S
S Curtiss
Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:19:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 23:24:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:00:27 -0400, Steve Curtiss
> .<[email protected]>
> .> .> wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> .> .
> .> .> .> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:09:01 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> .<[email protected]>
> .> .wrote:
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> .> .> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> .> .<[email protected]>
> .> .> .> .wrote:
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .> .> Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as
> .> .claimed.
> .> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off
road
> .> .cycling.
> .> .> .> .You
> .> .> .> .> .can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt
bikers"
> .> .are up
> .> .> .> .> .against is biased attitudes and false perceptions of shared
> .access
> .> .for
> .> .> .> .> .hiking and off road cycling.
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> Lie all you want, but the reasons for banning bikes are VALID:
> .> .documented
> .> .> .> .danger
> .> .> .> .> to wildlife and other trail users..
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .Lie all YOU want. Studies show your "reasons" are based on false
> .> .perceptions
> .> .> .> .and myths being put forth by a small majority who claim to speak
> .for
> .> .> .> .wildlife. Moutain bikes are not killing wildlife.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other
> .animals
> .> .every tme
> .> .> .> they ride. That is obvious.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .
> .> .> .How convenient! You snipped the content that specifically addresses
> .your
> .> .stated
> .> .> .concerns (8 years - auto dependence - road construction...) so you
> .could
> .> .take
> .> .> .another shot with your exaggerated claim of ultimate destruction by
mt
> .> .bikes. Why
> .> .> .didn't you address the rest of the content:
> .> .> ."Urban sprawl, new construction (especially when existing
structures
> .are
> .> .vacant and
> .> .> .plentiful) and excess limber clearing is destroying habitat which
IS
> .> .stressing
> .> .> .wildlife to death. Why is it so difficult to actually cooperate
with
> .> .everyone
> .> .> .interested in keeping these areas from destruction instead of
> .continually
> .> .> .splintering groups against each other which ultimately solves
> .nothing."
> .> .> .As far as your statement: "They kill plants, insects, and other
> .animals
> .> .every time
> .> .> .they ride. That is obvious"
> .> .> .Hikers step on insects and plants and disturb wildlife every time
they
> .> .walk. That is
> .> .> .obvious.
> .> .>
> .> .> Bikers travel several times as far, so kill several times as much
> .> .wildlife. DUH!
> .> .> Hikers are also able to step over animals & plants. Bikers can't.
They
> .> .sim[ly
> .> .> sqush them.
> .> .>
> .> .and hikers never venture off trail. All hikers are virtuous
> .>
> .> I never said that, liar.
> .>
> .> and all mt
> .> .bikers are liars...
> .>
> .> You just conveniently demonstrated that.
> .>
> .> .How much you want for that bridge over the bay?
> .> .
> .> .> So don't play "holier than thou" because you hike, Mr. Double
> .Standard.
> .> .> .Address the real concerns that ALL OF US are worried about.
> .> .>
> .> .> There are plenty of people working on stopping sprawl.
> .> .
> .> .Ignorance is bliss, MR V... so blissfull, apparently, you would
rather
> .go
> .> .after a group who shares many of the same views as you
> .>
> .> Name ONE view that mountain bikers share (and actively promote) with me
> .and
> .> other REAL conservationists.
> .>
> .I did... you again avoided it so you could take a jab at mt bike
> .enthusiasts. Here... I'll say it again in words you can grasp. Hikers,
Mt
> .bikers, conservationists (as you say) are all interested in keeping green
> .areas safe from construction. Habitat (which you say you value) is being
> .targeted for concrete and pavement every day. Mt bikers are among the
people
> .trying to keep that from happening.
>
> BS. I spent 8 years working on stopping highway construction, and NOT ONE
> mountain biker showed up at any hearing to help. But they always show up
to beg
> for more mountain biking access.
>
> It destroys the habitat (you claim to
> .cherish) AND takes away places to ride and hike. Mt bikers stand with
many
> .groups to oppose this unneeded construction. You only drive a wedge into
the
> .mix to get these groups fighting each other. You do more harm than good.
> .Concerning your reply to this:
> ."and hikers never venture off trail. All hikers are virtuous"
> .>
> .> I never said that, liar.
> .I never said you said it. But the way you attribute ecological damage to
all
> .mt bikers and leave all hikers unchallenged always seems to demonstrate
your
> .bias.
>
> BS. I advocate human-free habitat, which includes hikers. YOU don't.
>
Actually... I advocate the use of bicycles on public lands designated as
multi-use. There are miles and miles of trails and fire roads that can be
shared by all interested. This includes offroad cyclists. Your "human free
habitat" is a lofty goal, but is an external argument to the point of
bicycle access in multi-use public land planning. btw... Here in VA there
are miles upon miles of mountain areas that are quite difficult to get to.
Trails only go so far (the App Trail may be an exception, which IS off
limits to bikes) and fire roads or power line cuts are distantly seperated.
By default, most trails systems are close in to existing roads and
population areas. However, newer access possibilities are created whenever
construction expands. Close by, there is a large development cutting into a
once green mountainside even with much public input against it. Driving from
my residence to that point, there are several vacant offices and buildings.
I simply wonder why groups who enjoy venturing outdoors must point there
fingers at each other instead of this type of useless construction. I also
fail to understand why your comments are so combative. Does that really help
anything?
> .> while bulldozers are
> .> .clearing trees for another WalMart.... Sleep well.
> .> .> ===
> .> .> 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
> .> .
> .>
> .> ===
> .> 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
> .
>
> ===
> 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
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:19:36 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 23:24:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:00:27 -0400, Steve Curtiss
> .<[email protected]>
> .> .> wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> .> .
