M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
Thu, 19 Dec 2002:
From: Bob Michaels <[email protected]>
Subject: IMBA: Controling our numbers
At 12:32 PM 12/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Something like "Be prepared for over crowded areas and have alternatives."
Florida has some very heavily used trail systems in addition to some very
lightly used trail systems. Certainly a different character to each but both are
fun. The most popular trail system in the SE US is Oleta River State Park in
downtown Miami Beach with over 100,000 documented users a year. Yet, it's great
fun even if only about 15 miles of trail. And there's a similar trail at Markum
Park in Ft. Lauderdale. Some people think I'm crazy to occasionally drive 180
miles to ride a mountain bike in Miami Beach when we have so many great trails
nearby but it's worth it.
Bob Michaels
Apopka FL
From: Ken B <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Regional Trails -- Yet ANOTHER Network of Destroyed Habitat
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:22:52 -0500
Personally, I don't care if bears are disrupted. Why should I? Same
goes for deer, squirrels, mice and, of course, hikers. See, I have
just as much right, as an inhabitant of this planet and so long as
that use is within the parameters of the law, to use its resources as
I see fit. Bears, squirrels, mice and hikers be damned. This is one of
the advantages of being at the top of the food chain -- everything
else either has to adapt to us being there or die. If they opt for
death, well, that's natural selection, isn't it.
I mean, it can easily be said that Bear 'A' is disrupting ME.
As for erosion... clearly he's clueless. The amount of erosion damage,
regardless of the cause, that can be done to the environment from a
trail is negligible. Period. Really, how much land, in sq. miles, are
we talking about across the world, that is tied up in trails? Not a
whole lot, I would guess. Maybe something like 10,000. Probably less.
If every one of those trails seriously eroded down to bedrock it still
wouldn't cause mass extinction (or even any extinction) or destroy
habitat or cause hurricanes in Russia. It just wouldn't and Mike knows
this. The fact of the matter is that it just doesn't matter that much.
WE care because we need to make sure that nut cases like Mike don't
get their exclusionary policies enacted. Fortunately, that's easily
accomplished by providing readily available studies showing that there
is no significant damage caused by biking. But to the rest of the
world, it really doesn't matter. Even if we ended up with another
Grand Canyon -- would that be all that bad?
Besides, Mike does more damage to the environment tearing up corn
fields in his Chevy Tahoe with leather interior than any of us do on
the trails.
Sun, 1 Dec 2002:
From: "Fish" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: ladies and gentlemen, let's stop it
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.104.204.218
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net 1038702250 213.104.204.218 (Sun, 01 Dec
2002 00:24:10 GMT)
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 03:44:33 GMT, "carlos" <[email protected]> wrote:
> .He 's gotten more space here latelly than j lo & affleck in the press, so
> .let's stop it, dont reply, just stop it.
> Sorry, mountain bikers don't listen to ANYONE, including other mountain
bikers
I Think a bullet in his head would help me Im just satified with the
knoledge that if he keeps on lying like he does sumone will kill him for me
Stephen Tye
Sun, 24 Nov 2002:
To: Ron Georg <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SPAM: RE: IMBA: This commercial is bad for mountain biking
Ron, I am an archaeologist for the US Forest Service, and an avid mt.
biker. Thanks for your words. I hadn't even noticed the ad in my copy of Dirt
Rag! In my professional capacity, I am constantly monitoring the effects human
behavior has on archaeological resources. What recreational activities damage
them, and how can that damage be mitigated? As an advocate of our sport in the
Recreation section of our forest, I must at times painfully admit that
irresponsible mt. biking can damage fragile resources (as can horses, ATV's
timber harvesting, etc). And all too often, protecting these resources is an
uphill battle. Over the last 20 years I have developed an excellent working
relationship with the managers on my forest. They respect my opinion and look
very favorably on mountain biking, in general. However, it is ads such as this,
if they were to see it, that could have a very negative influence on their
perception of our sport. I hope the Red Bull folks can realize how damaging that
ad can be. It looks to be on an actual site, not a Hollywood set. It is, indeed,
a VERY unfortunate advertisement, and does NOTHING to help promote our sport.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Mark Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Georg
To: [email protected]
Sent: 11/23/02 10:43:35 PM
Subject: Re: SPAM: RE: IMBA: This
commercial is bad for mountain biking
Howdy, all--
I don't receive any television transmissions (we're a video-only
household),
so I haven't seen the commercial. However, I get the drift from your
descriptions. So I also got a huge dose of irony when I turned to page 76
of
issue 97 of Dirt Rag, the only mag that really concerns itself with
advocacy. For those of you who haven't seen the mag, the photo is
propoganda
from some trials promoters (Red Bull Communications provided the
images),
and it features a rider bunny-hopping onto a pedestal formerly occupied by
a
column, which formerly held a more significant, presumably historic,
structure.
