is the accepted method of measuring impact. If we used .an .> .> >impact
per user scale, then hikers that travel long distances could .> .easily .> .> >have a larger impact
than a biker that traveled a small distance. A .group .> .of .> .> >people that hike 25 miles into
the wilderness would easily do more .harm .> .than .> .> >two guys that ride a bike for five miles.
Impact per user is an .invalid .> .> >measurement, the real discussion is impact per mile. And,
since much .of .> .the .> .> >bikepath system is on hardpack, the impact per mile or the impact per
.> .user .> .> >could easily be less than the impact per user of a foot path where the .> .> >ground
is softer. .> .> > .> .> > .> .> > .> .> > .> .> > .> .> >> Besides, you said that the issue is that
animals can .> .> >>.smell people on bikes, but not on foot. .> .> >> .> .> >>BS. They can smell
people either way. .> .> >> .> .> >> .> .> > .> .> >Yes, but your agenda is only to ban people on
bikes, animals can smell .> .> >people regardless of the mode of transportation. .> .> > .> .> > .>
.> > .> .> > .> .> > .> .> > .> .> > .> .> Jeff, .> .> .> .> You're pouring sand down a hole. A
really deeeeeeeeep hole. Keep in .mind .> .> the zealotry behind "pure environment." The hate &
irrationality of .that .> .> one phrase alone........ .> .> .> .> Pete H .> . .> . .> .That may be
true, but I feel compelled to expose his lies and ignorance .at .> .every opportunity, even if it
wears my fingers down to bloody stumps ... .> . .> .His is a voice that must never drown out the
voices of reason. .> .> Too bad you haven't been able to "expose" ANYTHING. You know, some people
.are .> better off keeping their mouth shut. You are one of them. You can't .possibly do .> your
cause any good, by LYING. You just keep digging yourself in deeper. . . .What? You sir, have
dilusions of granduer. You have told substantially more .lies on this board than I have.

Very funny, since you haven't been able to describe even ONE!
===
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]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:15:26 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:15:39 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> .> .> .> Oh, it's fun to play around with it, but
that's not productive in any .> .> way. Sorta like masturbation. .> .> .> .> MV reveals himself
to be a wild-eyed mental case by his own writings, .> .> and I don't think that very many people
take him seriously. Even the .> .> folks *he thinks* take him seriously are just humoring him, I
suspect. .> .> There are misguided zealots everywhere you turn, and all you can do .> .> is keep the
bike on the trail, and be polite to the other users. By .> .> force of goodwill, we will render his
raving moot, and all his .> .> trolling in a.m-b just a waste of electrons. .> .> .> .> Spider .> .
.> .My interest is in driving my Jeep, and I have never encounter a hiker .that I .> .****** off
with my fumes, smoke and dust. Indeed, most of the hikers I .have .> .encountered on the trail
enjoyed the show that I (we) put on. Mike is a .> .loon, no question. What I fear is that Mike, and
other loons like him, .have .> .the ear and hearts of our legislators, and we face an ever widening
.system .> .of gates and fences. .> .> It isn't just me. MOST people hate to see vehicles of any
kind where .pristine .> nature is supposed to be. Flail all you want, but we will NEVER accept you
.> environmental rapists destroying innocent wildlife. . . .I accept the notion that nobody likes a
rapist, but most vehicle traffic is .not in pristine habitat, it is in habitat that already has a
route that has .been there for decades, sometimes over a century.

which, on an evolutionary scale, is NOTHING.
===
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]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:34:29 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news[email protected]... .> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:55:50 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> .> We aren't talking about impact per mile. All existing
research says .that .> .they .> .> are the same. But impact PER USER is greater for mountain bikers.
.> .> .> . .> .Impact per mile is the accepted method of measuring impact. If we used an .> .impact
per user scale, then hikers that travel long distances could .easily .> .have a larger impact than a
biker that traveled a small distance. .> .> That's comparing apples and oranges. A good orange and a
ROTTEN apple. You .and I .> both know that bikers travel several times as far as hikers. That's why
.bikers .> are always whining that they want more trails: they USE UP the ones they .have .> access
to, and get bored with them. I have NEVER heard a hiker complain .about .> not having enough trails.
.> .> A group of .> .people that hike 25 miles into the wilderness would easily do more harm .than
.> .two guys that ride a bike for five miles. .> .> Then you should stay on paved roads, so that you
do NO damage to the .trails. .> . .Why should hikers have sole access to public lands.

