MTB victory in new Forest Service rules

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:07:38 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
<clipped>> .>
> .> BS. "I wanna ride my bike there!" is not a convincing reason to stop
> .> development. Protection of wildlife IS. DUH!
> .Again - all you can focus on is the bikes. See below. You REFUSE to
> accept
> .preservation unless it is on your terms.
>
> Mountain biking preserves NOTHING. It has NEVER preserved anything, and
> never
> will.
The people who ride these bikes have an interest in preserving the places
where they ride. We don't want the woods dozed over for development. We
don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much forested land
as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for expanding
civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and smaller
available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails - It is the
loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into more
confrontation. More preserved space means less confrontation. I've been
saying it for years - Why force interested parties into a position of
arguing with each other?
>
> Allowing access to people, however
> .they may choose,
>
> MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.
I'm looking - but I do not see where I said they didn't. ...and thanks for
cutting the phrasing out of the context with the rest below.
>
> builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
> .more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there is to
> be
> .utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except help
> to
> .seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger preservation of
> .these areas.
>
> So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are SICK.
Your phrasing - not mine. The Forest Service can determine on a local scale
if trails would be shared, seperate or closed. When does cooperation become
"bending over"? When does showing a little respect for a different point of
view become "bending over"?
It is you who have consistently, with the use of name-calling, misquotes,
out of context references and selected information, expected the rest of us
to "bend over" so you can have your way.

> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only
> to
> .> .complain about bikes on your trails.
> .> .>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:20:09 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<clipped>
> .> .> .It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
> designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
> groups.
> .> .> .Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and
> possibly expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use
> areas.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS.
> .> .No - Your time spent trying to rally against off-road cycling is BS.
> The National Forest rules are done, published and available. Mountain
> bikes
> .> will continue to have access to these areas. The only thing you have
> accomplished is to build your ego with your resume.
> .> .>
> .> .> There will always be places designated too fragile (real or
> imagined) for bicycle traffic.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too fragile
> for
> .> .> mountain
> .> .> bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a
> mountain
> .> .> biker is
> .> .> fragile.
> .> .Off road cycling has been determined to be similar in impact to
> hiking...
> .>
> .> BS. That so-called "research" was all refuted in
> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
> .Again you point at your website with YOUR opinions. Fortunately, the
> people
> .who decide the rules had access to real information. When will you stop
> .pointing at your site as the definitive answer on the subject? If it
> were,
> .the new National Forest rules would reflect it. They don't - and you
> aren't.
>
> There is no more definitive information on this issue. The fact is that
> the
> Forest Service did what they wanted to, not what is right. That's not new
> for
> them, of course.
....and since you do not provide reviews of your presentations, peer
comments, or any other source supporting your claim as being "definitive
information", it makes your claim totally and completely irrelevant. I can
create a website for blue coffee cups and say it is the definitive source
for blue coffee cups. Without outside review or comments to support it, it
would mean nothing.
Whatever your opinion of the Forest Service action (note "opinion") it does
not change the fact that it is their rules that apply.
>
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
> .> .> ."Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
> .> .> .
> .> .> .S Curtiss
> .> .> .
> ===
> 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.)
Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues to
permanently destroy habitat...
At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
with getting bicycles out of the woods.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[shaunwj]

Does anyone believe that dearest Mike is actually building his widlfie
habitat, or is it just his wet dream?

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.)

If you think about it if it is off limits to humans, how does he know
we are not going to sneak in the back door and start riding.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:14:51 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:07:38 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..<clipped>> .>
..> .> BS. "I wanna ride my bike there!" is not a convincing reason to stop
..> .> development. Protection of wildlife IS. DUH!
..> .Again - all you can focus on is the bikes. See below. You REFUSE to
..> accept
..> .preservation unless it is on your terms.
..>
..> Mountain biking preserves NOTHING. It has NEVER preserved anything, and
..> never
..> will.
..The people who ride these bikes have an interest in preserving the places
..where they ride.

BS. The only interest they have is in preserving MOUNTAIN BIKING. They could
care less if the wildlife all died.

.. We don't want the woods dozed over for development.

But you've dont nothing to stop it. And you've done a lot to PREVENT designation
of new Wilderness.

We
..don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much forested land
..as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for expanding
..civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and smaller
..available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails - It is the
..loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into more
..confrontation.

It is also the trails, since humans wouldn't be there without trails.

More preserved space means less confrontation. I've been
..saying it for years - Why force interested parties into a position of
..arguing with each other?

You do that, by insisting on riding a bike in natural areas, for which there is
NO good reason.

..> Allowing access to people, however
..> .they may choose,
..>
..> MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.
..I'm looking - but I do not see where I said they didn't. ...and thanks for
..cutting the phrasing out of the context with the rest below.

You said they should be allowed access, implying that they don't have access.

..> builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
..> .more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there is to
..> be
..> .utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except help
..> to
..> .seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger preservation of
..> .these areas.
..>
..> So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are SICK.
..Your phrasing - not mine.

But the implication is the same. You want us to stop complaining about mountain
biking.

The Forest Service can determine on a local scale
..if trails would be shared, seperate or closed. When does cooperation become
.."bending over"?

When you try to silence critics.