There is no context, so I don't know if the place is a true
arhaeological
resource, or if it's a Hollywood set. Without such context, readers are
free
to assume the former. That will also leave them with the implicit
message
that this is a fine activity--the rider is no sitcom schmuck.
Now, I can appreciate cycling as a destructive outlet. I'm also a
skateboarder, so I've contemplated the nihilistic impulse to distort
and
subvert society's intentions by thrashing its structures. The first time
I
saw a bicycle ride over a car, I was elated by the metaphor.
But I've got to say, the photo in Dirt Rag is just sick and wrong.
And,
while I'm still pretty much on Sean's side as to the significance of
this
issue (I refuse to consider television significant--my head may be in
the
sand, but I hope that keeps it out of my butt), I have to admit that,
by
extension, the American Express ad is also wrong.
So, bombard them with indignation. After all, this is a credit card
company,
satan's hand-puppet, a cartel of userers preying on the
credit-challenged
while stroking big-business's...oh, wait, that's another soap box.
Strafe Amex, but be gentle with Dirt Rag. They just love bicycles so
much
they must have missed the archaeology (please don't call these
valuable
resources "ruins"--that bums out archaeologists like backward forks dry
our
chamois).
Happy Trails,
Ron Georg
Moab
Sat, 23 Nov 2002:
From: "Anthony L Cree" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: California Wilderness Letters to the Editor
Ken,
I think a big problem is the dual meanings of the term wilderness. To most
of the public, "wilderness" means land thats untouched, or relatively
untouched, by human impact. Following this definition, tons of the riding
we do is in "wilderness". And of course, when you think of this definition
of wilderness, who wouldn't be against creating more of it? The difficulty
comes in when we start using the political definition of wilderness, ie,
"mechanized transport" vs the traditional definition. I'll bet that before
becoming a mountain biker, you (and most) weren't aware that mountain bikes
were not allowed in wilderness areas. I wasn't. When I talk to nonbikers,
they're usually very surprised to hear that horses are allowed in wilderness
areas, but not bikes. But then again, they think that any rural area is
wilderness. I guess the point is that in todays world "wilderness" is an
arbitrary line drawn a map, that we can't ride past.
So, how to reconcile being pro-environment and also wanting to mountain
bike? Support non-wilderness alternative designations for areas, such as
National Conservation or Protection Areas, and I believe there's a 'roadless
area' protection status as well. Personally, I won't ever support a
wilderness area until the day mountain bikes are allowed to use them. Thats
my opinion though, and as Brian said, this is likely to evolve into a major
issue in the future.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken O. Bonn [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 6:33 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: California Wilderness Letters to the Editor
Amazingly, I happen to know one of the people who wrote in to that article,
Laurel Ames. She is the mother of my best friend from college, Jeff Ames. I
visited Jeff in Berkely, and Laurel in South Lake Tahoe, back in '88 while
on a 2000 mile bike trip (Olympia to San Francisco to South Lake Tahoe to
Yosemite via Nevada to San Luis Obispo to San Francisco). To add irony, I
was traveling on a mountain bike, and unless mistake, I interpret her
support of Boxer as anti-mountain-bike.
So..., just curious how one would interpret this. Did Boxer make some
concessions to mountain bikers? I generally think of myself as
pro-environmentalist, but it sounds like Boxer, Sierra Club, and other
so-called environmentalists are using wilderness designation to exclude
mountain bikers.
How does one reconcile being pro-environment and wanting more wilderness,
against the current designation of wilderness as being off limits to
mountain bikers? Should we be fighting for more wilderness AND allowing
mountain bikers in wilderness? It just seems wrong to allow hikers in
wilderness and not bikers [of course, bikers ARE allowed in Wilderness; only
BIKES are excluded. Mike].
Someone please help. I am just so confused...
Sat, 23 Nov 2002:
Recent Stories By Sacramento Bee
Can a wilderness include muscle-powered mountain bikes?
By Sacramento Bee --
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Saturday, November 23, 2002
I am a mountain biker. I have biked the Tahoe Rim Trail to the junction of the
trail in Meiss Meadows. And even though this area is in the proposed wilderness
bill, I support the wilderness legislation.
Why? Because I know there are other areas I can mountain bike that will never
qualify as wilderness areas. In Tahoe, we have plenty of trails that are open to
mountain biking. Adding Meiss Meadows as wilderness would be a benefit to the
entire Tahoe ecosystem by protecting water quality for Lake Tahoe.
Wilderness protection ensures we will have places that remain untouched and
undeveloped for future generations.
- Shannon Raborn, Incline Village, Nev.
Fri, 22 Nov 2002:
From: Cdoy Lundberg <[email protected]>
Subject: dude.....
