M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
At 01:30 AM 4/16/04 -0700, Rolfe Horn wrote:
>Mr. Vandeman,
>I live in the Oakland Hills, which you had mentioned in your article:
>>Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>First off, I must say that
I enjoyed reading your article. I too, am a believer
that humans should depend less on automobiles, for cars
are a bane to the enviroment. Which is why I ride my
bicycle to enjoy nature.
Then leave it at the trail head.
>I do not believe in driving a
fossil fueled vehicle to witness the beauty of nature.
Time after time, I see the parking lot filled with gas
guzzling SUV's so one can bring their dog for a walk.
Why can't those lazy people just walk a couple of hours
from their home to get to the forest? Why do they have
to drive their vehicle?
Beats me. If humanjs were rational, no one would smoke....
>As you may notice, I have a passion similar to yours, with
the exception that I prefer to be 'lazy' and ride a bike.
I ride many legal singletracks in the Oakland hills, as well
as some fireroads. Geeze, you should have seen what the park
service did to the West Ridge fireroad this last year. Bulldozers
moved tons of cubic earth. Here is a link to see photos of the
carnage:
>http://www.btceb.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=EBRBD;action=display;num=1052325973
>I just feel sorry for any fish in the creeks when the rains arrived
and washed all that silt into the streams. I highly doubt that
bicycle tires could do that much damage to the earth in 1000 years!
Sad, but irrelevant.
>I digress.
That's right.
>The reason I decided to e-mail you is that I felt that I
must bring to your attention one point that you forgot to mention in
your article. It is a popular issue here in the Oakland Hills. Where
bikes tend to stay on the marked trails, hikers DO NOT.
And how does someone else's transgressions excuse mountain biking? Look up "non
sequitur" in the dictionary.
> In Joaquin Miller
park, hikers have veered off trail, roaming though the Redwood groves. This
is causing the soil to compact to the extent that the Redwood roots will
eventually become suffocated, hence killing the beautiful trees the hikers
so admire.
Bikers do the same thing, which is why the fences were put in (and ripped out by
the mountain bikers).
>Park superintendants have lined the trails with logs, but hikers
just walk right over them to go and 'hug a tree'. My point being, of course,
is that hikers tend to destroy more plants/wildlife than cyclists, because
they wander off trail much more frequently.
That is called "anecdotal evidence", and is not scientific. It's true they do
that, but who does it more is an open question.
>You proposed to create a pure habitat. Get real! With the non native plants
(chinese star thistle, scotch brume, etc) invading our native forests, you
will have a pile of weeds within a century.
There is no solution to many exotic species invasions, regardless of what we do.
> The star thistle, for example,
was introduced to control erosion by who? The supervisors, the government, the
controlling officials of our parks. It is taking over the native california
grasslands in the blink of an eye in terms of a geological timeline. Think
of how the poison oak will take over, growing ceaselessly, engulfing everything
sight!
So what?
>I could refute so much of your premises which you proposed, like bike tires
carry
mud and other substace. A hiking boot will carry that same mud much further,
because on a bike, the same mud will be wisked away due to centrifugal force,
where the boot just carries it along, mile after mile.
BS. When you stop, the mud stays there. Or do you never stop?
>I have no doubt that you are an educated man, with your PhD and all, but think
about this; the wheel was invented long ago, it was such a great discovery.
Mabey
even greater than some of Newton's or Einstein's discoveries. The wheel is the
most efficient mode of transport. It is less impactful than boots, hooves, or
even bulldozers.
That's just not true, which I think you well know.
> I can remember hiking the trails of Tahoe when I was a kid, my
brother and I would 'skid' the trails with our boots as much a possible. We'd
kick rocks out of the soil and throw them in the creek, roam off trail to pick
wildflowers for our mom, create a shortcut to the next switchback, and on and
on.
I ride a bike now, and I don't skid or go off trail.
That is a bald-faced lie. It is IMPOSSIBLE to bike without skidding, especially
when the trails get steep. Your nose is growing....