When does showing a little respect for a different point of
..view become "bending over"?
..It is you who have consistently, with the use of name-calling, misquotes,
..out of context references and selected information, expected the rest of us
..to "bend over" so you can have your way.

But it doesn't hurt you to leave your bike at the trailhead, so it can't be
termed "bending over".

..> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only
..> to
..> .> .complain about bikes on your trails.
..> .> .>
..

===
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 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:28:06 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:20:09 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..<clipped>
..> .> .> .It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
..> designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
..> groups.
..> .> .> .Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and
..> possibly expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use
..> areas.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> BS.
..> .> .No - Your time spent trying to rally against off-road cycling is BS.
..> The National Forest rules are done, published and available. Mountain
..> bikes
..> .> will continue to have access to these areas. The only thing you have
..> accomplished is to build your ego with your resume.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> There will always be places designated too fragile (real or
..> imagined) for bicycle traffic.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too fragile
..> for
..> .> .> mountain
..> .> .> bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a
..> mountain
..> .> .> biker is
..> .> .> fragile.
..> .> .Off road cycling has been determined to be similar in impact to
..> hiking...
..> .>
..> .> BS. That so-called "research" was all refuted in
..> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
..> .Again you point at your website with YOUR opinions. Fortunately, the
..> people
..> .who decide the rules had access to real information. When will you stop
..> .pointing at your site as the definitive answer on the subject? If it
..> were,
..> .the new National Forest rules would reflect it. They don't - and you
..> aren't.
..>
..> There is no more definitive information on this issue. The fact is that
..> the
..> Forest Service did what they wanted to, not what is right. That's not new
..> for
..> them, of course.
.....and since you do not provide reviews of your presentations, peer
..comments, or any other source supporting your claim as being "definitive
..information", it makes your claim totally and completely irrelevant.

You could say that about anyone, including Einstein. He didn't need someone else
to prove he was right. He was right from the beginning.

I can
..create a website for blue coffee cups and say it is the definitive source
..for blue coffee cups. Without outside review or comments to support it, it
..would mean nothing.

BS. All anyone has to do is READ my paper and judge for themselves (honestly).
They would have to agree with me, as everyone who has heard my talks have done.

..Whatever your opinion of the Forest Service action (note "opinion") it does
..not change the fact that it is their rules that apply.

Until they get sued, as they often do, and lose.

..> .> .> .Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
..> .> .> ."Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .S Curtiss
..> .> .> .
..> ===
..> 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.)
..Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues to
..permanently destroy habitat...
..At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
..with getting bicycles out of the woods.
..>
..> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 16 Nov 2005 23:57:58 -0800, "shaunwj" <[email protected]> wrote:

..Does anyone believe that dearest Mike is actually building his widlfie
..habitat, or is it just his wet dream?
..
.. 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.)
..
..If you think about it if it is off limits to humans, how does he know
..we are not going to sneak in the back door and start riding.

Of course you will. Mountain bikers are juveniles that don't care about anyone
else. That's beside the point.
===
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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:14:51 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> BS. The only interest they have is in preserving MOUNTAIN BIKING. They
> could
> care less if the wildlife all died.
Opinion. Generalization. Lie.
>
> . We don't want the woods dozed over for development.
>
> But you've dont nothing to stop it. And you've done a lot to PREVENT
> designation
> of new Wilderness.
Opinion. You have no idea what I have or have not done. How does cycling in
current multi-use areas prevent a designation of "wilderness" in other
areas?
>
> We
> .don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much forested
> land
> .as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for expanding
> .civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and smaller
> .available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails - It is
> the
> .loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into more
> .confrontation.
>
> It is also the trails, since humans wouldn't be there without trails.
How did humans come to be anywhere? Trails or not - human beings are
involved in the entire biology and ecosystem of the planet. Humans eat,
drink, breath. The mere existence of human beings is not dangerous to any
other living thing. Maybe you should see a doctor about these guilt issues.
You are human - deal with it.
>
> More preserved space means less confrontation. I've been
> .saying it for years - Why force interested parties into a position of
> .arguing with each other?
>
> You do that, by insisting on riding a bike in natural areas, for which
> there is
> NO good reason.
Opinion. And thanks for staying true to form by trying to turn the focus
away from the benefit of cooperation. Your narrow viewpoint of exclusion
causes the confrontation. My viewpoint is cooperation to save forests from
being destroyed. You want to argue about bikes.
>
> .> Allowing access to people, however
> .> .they may choose,
> .>
> .> MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.
> .I'm looking - but I do not see where I said they didn't. ...and thanks
> for
> .cutting the phrasing out of the context with the rest below.
>
> You said they should be allowed access, implying that they don't have
> access.
Wow - you're stretching now....
>
> .> builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
> .> .more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there is
> to be
> .> .utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except
> help to
> .> .seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger preservation
> of
> .> .these areas.
> .>
> .> So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are
> SICK.
> .Your phrasing - not mine.
>
> But the implication is the same. You want us to stop complaining about
> mountain
> biking.
You don't complain... You make demands. And you expect everyone else to
accept your point of view as an authority. No one is expecting cyclists to
have unrestricted "play for all" in the woods. But you demand that your "No
Bikes" be accepted in total.
>
> The Forest Service can determine on a local scale
> .if trails would be shared, seperate or closed. When does cooperation
> become
> ."bending over"?
>
> When you try to silence critics.
You mean the way you claim "junk science" and "liar" whenever someone
counters your narrow view of impacts and access?
>
> When does showing a little respect for a different point of
> .view become "bending over"?
> .It is you who have consistently, with the use of name-calling, misquotes,
> .out of context references and selected information, expected the rest of
> us
> .to "bend over" so you can have your way.
>
> But it doesn't hurt you to leave your bike at the trailhead, so it can't
> be
> termed "bending over".
Since it has been determined off-road cycling has similar impacts to hiking,
sharing the trails can not be termed "bending over".
>
> .> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation
> only to complain about bikes on your trails.
> .> .> .>
> 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.)

Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues to
permanently destroy habitat...
At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
with getting bicycles out of the woods.

> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:28:06 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .>
> .<clipped>
> .> .> .> .It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
> designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
> groups.
> .> .> .> .Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and
> possibly expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use
> areas.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> BS.
> .> .> .No - Your time spent trying to rally against off-road cycling is
> BS.
> .> The National Forest rules are done, published and available. Mountain
> bikes will continue to have access to these areas. The only thing you have
> accomplished is to build your ego with your resume.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> There will always be places designated too fragile (real or
> imagined) for bicycle traffic.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too
> fragile
> .> for
> .> .> .> mountain
> .> .> .> bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a
> .> mountain
> .> .> .> biker is
> .> .> .> fragile.
> .> .> .Off road cycling has been determined to be similar in impact to
> hiking...
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. That so-called "research" was all refuted in
> .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
> .> .Again you point at your website with YOUR opinions. Fortunately, the
> people who decide the rules had access to real information. When will you
> stop pointing at your site as the definitive answer on the subject? If it
> were, the new National Forest rules would reflect it. They don't - and you
> aren't.
> .>
> .> There is no more definitive information on this issue. The fact is that
> .> the
> .> Forest Service did what they wanted to, not what is right. That's not
> new
> .> for
> .> them, of course.
> ....and since you do not provide reviews of your presentations, peer
> comments, or any other source supporting your claim as being "definitive
> information", it makes your claim totally and completely irrelevant.
>
> You could say that about anyone, including Einstein. He didn't need
> someone else
> to prove he was right. He was right from the beginning.
A: You are no "Einstein". B: He did not start with "E=MC2" and throw out
everything that did not conform. You started with "Mountain bikes are bad"
and sought only infromation to support your "theory". C: He developed his
theories over time - replacing faulty assumptions. You should try it
sometime.
From "Physics Today" November 2005: "In thinking of Einstein's mistakes, one
immediately recalls what Einstein (in a conversation with George Gamow)
called the biggest blunder he had made in his life: the introduction of the
cosmological constant. After Einstein had completed the formulation of his
theory of space, time, and gravitation-the general theory of relativity-he
turned in 1917 to a consideration of the spacetime structure of the whole
universe. He then encountered a problem. Einstein was assuming that, when
suitably averaged over many stars, the universe is uniform and essentially
static, but the equations of general relativity did not seem to allow a
time-independent solution for a universe with a uniform distribution of
matter. So Einstein modified his equations, by including a new term
involving a quantity that he called the cosmological constant. Then it was
discovered that the universe is not static, but expanding. Einstein came to
regret that he had needlessly mutilated his original theory. It may also
have bothered him that he had missed predicting the expansion of the
universe."
>
> I can create a website for blue coffee cups and say it is the definitive
> source for blue coffee cups. Without outside review or comments to support
> it, it would mean nothing.
>
> BS. All anyone has to do is READ my paper and judge for themselves
> (honestly).
> They would have to agree with me, as everyone who has heard my talks have
> done.
We've seen, read and looked all over your site. Your assumption that we have
to come to the same conclusion is arrogant beyond belief. And you can claim
"as everyone who has heard my talks have done" all you want. Until we see
their reviews and comments, your claims of what they say are irrelevant.
>
> .Whatever your opinion of the Forest Service action (note "opinion") it
> does not change the fact that it is their rules that apply.
>
> Until they get sued, as they often do, and lose.
More resources, time and money spent on something that will distract from
all that new construction, leaving even less space available to be
designated "wilderness", less space for cycling (and hiking) and less space
for wildlife to live in.
Why can you not allow yourself to focus on the pristine areas that can be,
or already are, designated wilderness? Why do you waste time and effort
trying to get bikes out of areas that are already designated multi-use? Can
you not see that every inch of woods destroyed for houses or business
shrinks available space for wildlife AND recreation? Human recreation areas
can be an excellent buffer between civilization and "wilderness".
>
> .> .> .> .Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
> .> .> .> ."Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .S Curtiss
> .> .> .> .
> .> ===
> .> 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.)
> .Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues
> to permanently destroy habitat...
> .At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
> with getting bicycles out of the woods.
> .>
> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 16 Nov 2005 23:57:58 -0800, "shaunwj" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Does anyone believe that dearest Mike is actually building his widlfie
> .habitat, or is it just his wet dream?
> .
> . 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.)
> .
> .If you think about it if it is off limits to humans, how does he know
> .we are not going to sneak in the back door and start riding.
>
> Of course you will. Mountain bikers are juveniles that don't care about
> anyone
> else. That's beside the point.
How does he know people won't sneak in and start walking...?
> ===
> 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, 18 Nov 2005 13:26:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:14:51 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..>
..> BS. The only interest they have is in preserving MOUNTAIN BIKING. They
..> could
..> care less if the wildlife all died.
..Opinion. Generalization. Lie.

