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
>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