>Please cogitate,
Rolfe Horn
===
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
>Mr. Vandeman,
>I live in the Oakland Hills, which you had mentioned in your article:
>>Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>First off, I must say that
I enjoyed reading your article. I too, am a believer
that humans should depend less on automobiles, for cars
are a bane to the enviroment. Which is why I ride my
bicycle to enjoy nature.
Then leave it at the trail head.
>I do not believe in driving a
fossil fueled vehicle to witness the beauty of nature.
Time after time, I see the parking lot filled with gas
guzzling SUV's so one can bring their dog for a walk.
Why can't those lazy people just walk a couple of hours
from their home to get to the forest? Why do they have
to drive their vehicle?
Beats me. If humanjs were rational, no one would smoke....
>As you may notice, I have a passion similar to yours, with
the exception that I prefer to be 'lazy' and ride a bike.
I ride many legal singletracks in the Oakland hills, as well
as some fireroads. Geeze, you should have seen what the park
service did to the West Ridge fireroad this last year. Bulldozers
moved tons of cubic earth. Here is a link to see photos of the
carnage:
>http://www.btceb.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=EBRBD;action=display;num=1052325973
>I just feel sorry for any fish in the creeks when the rains arrived
and washed all that silt into the streams. I highly doubt that
bicycle tires could do that much damage to the earth in 1000 years!
Sad, but irrelevant.
>I digress.
That's right.
>The reason I decided to e-mail you is that I felt that I
must bring to your attention one point that you forgot to mention in
your article. It is a popular issue here in the Oakland Hills. Where
bikes tend to stay on the marked trails, hikers DO NOT.
And how does someone else's transgressions excuse mountain biking? Look up "non
sequitur" in the dictionary.
> In Joaquin Miller
park, hikers have veered off trail, roaming though the Redwood groves. This
is causing the soil to compact to the extent that the Redwood roots will
eventually become suffocated, hence killing the beautiful trees the hikers
so admire.
Bikers do the same thing, which is why the fences were put in (and ripped out by
the mountain bikers).
>Park superintendants have lined the trails with logs, but hikers
just walk right over them to go and 'hug a tree'. My point being, of course,
is that hikers tend to destroy more plants/wildlife than cyclists, because
they wander off trail much more frequently.
That is called "anecdotal evidence", and is not scientific. It's true they do
that, but who does it more is an open question.
>You proposed to create a pure habitat. Get real! With the non native plants
(chinese star thistle, scotch brume, etc) invading our native forests, you
will have a pile of weeds within a century.
There is no solution to many exotic species invasions, regardless of what we do.
> The star thistle, for example,
was introduced to control erosion by who? The supervisors, the government, the
controlling officials of our parks. It is taking over the native california
grasslands in the blink of an eye in terms of a geological timeline. Think
of how the poison oak will take over, growing ceaselessly, engulfing everything
sight!
So what?
>I could refute so much of your premises which you proposed, like bike tires
carry
mud and other substace. A hiking boot will carry that same mud much further,
because on a bike, the same mud will be wisked away due to centrifugal force,
where the boot just carries it along, mile after mile.
BS. When you stop, the mud stays there. Or do you never stop?
>I have no doubt that you are an educated man, with your PhD and all, but think
about this; the wheel was invented long ago, it was such a great discovery.
Mabey
even greater than some of Newton's or Einstein's discoveries. The wheel is the
most efficient mode of transport. It is less impactful than boots, hooves, or
even bulldozers.
That's just not true, which I think you well know.
> I can remember hiking the trails of Tahoe when I was a kid, my
brother and I would 'skid' the trails with our boots as much a possible. We'd
kick rocks out of the soil and throw them in the creek, roam off trail to pick
wildflowers for our mom, create a shortcut to the next switchback, and on and
on.
I ride a bike now, and I don't skid or go off trail.
That is a bald-faced lie. It is IMPOSSIBLE to bike without skidding, especially
when the trails get steep. Your nose is growing....
>Please cogitate,
Rolfe Horn
===
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