Fact that I've personally observed.

..> . We don't want the woods dozed over for development.
..>
..> But you've dont nothing to stop it. And you've done a lot to PREVENT
..> designation
..> of new Wilderness.
..Opinion. You have no idea what I have or have not done.

"You" is plural. DUH!

How does cycling in
..current multi-use areas prevent a designation of "wilderness" in other
..areas?

Mountain bikers are lobbying to prevent new Wilderness from being designated,
and to cherrystem mountain biking trails out of the proposed areas.

..> We
..> .don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much forested
..> land
..> .as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for expanding
..> .civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and smaller
..> .available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails - It is
..> the
..> .loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into more
..> .confrontation.
..>
..> It is also the trails, since humans wouldn't be there without trails.
..How did humans come to be anywhere? Trails or not - human beings are
..involved in the entire biology and ecosystem of the planet. Humans eat,
..drink, breath. The mere existence of human beings is not dangerous to any
..other living thing.

BS. Once again, you demonstrate total ignorance of biology. See _Wildlife and
Recreationists_.

Maybe you should see a doctor about these guilt issues.
..You are human - deal with it.
..>
..> More preserved space means less confrontation. I've been
..> .saying it for years - Why force interested parties into a position of
..> .arguing with each other?
..>
..> You do that, by insisting on riding a bike in natural areas, for which
..> there is
..> NO good reason.
..Opinion.

No, FACT. If you think otherwise, produce a good reason to allow bikes off
pavement (HINT: there aren't any).

And thanks for staying true to form by trying to turn the focus
..away from the benefit of cooperation. Your narrow viewpoint of exclusion
..causes the confrontation. My viewpoint is cooperation to save forests from
..being destroyed. You want to argue about bikes.

Right, and banning bikes from natural areas is essential to protecting the
wildlife.

..> .> Allowing access to people, however
..> .> .they may choose,
..> .>
..> .> MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.
..> .I'm looking - but I do not see where I said they didn't. ...and thanks
..> for
..> .cutting the phrasing out of the context with the rest below.
..>
..> You said they should be allowed access, implying that they don't have
..> access.
..Wow - you're stretching now....
..>
..> .> builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
..> .> .more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there is
..> to be
..> .> .utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except
..> help to
..> .> .seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger preservation
..> of
..> .> .these areas.
..> .>
..> .> So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are
..> SICK.
..> .Your phrasing - not mine.
..>
..> But the implication is the same. You want us to stop complaining about
..> mountain
..> biking.
..You don't complain... You make demands. And you expect everyone else to
..accept your point of view as an authority. No one is expecting cyclists to
..have unrestricted "play for all" in the woods. But you demand that your "No
..Bikes" be accepted in total.

BS. How can I make a "demand"? I don't have that power.