Stop LYING. NO ONE has ever proposed such a thing.

.> .> Besides, you said that the issue is that animals can .> .> .smell people on bikes, but not on
foot. .> .> .> .> BS. They can smell people either way. .> . .> .Yes, but your agenda is only to ban
people on bikes, .> .> You are LYING. No one has ever asked for a ban on people, only BIKES. DUH! .>
. .But, when a biker is not on his bike, he is a hiker. If a person is walking, .he is hiking, if a
person is riding, he is a biker, if a person is driving, .he is a driver. Do you even begin to grasp
the concept?

But nobody ever bans bikers, only bikes.

.Your own statement is that bears can smell a biker a mile away, and nobody .disputes it (we wonder
what it has to do with anything, but we don't dispute .it), but you seem to say that the bear can't
smell the the hiker, or doesn't .care about the hiker -- either of these positions if false.

You are LYING again. I never said that, of course.

.So, your agend is to ban people on bikes. It actually helps to read all of .the words ...

No, it isn't. Only bikes. It doesn't matter if a human is on it or not!

.> animals can smell .> .people regardless of the mode of transportation. .> .> Of course, although
mountain bikers stink even before they get on a bike. . . .That is just plain rude and well below
your claimed intellect. It seems to .be on par with your actual intellect, but it is still well
below the .intellect you claim to have. And, it is false. So you are lying.

Just telling the truth. Environmental rapists stink.
===
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

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> .What? You sir, have dilusions of granduer. You have told substantially
more
> .lies on this board than I have.
>
> Very funny, since you haven't been able to describe even ONE!

You want an unsubstantiated lie that you repeatedly spread? How about the idea that mere visitation
of a person to a backcountry area destroys that area. That is a lie.

How about the lie that you repeatedly tell wherin you claim that bears can smell a bike rider up to
a mile away, but infer that the same bear will not smell a hiker.

How about the lie that you tell that says only bicycle tires cause trail erosion.

Three lies directly from yoru keyboard, not once, not twice, but multiple times over years of
ranting. I welcome the opportunity to defend my lies, if you can find one.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:34:29 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news[email protected]... .> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:55:50 -0800,
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> .> We aren't talking about impact per mile.
> All existing research says .that .> .they .> .> are the same. But impact PER USER is greater
> for mountain bikers. .> .> .> . .> .Impact per mile is the accepted method of measuring impact.
> If we used
an
> .> .impact per user scale, then hikers that travel long distances could .easily .> .have a larger
> impact than a biker that traveled a small distance. .> .> That's comparing apples and oranges. A
> good orange and a ROTTEN apple.
You
> .and I .> both know that bikers travel several times as far as hikers. That's why .bikers .> are
> always whining that they want more trails: they USE UP the ones
they
> .have .> access to, and get bored with them. I have NEVER heard a hiker complain .about .> not
> having enough trails. .> .> A group of .> .people that hike 25 miles into the wilderness would
> easily do more
harm
> .than .> .two guys that ride a bike for five miles. .> .> Then you should stay on paved roads, so
> that you do NO damage to the .trails. .> . .Why should hikers have sole access to public lands.
>
> Stop LYING. NO ONE has ever proposed such a thing.

Excuse me! But, that is the jist of every post you have ever posted on
ca.environment.

I am sorry, I am lying again, you will let bike riders into the forest if they leave the bikes on
the bike rack. What an elitist position!