From: Bob Michaels <[email protected]>
Subject: IMBA: Controling our numbers
At 12:32 PM 12/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Something like "Be prepared for over crowded areas and have alternatives."
Florida has some very heavily used trail systems in addition to some very
lightly used trail systems. Certainly a different character to each but both are
fun. The most popular trail system in the SE US is Oleta River State Park in
downtown Miami Beach with over 100,000 documented users a year. Yet, it's great
fun even if only about 15 miles of trail. And there's a similar trail at Markum
Park in Ft. Lauderdale. Some people think I'm crazy to occasionally drive 180
miles to ride a mountain bike in Miami Beach when we have so many great trails
nearby but it's worth it.
Bob Michaels
Apopka FL
From: Ken B <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Regional Trails -- Yet ANOTHER Network of Destroyed Habitat
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:22:52 -0500
Personally, I don't care if bears are disrupted. Why should I? Same
goes for deer, squirrels, mice and, of course, hikers. See, I have
just as much right, as an inhabitant of this planet and so long as
that use is within the parameters of the law, to use its resources as
I see fit. Bears, squirrels, mice and hikers be damned. This is one of
the advantages of being at the top of the food chain -- everything
else either has to adapt to us being there or die. If they opt for
death, well, that's natural selection, isn't it.
I mean, it can easily be said that Bear 'A' is disrupting ME.
As for erosion... clearly he's clueless. The amount of erosion damage,
regardless of the cause, that can be done to the environment from a
trail is negligible. Period. Really, how much land, in sq. miles, are
we talking about across the world, that is tied up in trails? Not a
whole lot, I would guess. Maybe something like 10,000. Probably less.
If every one of those trails seriously eroded down to bedrock it still
wouldn't cause mass extinction (or even any extinction) or destroy
habitat or cause hurricanes in Russia. It just wouldn't and Mike knows
this. The fact of the matter is that it just doesn't matter that much.
WE care because we need to make sure that nut cases like Mike don't
get their exclusionary policies enacted. Fortunately, that's easily
accomplished by providing readily available studies showing that there
is no significant damage caused by biking. But to the rest of the
world, it really doesn't matter. Even if we ended up with another
Grand Canyon -- would that be all that bad?
Besides, Mike does more damage to the environment tearing up corn
fields in his Chevy Tahoe with leather interior than any of us do on
the trails.
Sun, 1 Dec 2002:
From: "Fish" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: ladies and gentlemen, let's stop it
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.104.204.218
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net 1038702250 213.104.204.218 (Sun, 01 Dec
2002 00:24:10 GMT)
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 03:44:33 GMT, "carlos" <[email protected]> wrote:
> .He 's gotten more space here latelly than j lo & affleck in the press, so
> .let's stop it, dont reply, just stop it.
> Sorry, mountain bikers don't listen to ANYONE, including other mountain
bikers
I Think a bullet in his head would help me Im just satified with the
knoledge that if he keeps on lying like he does sumone will kill him for me
Stephen Tye
Sun, 24 Nov 2002:
To: Ron Georg <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SPAM: RE: IMBA: This commercial is bad for mountain biking
Ron, I am an archaeologist for the US Forest Service, and an avid mt.
biker. Thanks for your words. I hadn't even noticed the ad in my copy of Dirt
Rag! In my professional capacity, I am constantly monitoring the effects human
behavior has on archaeological resources. What recreational activities damage
them, and how can that damage be mitigated? As an advocate of our sport in the
Recreation section of our forest, I must at times painfully admit that
irresponsible mt. biking can damage fragile resources (as can horses, ATV's
timber harvesting, etc). And all too often, protecting these resources is an
uphill battle. Over the last 20 years I have developed an excellent working
relationship with the managers on my forest. They respect my opinion and look
very favorably on mountain biking, in general. However, it is ads such as this,
if they were to see it, that could have a very negative influence on their
perception of our sport. I hope the Red Bull folks can realize how damaging that
ad can be. It looks to be on an actual site, not a Hollywood set. It is, indeed,
a VERY unfortunate advertisement, and does NOTHING to help promote our sport.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Mark Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Georg
To: [email protected]
Sent: 11/23/02 10:43:35 PM
Subject: Re: SPAM: RE: IMBA: This
commercial is bad for mountain biking
Howdy, all--
I don't receive any television transmissions (we're a video-only
household),
so I haven't seen the commercial. However, I get the drift from your
descriptions. So I also got a huge dose of irony when I turned to page 76
of
issue 97 of Dirt Rag, the only mag that really concerns itself with
advocacy. For those of you who haven't seen the mag, the photo is
propoganda
from some trials promoters (Red Bull Communications provided the
images),
and it features a rider bunny-hopping onto a pedestal formerly occupied by
a
column, which formerly held a more significant, presumably historic,
structure.