..> The Forest Service can determine on a local scale
..> .if trails would be shared, seperate or closed. When does cooperation
..> become
..> ."bending over"?
..>
..> When you try to silence critics.
..You mean the way you claim "junk science" and "liar" whenever someone
..counters your narrow view of impacts and access?
..>
..> When does showing a little respect for a different point of
..> .view become "bending over"?
..> .It is you who have consistently, with the use of name-calling, misquotes,
..> .out of context references and selected information, expected the rest of
..> us
..> .to "bend over" so you can have your way.
..>
..> But it doesn't hurt you to leave your bike at the trailhead, so it can't
..> be
..> termed "bending over".
..Since it has been determined off-road cycling has similar impacts to hiking,
..sharing the trails can not be termed "bending over".
..>
..> .> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation
..> only to complain about bikes on your trails.
..> .> .> .>
..> 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.)
..
..Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues to
..permanently destroy habitat...
..At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
..with getting bicycles out of the woods.
..
..> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:26:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> BS. The only interest they have is in preserving MOUNTAIN BIKING. They
> .> could
> .> care less if the wildlife all died.
> .Opinion. Generalization. Lie.
>
> Fact that I've personally observed.
Really... You have personally observed EVERY offroad cyclist acting in an
irresponsible way...? You continue to generalize based on your opinion of
offroad cycling.
I have seen trash and trail effects of several wayward hikers, yet I do not
condemn all hikers as irresponsible.
>
> .> . We don't want the woods dozed over for development.
> .>
> .> But you've dont nothing to stop it. And you've done a lot to PREVENT
> .> designation
> .> of new Wilderness.
> .Opinion. You have no idea what I have or have not done.
>
> "You" is plural. DUH!
Are you attempting to make a comment - Or has your marble come loose again?
>
> How does cycling in
> .current multi-use areas prevent a designation of "wilderness" in other
> .areas?
>
> Mountain bikers are lobbying to prevent new Wilderness from being
> designated,
> and to cherrystem mountain biking trails out of the proposed areas.
Actually, the lobby is only stating that hikers have access to many areas
that are currently closed to cycling. In many of these areas, the addition
of cycling (similar effects as hiking) could be considered.
You have an extreme point of view (No offroad cycling anywhere) and many
attempt the opposite extreme (cycling everywhere open to hiking). However,
the reality is a compromise of co-existence in some areas. You can not point
and say "they want everything" while holding to a position of "give them
nothing". It is often, unfortunately, a fight of extremes to the detriment
of most.
>
> .> We
> .> .don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much forested
> .> land
> .> .as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for expanding
> .> .civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and smaller
> .> .available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails - It
> is
> .> the
> .> .loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into more
> .> .confrontation.
> .>
> .> It is also the trails, since humans wouldn't be there without trails.
> .How did humans come to be anywhere? Trails or not - human beings are
> .involved in the entire biology and ecosystem of the planet. Humans eat,
> .drink, breath. The mere existence of human beings is not dangerous to any
> .other living thing.
>
> BS. Once again, you demonstrate total ignorance of biology. See _Wildlife
> and
> Recreationists_.
You can quote from your "Bible" all you want. Take away the cars, the bikes
the buildings.... humans and animals co-exist on the same plane of
survival.
>
> Maybe you should see a doctor about these guilt issues.
> .You are human - deal with it.
> .>
> .> More preserved space means less confrontation. I've been
> .> .saying it for years - Why force interested parties into a position of
> .> .arguing with each other?
> .>
> .> You do that, by insisting on riding a bike in natural areas, for which
> .> there is
> .> NO good reason.
> .Opinion.
>
> No, FACT. If you think otherwise, produce a good reason to allow bikes off
> pavement (HINT: there aren't any).
Name one good reason to allow hiking ouside of sidewalks and shopping malls.
By your own standards, there aren't any.
>
> And thanks for staying true to form by trying to turn the focus
> .away from the benefit of cooperation. Your narrow viewpoint of exclusion
> .causes the confrontation. My viewpoint is cooperation to save forests
> from
> .being destroyed. You want to argue about bikes.
>
> Right, and banning bikes from natural areas is essential to protecting the
> wildlife.
Again, you point at the bikes - ignoring the further construction forcing
wildlife onto smaller tracts of habitat. By turn, forcing cyclists (hikers,
equestrians, etc) into even smaller sections of outdoor space suitable for
the personal experience.
>
> .> .> Allowing access to people, however
> .> .> .they may choose,
> .> .>
> .> .> MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.
> .> .I'm looking - but I do not see where I said they didn't. ...and thanks
> .> for
> .> .cutting the phrasing out of the context with the rest below.
> .>
> .> You said they should be allowed access, implying that they don't have
> .> access.
> .Wow - you're stretching now....
> .>
> .> .> builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
> .> .> .more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there
> is
> .> to be
> .> .> .utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except
> .> help to
> .> .> .seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger
> preservation
> .> of
> .> .> .these areas.
> .> .>
> .> .> So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are
> .> SICK.
> .> .Your phrasing - not mine.
> .>
> .> But the implication is the same. You want us to stop complaining about
> .> mountain
> .> biking.
> .You don't complain... You make demands. And you expect everyone else to
> .accept your point of view as an authority. No one is expecting cyclists
> to
> .have unrestricted "play for all" in the woods. But you demand that your
> "No
> .Bikes" be accepted in total.
>
> BS. How can I make a "demand"? I don't have that power.
Thankfully. Nevertheless - your position is a ban on bikes. By presenting
that position, with no option beyond the total removal of bikes, your stance
becomes a "demand". You may not have the authority to enforce, but you
represent yourself as an authority on the subject. You present yourself and
your "references" to those in authority.
>
> .> The Forest Service can determine on a local scale
> .> .if trails would be shared, seperate or closed. When does cooperation
> .> become
> .> ."bending over"?
> .>
> .> When you try to silence critics.
> .You mean the way you claim "junk science" and "liar" whenever someone
> .counters your narrow view of impacts and access?
> .>
> .> When does showing a little respect for a different point of
> .> .view become "bending over"?
> .> .It is you who have consistently, with the use of name-calling,
> misquotes,
> .> .out of context references and selected information, expected the rest
> of
> .> us
> .> .to "bend over" so you can have your way.
> .>
> .> But it doesn't hurt you to leave your bike at the trailhead, so it
> can't
> .> be
> .> termed "bending over".
> .Since it has been determined off-road cycling has similar impacts to
> hiking,
> .sharing the trails can not be termed "bending over".
> .>
> .> .> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation
> .> only to complain about bikes on your trails.
> .> .> .> .>
> .> 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.)
> .
> .Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues
> to
> .permanently destroy habitat...
> .At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
> .with getting bicycles out of the woods.
> .

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:21:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:26:23 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> BS. The only interest they have is in preserving MOUNTAIN BIKING. They
..> .> could
..> .> care less if the wildlife all died.
..> .Opinion. Generalization. Lie.
..>
..> Fact that I've personally observed.
..Really... You have personally observed EVERY offroad cyclist acting in an
..irresponsible way...?

Every one I have observed has acted irresponsibly and lied. And that's a LOT of
people. It's easy to generalize from that. I don't think I have EVER seen a
hiker act irresponsibly. It's easy to generalize from that.

