Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

[di]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 05:20:56 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Leave it to a mountain biker to TOTALLY miss the point: brains are
> WORTHLESS without HONESTY! Mountain bikers are totally allergic to
> telling the truth. That's why it is so easy for Ed & I to wrap them
> around our little fingers.
>

"Ed & I", I would hate to think that is the limit of my friends. But, I
guess you two deserve each other.

> ===
> 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

 

[Chris Foster]

Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> SMS wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>
>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>> mountain biking is about the same.
>
> Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
> I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
> They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
> coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
> rule makers actually ride.
>>
>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it
>> deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any.
>> You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone
>> would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they
>> haven't and there isn't.
>
> Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over
> it exactly once each way, except that the bike and gear adds about 50
> pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH and try to
> never skid and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
> without the teenage antics? Add to that some of the places I go a
> hiker or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am
> thinking minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by
> starting a fire but that is a whole new issue.
> Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>

Hey Bill,
I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:59:52 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>SMS wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>>
>>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>> mountain biking is about the same.
>>
>>Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>>I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>>They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>>coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>>rule makers actually ride.
>>>
>>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
>>> a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
>>> that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
>>> up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there
>>> isn't.
>>
>>Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it
>>exactly once each way,
>
> Tell the truth! Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers.
You still ignore "time". You IGNORE the FACT that cyclists are in and away
from any spot or area quickly while hikers remain in a vicinity (causing
more distrurbance by the mere human presence [your words - not mine]. You
have yet to prove the disturbance or trail impact of the cyclist is greater.
"Distance" is merely a variable you apply to your OPINION. "Distance" X 0 =
0
>
> except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>>pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH
>
> I tru never to hike over 2 MPH. Quite a difference....
How long (time) are you hiking...? How long are you in a vicinity causing
human disturbance while the cyclist has come, gone by and possibly finished
the ride and left...?
>
> and try to
>>never skid
>
> IMPOSSIBLE. Wherever trails are steep or the soil is loose, you will
> skid.
As the hiker will slip also...
>
> and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>>without the teenage antics?
>
> Hikers can easily step over animals on the trail. Bikers cannot. They
> will crush them every time.
Generality. No basis in FACT for the statement. Anecdotal. OPINION.
>
> Add to that some of the places I go a hiker
>>or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking
>>minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a
>>fire but that is a whole new issue.
>>Bill (careful with nature) Baka
> ===

 

[Bill]

S Curtiss wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:59:52 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SMS wrote:
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>>> mountain biking is about the same.
>>> Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>>> I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>>> They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>>> coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>>> rule makers actually ride.
>>>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
>>>> a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
>>>> that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
>>>> up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there
>>>> isn't.
>>> Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it
>>> exactly once each way,
>> Tell the truth! Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers.
> You still ignore "time". You IGNORE the FACT that cyclists are in and away
> from any spot or area quickly while hikers remain in a vicinity (causing
> more distrurbance by the mere human presence [your words - not mine]. You
> have yet to prove the disturbance or trail impact of the cyclist is greater.
> "Distance" is merely a variable you apply to your OPINION. "Distance" X 0 =
> 0
>> except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>>> pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH
>> I tru never to hike over 2 MPH. Quite a difference....
> How long (time) are you hiking...? How long are you in a vicinity causing
> human disturbance while the cyclist has come, gone by and possibly finished
> the ride and left...?

My long hikes are 25-30 miles and usually in the Big Basin area of
California, and there are no bikes allowed there due to the density,
amount, of hikers. The 30 mile hikes take me all the way out of the
forest and to the top of "Chalk Mountain Road" appropriately named
because it is above all the trees and hotter than hell and dry. What is
nice is that I can see the ocean on one side and Mount Hamilton
observatory if it is one of those one in a hundred clear days.
>> and try to
>>> never skid
>> IMPOSSIBLE. Wherever trails are steep or the soil is loose, you will
>> skid.

If it is that steep and long enough to require serious braking I get off
and walk. Going off a cliff is too stupid even on my hyper days.

> As the hiker will slip also...