>
> .> .> Besides, you said that the issue is that animals can .> .> .smell people on bikes, but
> not on foot. .> .> .> .> BS. They can smell people either way. .> . .> .Yes, but your agenda is
> only to ban people on bikes, .> .> You are LYING. No one has ever asked for a ban on people,
> only BIKES.
DUH!
> .> . .But, when a biker is not on his bike, he is a hiker. If a person is
walking,
> .he is hiking, if a person is riding, he is a biker, if a person is
driving,
> .he is a driver. Do you even begin to grasp the concept?
>
> But nobody ever bans bikers, only bikes.
>

When you force the bike rider to leave the bike at home, you are banning bikers because you are
turning them into a different class of recreational user. Banning bikes and banning bikers is the
exact same thing, except in the New Vandeman Moronic Dictionary, where any word can have a different
meaning than the entire rest of the universe accepts.

> .Your own statement is that bears can smell a biker a mile away, and
nobody
> .disputes it (we wonder what it has to do with anything, but we don't
dispute
> .it), but you seem to say that the bear can't smell the the hiker, or
doesn't
> .care about the hiker -- either of these positions if false.
>
> You are LYING again. I never said that, of course.
>

You are the one saying that bears can smell a biker, so we should exclude bikers from the area.
You never say that bears can smell hikers, therefore hikers should be allowed to enter. Your
words, not mine.

> .So, your agend is to ban people on bikes. It actually helps to read all
of
> .the words ...
>
> No, it isn't. Only bikes. It doesn't matter if a human is on it or not!
>
> .> animals can smell .> .people regardless of the mode of transportation. .> .> Of course,
> although mountain bikers stink even before they get on a
bike.
> . . .That is just plain rude and well below your claimed intellect. It seems
to
> .be on par with your actual intellect, but it is still well below the .intellect you claim to
> have. And, it is false. So you are lying.
>
> Just telling the truth. Environmental rapists stink.

Your truth is twisted lies. You make unsubstaniated staements, then deny it later.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> .I accept the notion that nobody likes a rapist, but most vehicle traffic
is
> .not in pristine habitat, it is in habitat that already has a route that
has
> .been there for decades, sometimes over a century.
>
> which, on an evolutionary scale, is NOTHING.

So?

For such a learned man, you sure have very little to say. You repeatedly refuse to engage in
conversation, which is the sign of lunatic fringe elements with virtually no valid data to support
your position.

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> .You have made many statements that are not correct. One, you say that
bikes
> .are bad because bears can smell a bike rider a mile away, but you allow .hiking -- as if hikers
> can not be smelled by bears. This is a false
notion.
>
> The only thing that's false is your characerization of my position. I said
that
> human presence should be minimized, and that the best way to do that is to
ban
> bikes. Keep on lying. You are helping me no end.
>

How does banning bikes reduce human presence? If the people that ride bikes are still allowed to
visit, how it the human presence minimized? Only the metal presence is minimized by your position,
not human presence.

Agani, you have said that bears can smell a biker a mile away, as if the same bear can not smell a
hiker. You suggest that if the bike were not involved, the bear would not smell anything. This is
false, and you know it, therefore, you are lying.

 

[The Turk]

Mike and Jeff:
Why don't you guys get married already?

 

[Mr. E. Mann]

How can you type with your head so far up you ass?

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

> On 19 Feb 2003 06:19:40 -0800, [email protected] (John) wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>... .> On 18 Feb 2003
> 06:13:36 -0800, [email protected] (John) wrote: .> .> .Why do you care how someone else enjoys
> their life? Mind your own business. .> .> Protecting wildlife from environmental rapists
> like mountin bikers IS my .> business. .> .snip . . .I suppose that makes you another
> irresponsible corporate monster. . .Now that the flame is out of the way. Let me say that
> from my own .experience, plain ole walking trails are responsibe for the .destruction of
> much more acreage than mountain bikers,
>
> Impossible, since mountain bikers travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR AND AS FAST as hikers. Thus, they
> destroy SEVERAL TIMES as much habitat.
>
> or even .motorcycles ever have. Should we keep everyone out of the woods? . .John
>
>===
> 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