There is no context, so I don't know if the place is a true
arhaeological
resource, or if it's a Hollywood set. Without such context, readers are
free
to assume the former. That will also leave them with the implicit
message
that this is a fine activity--the rider is no sitcom schmuck.
Now, I can appreciate cycling as a destructive outlet. I'm also a
skateboarder, so I've contemplated the nihilistic impulse to distort
and
subvert society's intentions by thrashing its structures. The first time
I
saw a bicycle ride over a car, I was elated by the metaphor.
But I've got to say, the photo in Dirt Rag is just sick and wrong.
And,
while I'm still pretty much on Sean's side as to the significance of
this
issue (I refuse to consider television significant--my head may be in
the
sand, but I hope that keeps it out of my butt), I have to admit that,
by
extension, the American Express ad is also wrong.
So, bombard them with indignation. After all, this is a credit card
company,
satan's hand-puppet, a cartel of userers preying on the
credit-challenged
while stroking big-business's...oh, wait, that's another soap box.
Strafe Amex, but be gentle with Dirt Rag. They just love bicycles so
much
they must have missed the archaeology (please don't call these
valuable
resources "ruins"--that bums out archaeologists like backward forks dry
our
chamois).
Happy Trails,
Ron Georg
Moab
Sat, 23 Nov 2002:
From: "Anthony L Cree" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: California Wilderness Letters to the Editor
Ken,
I think a big problem is the dual meanings of the term wilderness. To most
of the public, "wilderness" means land thats untouched, or relatively
untouched, by human impact. Following this definition, tons of the riding
we do is in "wilderness". And of course, when you think of this definition
of wilderness, who wouldn't be against creating more of it? The difficulty
comes in when we start using the political definition of wilderness, ie,
"mechanized transport" vs the traditional definition. I'll bet that before
becoming a mountain biker, you (and most) weren't aware that mountain bikes
were not allowed in wilderness areas. I wasn't. When I talk to nonbikers,
they're usually very surprised to hear that horses are allowed in wilderness
areas, but not bikes. But then again, they think that any rural area is
wilderness. I guess the point is that in todays world "wilderness" is an
arbitrary line drawn a map, that we can't ride past.
So, how to reconcile being pro-environment and also wanting to mountain
bike? Support non-wilderness alternative designations for areas, such as
National Conservation or Protection Areas, and I believe there's a 'roadless
area' protection status as well. Personally, I won't ever support a
wilderness area until the day mountain bikes are allowed to use them. Thats
my opinion though, and as Brian said, this is likely to evolve into a major
issue in the future.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken O. Bonn [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 6:33 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: California Wilderness Letters to the Editor
Amazingly, I happen to know one of the people who wrote in to that article,
Laurel Ames. She is the mother of my best friend from college, Jeff Ames. I
visited Jeff in Berkely, and Laurel in South Lake Tahoe, back in '88 while
on a 2000 mile bike trip (Olympia to San Francisco to South Lake Tahoe to
Yosemite via Nevada to San Luis Obispo to San Francisco). To add irony, I
was traveling on a mountain bike, and unless mistake, I interpret her
support of Boxer as anti-mountain-bike.
So..., just curious how one would interpret this. Did Boxer make some
concessions to mountain bikers? I generally think of myself as
pro-environmentalist, but it sounds like Boxer, Sierra Club, and other
so-called environmentalists are using wilderness designation to exclude
mountain bikers.
How does one reconcile being pro-environment and wanting more wilderness,
against the current designation of wilderness as being off limits to
mountain bikers? Should we be fighting for more wilderness AND allowing
mountain bikers in wilderness? It just seems wrong to allow hikers in
wilderness and not bikers [of course, bikers ARE allowed in Wilderness; only
BIKES are excluded. Mike].
Someone please help. I am just so confused...
Sat, 23 Nov 2002:
Recent Stories By Sacramento Bee
Can a wilderness include muscle-powered mountain bikes?
By Sacramento Bee --
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Saturday, November 23, 2002
I am a mountain biker. I have biked the Tahoe Rim Trail to the junction of the
trail in Meiss Meadows. And even though this area is in the proposed wilderness
bill, I support the wilderness legislation.
Why? Because I know there are other areas I can mountain bike that will never
qualify as wilderness areas. In Tahoe, we have plenty of trails that are open to
mountain biking. Adding Meiss Meadows as wilderness would be a benefit to the
entire Tahoe ecosystem by protecting water quality for Lake Tahoe.
Wilderness protection ensures we will have places that remain untouched and
undeveloped for future generations.
- Shannon Raborn, Incline Village, Nev.
Fri, 22 Nov 2002:
From: Cdoy Lundberg <[email protected]>
Subject: dude.....