You continue to generalize based on your opinion of
..offroad cycling.
..I have seen trash and trail effects of several wayward hikers, yet I do not
..condemn all hikers as irresponsible.
..>
..> .> . We don't want the woods dozed over for development.
..> .>
..> .> But you've dont nothing to stop it. And you've done a lot to PREVENT
..> .> designation
..> .> of new Wilderness.
..> .Opinion. You have no idea what I have or have not done.
..>
..> "You" is plural. DUH!
..Are you attempting to make a comment - Or has your marble come loose again?
..>
..> How does cycling in
..> .current multi-use areas prevent a designation of "wilderness" in other
..> .areas?
..>
..> Mountain bikers are lobbying to prevent new Wilderness from being
..> designated,
..> and to cherrystem mountain biking trails out of the proposed areas.
..Actually, the lobby is only stating that hikers have access to many areas
..that are currently closed to cycling. In many of these areas, the addition
..of cycling (similar effects as hiking) could be considered.

You are LYING. It is a big waste of time talking wiah a liar.

..You have an extreme point of view (No offroad cycling anywhere) and many
..attempt the opposite extreme (cycling everywhere open to hiking). However,
..the reality is a compromise of co-existence in some areas. You can not point
..and say "they want everything" while holding to a position of "give them
..nothing". It is often, unfortunately, a fight of extremes to the detriment
..of most.
..>
..> .> We
..> .> .don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much forested
..> .> land
..> .> .as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for expanding
..> .> .civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and smaller
..> .> .available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails - It
..> is
..> .> the
..> .> .loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into more
..> .> .confrontation.
..> .>
..> .> It is also the trails, since humans wouldn't be there without trails.
..> .How did humans come to be anywhere? Trails or not - human beings are
..> .involved in the entire biology and ecosystem of the planet. Humans eat,
..> .drink, breath. The mere existence of human beings is not dangerous to any
..> .other living thing.
..>
..> BS. Once again, you demonstrate total ignorance of biology. See _Wildlife
..> and
..> Recreationists_.
..You can quote from your "Bible" all you want. Take away the cars, the bikes
..the buildings.... humans and animals co-exist on the same plane of
..survival.
..>
..> Maybe you should see a doctor about these guilt issues.
..> .You are human - deal with it.
..> .>
..> .> More preserved space means less confrontation. I've been
..> .> .saying it for years - Why force interested parties into a position of
..> .> .arguing with each other?
..> .>
..> .> You do that, by insisting on riding a bike in natural areas, for which
..> .> there is
..> .> NO good reason.
..> .Opinion.
..>
..> No, FACT. If you think otherwise, produce a good reason to allow bikes off
..> pavement (HINT: there aren't any).
..Name one good reason to allow hiking ouside of sidewalks and shopping malls.
..By your own standards, there aren't any.

The fact that you can't give even ONE good reason to allow bikes off-road is
duly noted. I don't promote hiking, so I don't need to give any reasons.

..> And thanks for staying true to form by trying to turn the focus
..> .away from the benefit of cooperation. Your narrow viewpoint of exclusion
..> .causes the confrontation. My viewpoint is cooperation to save forests
..> from
..> .being destroyed. You want to argue about bikes.
..>
..> Right, and banning bikes from natural areas is essential to protecting the
..> wildlife.
..Again, you point at the bikes - ignoring the further construction forcing
..wildlife onto smaller tracts of habitat. By turn, forcing cyclists (hikers,
..equestrians, etc) into even smaller sections of outdoor space suitable for
..the personal experience.

BS. You have access to every trail in the world.

..> .> .> Allowing access to people, however
..> .> .> .they may choose,
..> .> .>
..> .> .> MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.
..> .> .I'm looking - but I do not see where I said they didn't. ...and thanks
..> .> for
..> .> .cutting the phrasing out of the context with the rest below.
..> .>
..> .> You said they should be allowed access, implying that they don't have
..> .> access.
..> .Wow - you're stretching now....
..> .>
..> .> .> builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
..> .> .> .more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there
..> is
..> .> to be
..> .> .> .utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except
..> .> help to
..> .> .> .seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger
..> preservation
..> .> of
..> .> .> .these areas.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are
..> .> SICK.
..> .> .Your phrasing - not mine.
..> .>
..> .> But the implication is the same. You want us to stop complaining about
..> .> mountain
..> .> biking.
..> .You don't complain... You make demands. And you expect everyone else to
..> .accept your point of view as an authority. No one is expecting cyclists
..> to
..> .have unrestricted "play for all" in the woods. But you demand that your
..> "No
..> .Bikes" be accepted in total.
..>
..> BS. How can I make a "demand"? I don't have that power.
..Thankfully. Nevertheless - your position is a ban on bikes. By presenting
..that position, with no option beyond the total removal of bikes, your stance
..becomes a "demand".

BS.

You may not have the authority to enforce, but you
..represent yourself as an authority on the subject.

Because I am.

