"Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 04:01:10 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How could you possibly see a frog, or a structure, from 100 miles away?
>
> Learn to read. I said I was within 100 miles, since I wasn't sure
> where this was. 0 miles IS within 100 miles. DUH!
So you are now saying that you were at this exact location? That you've
been right there?
> So cutting down trees and building play structures in the woods isn't
> as bad as emitting CO2? Can't you guys EVER tell the truth?!
I never said that such a thing wouldn't be as bad. I said that the only
thing mountain bikers do, with regards to the pond, was that they emit CO2
in the area. Can't you EVER stay on topic?
>>Live trees are not cut down; it's a basic rule followed by the people who
>>maintain the trails. No live trees are used, by either cutting them down,
>>or nailing into them.
>
> I saw live trees that had been cut down, as well as signs nailed to
> live trees. Try telling the truth for once in your rotten life.
You saw them in person, or in a photograph? Did you see the tree being cut
down? If so, did you see who cut the tree down?
By the way, my life is slightly stale, but definitely not rotten.
> If there is any deviance from this rule, the local
>>government would see quickly to stopping this.
>
> BS. They have turned a blind eye to it, even though it is highly
> illegal.
They haven't turned a blind eye. In our area, the government has been
working on a large, alpine recreational study and has already implemented
some preliminary suggestions. The ARS will deteremine what areas can be
used as a long term direction for which outdoor areas can be used for which
activities. I've been to some of these open sessions and council meetings.
The minutes of the meetings, along with the findings/suggestions of the ARS,
are available on their web site. You can check them out if you'd like, or
you can continue to turn a blind eye.
> Any "structure" is built
>>using deadfall, and most "structures" are built to protect the local
>>habitat
>>on and around the trails (protecting trees, tree roots, swamps, streams,
>>etc.), as well as preserve the trail from erosions.
>
> That would be easier to do by keeping bikes out!
Then what about the erosion from the hikers? Or the rain? Since you're
ignorant to the region, let me help you to try and understand. One hard
rain can cause more erosion to a trail than a year of mountain biking.
Using proper trail maintenace and drainage, this erosion is averted and
hikers/runners/bikers have a trail they can use. Maybe it's just me, or
maybe it's everyone else too, but you don't seem to get the picture that
people do not want to walk/run/bike where there are automobiles.
>>As I stated earlier, these trails are used extensively by hikers and trail
>>runners, yet the maintenance of the trails are done almost exclusively by
>>mountain bikers.
>
> Yeah, because your "maintenance" is illegal!
That's a pretty strong statement. Are you saying that hundreds of people
are committing illegal acts? Are you saying that the local government is
committing illegal acts? If so, can you post up proof of this? Proof would
require the said act, along with the statute/law that indicates that said
act is illegal. If I were a betting man, I'd put $50 that you won't supply
either, and will just post up additional garbage solely intended to inflame.
> Mountain bikers are socially and environmentally more
>>responsible than any other group that ventures into the forest.
>
> Don't make me laugh. Other groups don't damage the forest and wipe out
> habitat; YOU do.
I do? Prove it. Not just with your usuall spew of rhetoric. Concrete,
factual proof.
>>You can try to inflame people and groups by purveying your rhetoric and
>>lies, but that does not change the reality of the situation.
>
> The reality of the situation is quite obvious in the photo.
And
>>Here are some photographs of work done by the mountain biking community to
>>help preserve an the Baden Powell trail (which runs some 40 or so
>>kilometres). This trail is used primarily by hikers (including various
>>events such as the Knee Knacker), but some very small sections are used by
>>mountain bikers.
>>
>>http://www.nsmba.bc.ca/grantpics/bpgrant/bpworkproject.htm
>
> I can see that you took dirt (mountain bikers call it "gold dirt", for
> obvious reasons) from somewhere else to build trails. Of course, that
> "gold dirt" will be washed out by the first rain! The only way to
> build trails is to leave everything where you found it, and keep the
> bikes off of it!
And what about the hikers and trail runners and horses? Keep them off too?
As for "gold dirt", it came from the ground. But you wouldn't know that as
you know nothing of the local environment. Same goes for your rain
statement.
>>Any time you want to actually come to this area, we'd be more than happy
>>to
>>show you around, free of charge of course, so that you could see first
>>hand
>>what exists in the area. Until then, anything you have to say is mere
>>conjecture.
>
> I HAVE seen it first hand, which is why I know that you are lying. My
> friend says:
You start off with a photograph of an area you haven't seen, criticize the
hell out of it without knowing any of the facts, then go on to talk about
how you have all the facts and have seen it all.
What exactly have you seen first hand? Be specific please, because anything
else is just conjecture and cannot be taken as truth.
Did you know that, in this area, people only first started complaining about
mountain biking because some mountain bikers would drive in from far, far
away and park their vehicles in front of these people's homes? There was
never an environmental concern - EVER. The environmental "concern" only
came about when the residents of a couple areas, close to a couple trail
heads, wanted something done about their PARKING issues. When the local
government wouldn't comply with their requests, they started fabricating
other concerns, such as local habit damage, endangered frog species (we
don't have any endangered frog species), erosion issues, etc.
We had one, and only one councilor, in the district government, go overboard
and push all the strange issues that a handful of his constituents would
bring to him. First there should be no mountain bikers because of parking
issues. After a few months, that gets dropped and there should be none
because of endangered frogs. After another few months, that gets dropped
and there should be none because of erosion issues.
Now, this councilor, about 10 years ago, pushed very hard for the district
government to take responsibility for a very large tract of pristine, virgin
rainforest that extends from the north end of the district for quite a few
miles. The district did not do so because the district has limited
financial resources and could not afford to take over management, so the
management was left with the greater regional district. Fast forward about
10 years, and what does this councilor do? He implores the district to
disallow the use of already used 2nd growth forest areas and to create a
mountain bike park in the virgin rain forest!!! This is the kind of self
centered, ignorant mentality that had to be dealt with. Fortunately the
rest of the council could see how ludicrous this councilor, and those of a
handful of his constituents, had become and voted against any motions
related to new parks or the closing of trails for hiking/running/biking.
You seem to be an angry man who has nothing to do but complain about other
people and their actions, all for your own personal or political
gratification/gain. We are trying to live with each other the best we can,
yet you, an outsider who has already proven knows nothing of our situation,
continue to try to create situations, angst, and inflammation amongst the
people here. Why not try to being productive rather than destructive? I
think you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that it will be more rewarding
to your ego.
