Once Again, Mountain Bikers Prove That They Don't Get It



M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
At 04:01 PM 2/23/05 -0800, Jeff Meiklejohn <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dear Michael,




> I have recently come across your site via a citation used in a local

trail access debate. While I have not read all of your articles I have read most
of those concerned with the subject of mountain bikes and also a few which
concern the greater issue of human impact on environment in general. Now as a
mountain biker myself I of course take issue with much of the slander present in
your arguments, but that is not why I am emailing you today.

I don't slander. I tell the truth.

> For the past few years the issue of trail access in my area has been a

continually hot topic for debate. The issue of mountain bikes is often foremost
on the agenda. Both sides relentlessly argue their cases. However, as this
battle rages on something much more significant is taking place, development.

Mountain biking IS development.

> As the various user groups quarrel over their differences urban sprawl pushes

outwards and upwards at a seemingly unstoppable rate. Many of the trails which
were once fought over are no more, instead spreads an endless expanse of
suburbia. The point I am trying to get at here is that as user groups we should
have been working together from the start.

To YOU, that means that we don't oppose mountain biking. I see no reason not to
oppose it. It is harmful in many different ways. Mountain bikers aren't helpful
as an ally. Let me put it this way:

"Why do you oppose development?"
"Because I want to ride my bike there."

Have you ever heard a weaker argument? Or how about this one?

"We oppose development because we want to protect nature."
"Then why do practice a hobby that destroys habitat, accelerates erosion, ruts
trails, kills plants and animals, and drives wildlife out of its habitat?"

Starting to see the point? You are in denial of the truth about your sport.

> I think that all groups (hikers, bikers, and equestrians) share a love of and

respect for nature and the outdoors (at least in comparison to the average
person looking for a big house with a yard and a double car garage). For that
reason alone we should be united in our quest for protecting the areas in which
we practice our respective activities.

I would welcome your help. In fact, I have been asking for it for 10 years. But
the ONLY thing mountain bikers are interested in is getting acess to more
trails. PERIOD.

> People have an indisputable effect on nature regardless of what mode of

conveyance they employ. For that reason I fully agree with your belief that a
certain amount of wilderness should be designated off-limits for humans and left
alone. At the same time however I feel that all types of outdoor recreation are
invaluable in exposing people to nature and in turn building in them a healthy
respect for it. I cannot align with your elitist view that we need to restrict
the number of people allowed to experience nature.

I never said that. I said that we need to reduce the human impact on nature, and
that the best (most humane) way to do that is NOT to restrict the people, but
the TECHNOLOGIES they are allowed to use in nature.

> The vast majority of damage to our planet is the result of a society which

removes people from their natural surroundings and places them in a manufactured
world. Perhaps by exposing people to the wonders of nature we can make them see
the value of conservation.

Bikes don't do that. They put you above the ground and force you to pay
attention to controllng the bike, leaving no time to experience nature. A loot
at any MTB video will tell you that.

> In conclusion what I am saying is that infighting between various

user groups is counterproductive. The energy spent debating the subject of
mountain bikes would better be spent on protecting land from sprawling
development, the outcomes of such debates become quite academic when the trails
become covered with houses.

I AM working on protecting natural areas from development, including mountain
biking and trailbuilding. I wish mountain bikers would help, but they are too
caught up in their selfish pursuit of their own pleasure. That's just a FACT.
How about facing the truth once in a while, and stop pretending that you care
about nature?

>Sincerely,


>Jeff Meiklejohn




PS. I do have more to say but I must wrap this up and go finish a lab that deals
with, of all things, erosion.







===
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

Slack

Guest
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:08:04 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Now as a mountain biker myself



You claiming to be one of us is akin to a gay dude claiming to be a chick.
--
Slack
 
G

Gary S.

Guest
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:23:03 -0800, Slack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:08:04 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> Now as a mountain biker myself

>
>You claiming to be one of us is akin to a gay dude claiming to be a chick.


He is quoting one of his imaginary friends who agrees with him.

Apparently every single person who agrees with him is terrified of the
"mountain-bike Mafia" and wants absolutely no identification of
themselves. Coincidently, this means that none of them can be verified
as existing, and he gets to pretend that all mountain bikers are
dangerous.

This is the same guy who applauds deliberate creation of dangerous
hazards on trails which have hurt people on mountain bikes. He also
applauds any injury to any person on any type of bicycle in any
location, to add into his crusade.

He is not brave or active enough to do anything himself or admit to
it, but someone with that much hatred can be dangerous.

Do not think that he represents anyone or any group besides himself.
Ask him about why he was removed from his leadership position in his
local Sierra Club Chapter, and why he was banned from ever holding
elected or appointed office in the Sierra Club. They did not choose to
revoke his membership.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

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

Slack

Guest
> Ask him about why he was removed from his leadership position in his
> local Sierra Club Chapter, and why he was banned from ever holding
> elected or appointed office in the Sierra Club. They did not choose to
> revoke his membership.
>
> Happy trails,
> Gary (net.yogi.bear)



He would be too cowardly to fess up to anything, but if I had to, my
educated guess would be public masturbation and defecation; Most likey,
both at the same time.
--
Slack
 
G

Gary S.