You present yourself and
..your "references" to those in authority.
..>
..> .> The Forest Service can determine on a local scale
..> .> .if trails would be shared, seperate or closed. When does cooperation
..> .> become
..> .> ."bending over"?
..> .>
..> .> When you try to silence critics.
..> .You mean the way you claim "junk science" and "liar" whenever someone
..> .counters your narrow view of impacts and access?
..> .>
..> .> When does showing a little respect for a different point of
..> .> .view become "bending over"?
..> .> .It is you who have consistently, with the use of name-calling,
..> misquotes,
..> .> .out of context references and selected information, expected the rest
..> of
..> .> us
..> .> .to "bend over" so you can have your way.
..> .>
..> .> But it doesn't hurt you to leave your bike at the trailhead, so it
..> can't
..> .> be
..> .> termed "bending over".
..> .Since it has been determined off-road cycling has similar impacts to
..> hiking,
..> .sharing the trails can not be termed "bending over".
..> .>
..> .> .> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation
..> .> only to complain about bikes on your trails.
..> .> .> .> .>
..> .> 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.)
..> .
..> .Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl continues
..> to
..> .permanently destroy habitat...
..> .At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you are
..> .with getting bicycles out of the woods.
..> .
..

===
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

 

[Bill Sornson]

Mike Vandeman wrote (without snipping and/or quoting coherently, of course):

> Every {mountain biker} I have observed has acted irresponsibly and lied.
> And
> that's a LOT of people. It's easy to generalize from that. I don't
> think I have EVER seen a hiker act irresponsibly. It's easy to
> generalize from that.

Yes, it is. YOU'RE A MYOPIC, DISHONEST TOOL.

Bill "generally speaking" S.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:21:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. The only interest they have is in preserving MOUNTAIN BIKING.
> They
> .> .> could
> .> .> care less if the wildlife all died.
> .> .Opinion. Generalization. Lie.
> .>
> .> Fact that I've personally observed.
> .Really... You have personally observed EVERY offroad cyclist acting in
> an
> .irresponsible way...?
>
> Every one I have observed has acted irresponsibly and lied. And that's a
> LOT of
> people. It's easy to generalize from that. I don't think I have EVER seen
> a
> hiker act irresponsibly. It's easy to generalize from that.
Perhaps you are only looking for mountain bikers' activities. Perhaps you
are so caught up in it, you attribute every sign of poor behavior to
mountain bikers. Perhaps the fact you consider anybody in the woods on a
bike, simply by riding the bike, to be acting irresponsibly already
exaggerates your observations.
>
> You continue to generalize based on your opinion of offroad cycling.
> .I have seen trash and trail effects of several wayward hikers, yet I do
> not
> .condemn all hikers as irresponsible.
> .>
> .> .> . We don't want the woods dozed over for development.
> .> .>
> .> .> But you've dont nothing to stop it. And you've done a lot to PREVENT
> .> .> designation
> .> .> of new Wilderness.
> .> .Opinion. You have no idea what I have or have not done.
> .>
> .> "You" is plural. DUH!
> .Are you attempting to make a comment - Or has your marble come loose
> again?
> .>
> .> How does cycling in
> .> .current multi-use areas prevent a designation of "wilderness" in other
> areas?
> .>
> .> Mountain bikers are lobbying to prevent new Wilderness from being
> .> designated,
> .> and to cherrystem mountain biking trails out of the proposed areas.
> .Actually, the lobby is only stating that hikers have access to many areas
> .that are currently closed to cycling. In many of these areas, the
> addition
> .of cycling (similar effects as hiking) could be considered.
>
> You are LYING. It is a big waste of time talking wiah a liar.

Cycling advocates ARE lobbying for off-road cycling access in many areas
currently open to other activities. Cycling has been proven to be similar in
impact to hiking. Your name-calling and attempts of "killing the messanger"
do not alter anything.
>
> .You have an extreme point of view (No offroad cycling anywhere) and many
> .attempt the opposite extreme (cycling everywhere open to hiking).
> However,
> .the reality is a compromise of co-existence in some areas. You can not
> point
> .and say "they want everything" while holding to a position of "give them
> .nothing". It is often, unfortunately, a fight of extremes to the
> detriment
> .of most.
> .>
> .> .> We don't want to see forests destroyed. We want to keep as much
> forested land as we can. Don't you see that the development of land for
> expanding civilization forces everyone and everything onto smaller and
> smaller available space? It is not the trails or bicycles on the trails -
> It is the loss of space that forces wildlife and people who visit into
> more confrontation.
> .> .>
<clipped>

.>
> .> No, FACT. If you think otherwise, produce a good reason to allow bikes
> off
> .> pavement (HINT: there aren't any).
> .Name one good reason to allow hiking ouside of sidewalks and shopping
> malls.
> .By your own standards, there aren't any.
>
> The fact that you can't give even ONE good reason to allow bikes off-road
> is
> duly noted. I don't promote hiking, so I don't need to give any reasons.

Cycling off-road is an excellent physical and mental exercise, allows the
rider to enjoy this exercise without the constraints and dangers of being in
auto traffic, allows the rider to enjoy the natural environment, and develop
an appreciation for the natural environment. The appreciation of any
activity is highly subjective. If your PhD was worth the tissue paper it is
written on, you would grasp that as fundamental. However, with your opinion
firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or disagree with as being
senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You say "give me one good
reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which one would ask "give me
one good reason to put your hand in a fire".