> .> .> .> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:09:01 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> .<[email protected]>
> .> .wrote:
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> .> .> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:14:23 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> .> .<[email protected]>
> .> .> .> .wrote:
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .> .> Sure. But they are not being denied access to the trails as
> .> .claimed.
> .> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> .Their claim, as you say, is access for the purpose of off
road
> .> .cycling.
> .> .> .> .You
> .> .> .> .> .can pick apart their phrasing all you want. What the "mt
bikers"
> .> .are up
> .> .> .> .> .against is biased attitudes and false perceptions of shared
> .access
> .> .for
> .> .> .> .> .hiking and off road cycling.
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .> Lie all you want, but the reasons for banning bikes are VALID:
> .> .documented
> .> .> .> .danger
> .> .> .> .> to wildlife and other trail users..
> .> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .Lie all YOU want. Studies show your "reasons" are based on false
> .> .perceptions
> .> .> .> .and myths being put forth by a small majority who claim to speak
> .for
> .> .> .> .wildlife. Moutain bikes are not killing wildlife.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> That is pure fabrication. They kill plants, insects, and other
> .animals
> .> .every tme
> .> .> .> they ride. That is obvious.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .
> .> .> .How convenient! You snipped the content that specifically addresses
> .your
> .> .stated
> .> .> .concerns (8 years - auto dependence - road construction...) so you
> .could
> .> .take
> .> .> .another shot with your exaggerated claim of ultimate destruction by
mt
> .> .bikes. Why
> .> .> .didn't you address the rest of the content:
> .> .> ."Urban sprawl, new construction (especially when existing
structures
> .are
> .> .vacant and
> .> .> .plentiful) and excess limber clearing is destroying habitat which
IS
> .> .stressing
> .> .> .wildlife to death. Why is it so difficult to actually cooperate
with
> .> .everyone
> .> .> .interested in keeping these areas from destruction instead of
> .continually
> .> .> .splintering groups against each other which ultimately solves
> .nothing."
> .> .> .As far as your statement: "They kill plants, insects, and other
> .animals
> .> .every time
> .> .> .they ride. That is obvious"
> .> .> .Hikers step on insects and plants and disturb wildlife every time
they
> .> .walk. That is
> .> .> .obvious.
> .> .>
> .> .> Bikers travel several times as far, so kill several times as much
> .> .wildlife. DUH!
> .> .> Hikers are also able to step over animals & plants. Bikers can't.
They
> .> .sim[ly
> .> .> sqush them.
> .> .>
> .> .and hikers never venture off trail. All hikers are virtuous
> .>
> .> I never said that, liar.
> .>
> .> and all mt
> .> .bikers are liars...
> .>
> .> You just conveniently demonstrated that.
> .>
> .> .How much you want for that bridge over the bay?
> .> .
> .> .> So don't play "holier than thou" because you hike, Mr. Double
> .Standard.
> .> .> .Address the real concerns that ALL OF US are worried about.
> .> .>
> .> .> There are plenty of people working on stopping sprawl.
> .> .
> .> .Ignorance is bliss, MR V... so blissfull, apparently, you would
rather
> .go
> .> .after a group who shares many of the same views as you
> .>
> .> Name ONE view that mountain bikers share (and actively promote) with me
> .and
> .> other REAL conservationists.
> .>
> .I did... you again avoided it so you could take a jab at mt bike
> .enthusiasts. Here... I'll say it again in words you can grasp. Hikers,
Mt
> .bikers, conservationists (as you say) are all interested in keeping green
> .areas safe from construction. Habitat (which you say you value) is being
> .targeted for concrete and pavement every day. Mt bikers are among the
people
> .trying to keep that from happening.
>
> BS. I spent 8 years working on stopping highway construction, and NOT ONE
> mountain biker showed up at any hearing to help. But they always show up
to beg
> for more mountain biking access.
>
> It destroys the habitat (you claim to
> .cherish) AND takes away places to ride and hike. Mt bikers stand with
many
> .groups to oppose this unneeded construction. You only drive a wedge into
the
> .mix to get these groups fighting each other. You do more harm than good.
> .Concerning your reply to this:
> ."and hikers never venture off trail. All hikers are virtuous"
> .>
> .> I never said that, liar.
> .I never said you said it. But the way you attribute ecological damage to
all
> .mt bikers and leave all hikers unchallenged always seems to demonstrate
your
> .bias.
>
> BS. I advocate human-free habitat, which includes hikers. YOU don't.
>
Actually... I advocate the use of bicycles on public lands designated as
multi-use. There are miles and miles of trails and fire roads that can be
shared by all interested. This includes offroad cyclists. Your "human free
habitat" is a lofty goal, but is an external argument to the point of
bicycle access in multi-use public land planning. btw... Here in VA there
are miles upon miles of mountain areas that are quite difficult to get to.
Trails only go so far (the App Trail may be an exception, which IS off
limits to bikes) and fire roads or power line cuts are distantly seperated.
By default, most trails systems are close in to existing roads and
population areas. However, newer access possibilities are created whenever
construction expands. Close by, there is a large development cutting into a
once green mountainside even with much public input against it. Driving from
my residence to that point, there are several vacant offices and buildings.
I simply wonder why groups who enjoy venturing outdoors must point there
fingers at each other instead of this type of useless construction. I also
fail to understand why your comments are so combative. Does that really help
anything?
> .> while bulldozers are
> .> .clearing trees for another WalMart.... Sleep well.
> .> .> ===
> .> .> 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
> .> .
> .>
> .> ===
> .> 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
> .
>
> ===
> 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