Guest
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:03:07 -0800, Slack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Ask him about why he was removed from his leadership position in his
>> local Sierra Club Chapter, and why he was banned from ever holding
>> elected or appointed office in the Sierra Club. They did not choose to
>> revoke his membership.
>>
>> Happy trails,
>> Gary (net.yogi.bear)

>
>He would be too cowardly to fess up to anything, but if I had to, my
>educated guess would be public masturbation and defecation; Most likey,
>both at the same time.


Actually, he tried to get another Sierra Club volunteer, with whom he
disagreed about mountain biking, fired from his day job, and
apparently used his Sierra Club position (Wildlife Subcommitee Chair
for the local Sierra Club Chapter) in the process.

This, on top of many other complaints (based on his conduct, not his
positions), was enough to get him booted for "Breach of Leadership
Trust", in an action by the national SC BoD. Revocation of his
membership was considered, but they did not follow through.

I am familiar with other outdoors clubs, and I can tell you this is
NOT something that happens very often, and only in egregious cases.

Mikie will waffle over this, but the fact is that he is no longer in
that leadership position. The fact is that the Wildlife Subcommittee
no longers exists as part of that Chapter. The fact is that he is a
laughingstock among members of the Bay area outdoors community.

It feeds into his persecution/martyr complex.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

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

cc

Guest
"Gary S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:03:07 -0800, Slack
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Ask him about why he was removed from his leadership position in his
>>> local Sierra Club Chapter, and why he was banned from ever holding
>>> elected or appointed office in the Sierra Club. They did not choose to
>>> revoke his membership.
>>>
>>> Happy trails,
>>> Gary (net.yogi.bear)

>>


That is the funniest **** I have heard in a LONG time.

Thank you Gary.

cc
 
M

manmoose

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Mike Vandeman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I would welcome your help. In fact, I have been asking for it for 10 years.
> But
> the ONLY thing mountain bikers are interested in is getting acess to more
> trails. PERIOD.


Give me a break - the only 'help' you want for mountain bikers is for
them to get off 'your' trails. You are a small minded zealot - if you
had genuine concern you'd simply order and distribute the "Leave No
Trace" brochures directed towards mountain bikers.

Again, I am no mountain biker, and I seldom travel trails, but the
friends I have who do mountain bike as well as the mountain bikers that
I _have_ met on trails are and have been nice (and generally fitter
than some of the backpackers I've met on high-use trails) and
conscience, not the obnoxious ogres that you portray. (I suppose that I
should feel guilt for the wreckage my crampons and ice axe did to
glaciers last month - those are non-renewable resources you know - they
do a good, but slow, job of killing themselves).

--
manmoose
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:15:39 GMT, Gary S. <[email protected]> wrote:

..On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:03:07 -0800, Slack
..<[email protected]> wrote:
..
..>> Ask him about why he was removed from his leadership position in his
..>> local Sierra Club Chapter, and why he was banned from ever holding
..>> elected or appointed office in the Sierra Club. They did not choose to
..>> revoke his membership.
..>>
..>> Happy trails,
..>> Gary (net.yogi.bear)
..>
..>He would be too cowardly to fess up to anything, but if I had to, my
..>educated guess would be public masturbation and defecation; Most likey,
..>both at the same time.
..
..Actually, he tried to get another Sierra Club volunteer, with whom he
..disagreed about mountain biking, fired from his day job, and
..apparently used his Sierra Club position (Wildlife Subcommitee Chair
..for the local Sierra Club Chapter) in the process.
..
..This, on top of many other complaints (based on his conduct, not his
..positions), was enough to get him booted for "Breach of Leadership
..Trust", in an action by the national SC BoD. Revocation of his
..membership was considered, but they did not follow through.
..
..I am familiar with other outdoors clubs, and I can tell you this is
..NOT something that happens very often, and only in egregious cases.
..
..Mikie will waffle over this, but the fact is that he is no longer in
..that leadership position. The fact is that the Wildlife Subcommittee
..no longers exists as part of that Chapter.

Thanks for demonstrating that you know NOTHING.

The fact is that he is a
..laughingstock among members of the Bay area outdoors community.
..
..It feeds into his persecution/martyr complex.
..
..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)

===
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:37:54 -0600, manmoose <[email protected]> wrote:

..In article <[email protected]>, Mike Vandeman
..<[email protected]> wrote:
..
..> I would welcome your help. In fact, I have been asking for it for 10 years.
..> But
..> the ONLY thing mountain bikers are interested in is getting acess to more
..> trails. PERIOD.
..
..Give me a break - the only 'help' you want for mountain bikers is for
..them to get off 'your' trails. You are a small minded zealot - if you
..had genuine concern you'd simply order and distribute the "Leave No
..Trace" brochures directed towards mountain bikers.

Which would accomplish NOTHING, of course. What an idiot!

..Again, I am no mountain biker, and I seldom travel trails, but the
..friends I have who do mountain bike as well as the mountain bikers that
..I _have_ met on trails are and have been nice (and generally fitter
..than some of the backpackers I've met on high-use trails) and
..conscience, not the obnoxious ogres that you portray.

Point out that they are riding illegally, and see how "nice" they are....

(I suppose that I
..should feel guilt for the wreckage my crampons and ice axe did to
..glaciers last month - those are non-renewable resources you know - they
..do a good, but slow, job of killing themselves).

===
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