You say you don't "promote" hiking... But do you GO hiking? The answer is
yes, you do. So - what is your good reason to go hiking when you say all
human presence is detrimental to wildlife?
>
> .> And thanks for staying true to form by trying to turn the focus
> .> .away from the benefit of cooperation. Your narrow viewpoint of
> exclusion
> .> .causes the confrontation. My viewpoint is cooperation to save forests
> .> from
> .> .being destroyed. You want to argue about bikes.
> .>
> .> Right, and banning bikes from natural areas is essential to protecting
> the
> .> wildlife.
> .Again, you point at the bikes - ignoring the further construction forcing
> .wildlife onto smaller tracts of habitat. By turn, forcing cyclists
> (hikers,
> .equestrians, etc) into even smaller sections of outdoor space suitable
> for
> .the personal experience.
>
> BS. You have access to every trail in the world.

Not the ones that are permemantly destroyed because there is a Wal-Mart or
house where they used to be... I have been on many trails, as a hiker. I
have been on many trails as an off-road cyclist. However, there are trails I
can only go to as a hiker. The activity I am engaged in at a particular
point in time defines my designation.
>
<clipped>

.> .You don't complain... You make demands. And you expect everyone else to
> .> .accept your point of view as an authority. No one is expecting
> cyclists
> .> to
> .> .have unrestricted "play for all" in the woods. But you demand that
> your
> .> "No
> .> .Bikes" be accepted in total.
> .>
> .> BS. How can I make a "demand"? I don't have that power.
> .Thankfully. Nevertheless - your position is a ban on bikes. By presenting
> .that position, with no option beyond the total removal of bikes, your
> stance
> .becomes a "demand".
>
> BS.

Your lack of substance is duly noted.
>
> You may not have the authority to enforce, but you
> .represent yourself as an authority on the subject.
>
> Because I am.

Your arrogant and unsubstantiated claims are duly noted.
>
<clipped> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of
> preservation only to complain about bikes on your trails.
> .> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> 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.)
> .> .
> .> .Record profits for oil companies - auto sales are up - sprawl
> continues
> .> to permanently destroy habitat...
> .> .At least you are as productive with fighting road construction as you
> are
> .> .with getting bicycles out of the woods.
> .> .

 

[Gary S.]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:16:40 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

>> Every one I have observed has acted irresponsibly and lied. And that's a
>> LOT of
>> people. It's easy to generalize from that. I don't think I have EVER seen
>> a
>> hiker act irresponsibly. It's easy to generalize from that.
>Perhaps you are only looking for mountain bikers' activities. Perhaps you
>are so caught up in it, you attribute every sign of poor behavior to
>mountain bikers. Perhaps the fact you consider anybody in the woods on a
>bike, simply by riding the bike, to be acting irresponsibly already
>exaggerates your observations.
>>
Everything bad, not just behavior, is the sole fault of mountain
bikers.

They caused the erosion which is now the Grand Canyon, and are in a
conspiracy with the National Park Service to pretend that it is a
scenic wonder to cover that up.

Despite resource extraction and development of public lands, mountain
bikers are unable to destroy all of the environment without riding.

When the City of New Orleans banned mountain bikes in early September,
they got even by sending Katrina. Fortunately for Houston, they
rescinded their ban before Rita wiped them out, too.

Mountain bikers are developing weapons of mass destruction for
terrorist attacks, and hiding them in countries which are getting
blamed for them.

The mountain biker flu pandemic will be many times worse than the
worst bird flu outbreak.

Mountain bikers are the vanguard of an alien attack. This is why Mike
treats them like they are not human.

Good thing we have omniscient Mikie to keep perspective on the world's
problems.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[popeyeball]

-There
-.will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for
bicycle
-.traffic.

-BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too fragile
for mountain
-bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a
mountain biker is
-fragile.
IMHO I take your abbreviation, BS, as balony & salomy.
Obtain a scale and weigh yourself. Obtain a bicycle and weigh yourself
one tire.
Now consider the narrow width of a bicycle tire compared to a monstrous
size of a comparative hiking boot.
I belive seeking virgin wilderness is an advirable cause, and also
exhausting. Unknown to me the location, eventually sprawl may
eventually have high rises surrounding this habitat.
I would consider cashing out, piciking up roots, and re-locating to a
'real' wilderness areal. Invest your capital to create trails /
boardwalks to preserve these precious habitats. Constuct an abode for
yourself and others you co-habitate. Build suitable stuctures (canvas,
wood, etc) and create an eco-travel training business. This would not
only draw people from around the world (properly advertised on web) but
also make you a ton of moola. Eco travel is a world wide phenomenom
the past near decade
Think about it. You could have and live in your pristine wilderness
(Governent grants would fund the whole thing also). You could educate
all who are interested in your life long pursuit. You would have
control of what activities partake in your own world. It would be
heven on Earth.
Don't fight the Government - get the government to work for you.
Spending energy researching available grants would be more fullfiling
than spinning wheels against the imoveable wall of the establishment.
Researching grants on your own can be a night mare I know because I
have done this for others. If you use resources available you may
slide into a quick payday. Try your State & Federal Representatives &
Senators, for your area and the area you wish to control. Contact
various agencies like Bureau of Land Management and various University
Archaeology Departments - let your imagination go wild.
Follow your bliss.
Steve in Michigan