Call me different but I run the short downhills to get momentum for the
next uphill. I outdistance all but the fittest hikers 30 years my junior
this way. They just don't get the 'old guy' beating them so badly, but
it is only using inertia to my advantage.

>> and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>>> without the teenage antics?
>> Hikers can easily step over animals on the trail. Bikers cannot. They
>> will crush them every time.

Never even once have I come close to hitting any kind of animal. I have
even swerved to avoid bugs and slugs. I am enjoying nature, not using a
bike to slaughter it.

> Generality. No basis in FACT for the statement. Anecdotal. OPINION.
>> Add to that some of the places I go a hiker
>>> or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking
>>> minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a
>>> fire but that is a whole new issue.
>>> Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>> ===
>
>

Why do we have such an avid non-biker posting so much?
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Chris Foster wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>> Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>>
>
> Hey Bill,
> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>
Maybe his computer will blow up??
Bill

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>>
>>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>> mountain biking is about the same.
>>
>> Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>> I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>> They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>> coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>> rule makers actually ride.
>>>
>>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it
>>> deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any.
>>> You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone
>>> would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they
>>> haven't and there isn't.
>>
>> Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over
>> it exactly once each way, except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>> pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH and try to
>> never skid and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>> without the teenage antics? Add to that some of the places I go a
>> hiker or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am
>> thinking minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by
>> starting a fire but that is a whole new issue.
>> Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>>
>
>Hey Bill,
> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."

He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
I think you did the same thing.
===
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 Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:47:19 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:59:52 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>SMS wrote:
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>>>
>>>> The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>>> evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>>> mountain biking is about the same.
>>>
>>>Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do?
>>>I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association).
>>>They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears
>>>coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the
>>>rule makers actually ride.
>>>>
>>>> If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves
>>>> a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think
>>>> that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come
>>>> up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there
>>>> isn't.
>>>
>>>Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it
>>>exactly once each way,
>>
>> Tell the truth! Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers.
>You still ignore "time". You IGNORE the FACT that cyclists are in and away
>from any spot or area quickly while hikers remain in a vicinity (causing
>more distrurbance by the mere human presence [your words - not mine].

Pure speculation. The research still shows that mountain bikers have a
greater impact on wildlife.

You
>have yet to prove the disturbance or trail impact of the cyclist is greater.
>"Distance" is merely a variable you apply to your OPINION. "Distance" X 0 =
>0
>>
>> except that the bike and gear adds about 50
>>>pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH
>>
>> I tru never to hike over 2 MPH. Quite a difference....
>How long (time) are you hiking...? How long are you in a vicinity causing
>human disturbance while the cyclist has come, gone by and possibly finished
>the ride and left...?
>>
>> and try to
>>>never skid
>>
>> IMPOSSIBLE. Wherever trails are steep or the soil is loose, you will
>> skid.
>As the hiker will slip also...
>>
>> and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be
>>>without the teenage antics?
>>
>> Hikers can easily step over animals on the trail. Bikers cannot. They
>> will crush them every time.
>Generality. No basis in FACT for the statement. Anecdotal. OPINION.
>>
>> Add to that some of the places I go a hiker
>>>or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking
>>>minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a
>>>fire but that is a whole new issue.
>>>Bill (careful with nature) Baka
>> ===
>
===
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]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hey Bill,
>> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>
> He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
> I think you did the same thing.
>
I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people
avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I
stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although
rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence.
I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out
and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way
the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of
human made noise at all, and I have better hearing than most 18 year
olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't
damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the
leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major
reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range
at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human
presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out?
Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me.
Bill Baka


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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:42:27 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hey Bill,
>>> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>>
>> He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
>> I think you did the same thing.
>>
>I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people
>avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I
>stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although
>rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence.
>I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out
>and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way
>the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of
>human made noise at all,

Can't you WALK? If you want to get away from the city, why do you
bring it with you?! You guys make no sense whatsoever.

and I have better hearing than most 18 year
>olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't
>damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the
>leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major
>reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range
>at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human
>presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out?
>Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me.
>Bill Baka
>
>
>> 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

 

[Bill]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:42:27 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hey Bill,
>>>> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>>> He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
>>> I think you did the same thing.
>>>
>> I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people
>> avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I
>> stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although
>> rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence.
>> I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out
>> and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way
>> the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of
>> human made noise at all,
>
> Can't you WALK? If you want to get away from the city, why do you
> bring it with you?! You guys make no sense whatsoever.

Yes I can walk, but not 30 miles just to get to the hiking site. Once I
get there, where the cars can't continue, I still don't want to just
leave my bike unattended. There are a few unscrupulous individuals that
may steal the bike, but more red neck hunters that might just use it for
target practice. Every time I get too trusting of my fellow man, I get
screwed somehow. Personal encounters usually (not always) go well, but
there seems to be something about leaving something of value with nobody
watching it that brings out the worst in people. The hike to the
waterfall is about 2, maybe 3 miles of serious uphill so not many people
make it. I can ride about half to maybe 2/3 of that and have to drag or
better yet carry the bike when I go there. I will leave the bike on the
deer path just beyond the waterfall because most people are too fried to
follow that one, which has a 45 degree angle on the hill side I am
walking on (read, slip and nasty fall down to the water over rocks). I
have hiked that all the way out of the preserve and into the next
county, stopping only at a very serious looking cable across the creek
with big "No trespassing" signs very prolifically placed.
Nice long hike with minimal bike to get there. I know I am hiking on the
deer trail and it is not a people trail but it is the farthest back into
nature I can get starting from home with a bike and not a car.
Bill Baka

>
> and I have better hearing than most 18 year
>> olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't
>> damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the
>> leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major
>> reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range
>> at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human
>> presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out?
>> Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me.
>> Bill Baka
>>
>>
>>> 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 Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:50:03 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:42:27 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Bill,
>>>>> I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please."
>>>> He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach.
>>>> I think you did the same thing.
>>>>
>>> I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people
>>> avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I
>>> stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although
>>> rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence.
>>> I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out
>>> and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way
>>> the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of
>>> human made noise at all,
>>
>> Can't you WALK? If you want to get away from the city, why do you
>> bring it with you?! You guys make no sense whatsoever.
>
>Yes I can walk, but not 30 miles just to get to the hiking site. Once I
>get there, where the cars can't continue, I still don't want to just
>leave my bike unattended.

I see. Just as I suspected. So you guys sacrifice nature and wildlife,
just to "protect" your expensive bikes (except from your own
recklessness). Why don't you solve THAT problem, rather than force
wildlife and other trail users to suffer????? You could find a safe
place to leave the bike on the way, or ask the land manager to provide
it. Or ride your beater to the trailhead. My $25 yard sale bike is
just as effective as your expensive mountain bike.

There are a few unscrupulous individuals that
>may steal the bike, but more red neck hunters that might just use it for
>target practice. Every time I get too trusting of my fellow man, I get
>screwed somehow. Personal encounters usually (not always) go well, but
>there seems to be something about leaving something of value with nobody
>watching it that brings out the worst in people. The hike to the
>waterfall is about 2, maybe 3 miles of serious uphill so not many people
>make it. I can ride about half to maybe 2/3 of that and have to drag or
>better yet carry the bike when I go there. I will leave the bike on the
>deer path just beyond the waterfall because most people are too fried to
>follow that one, which has a 45 degree angle on the hill side I am
>walking on (read, slip and nasty fall down to the water over rocks). I
>have hiked that all the way out of the preserve and into the next
>county, stopping only at a very serious looking cable across the creek
>with big "No trespassing" signs very prolifically placed.
>Nice long hike with minimal bike to get there. I know I am hiking on the
>deer trail and it is not a people trail but it is the farthest back into
>nature I can get starting from home with a bike and not a car.
>Bill Baka
>
>>
>> and I have better hearing than most 18 year
>>> olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't
>>> damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the
>>> leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major
>>> reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range
>>> at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human
>>> presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out?
>>> Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me.
>>> Bill Baka
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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

 

[di]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:50:03 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> My $25 yard sale bike is
> just as effective as your expensive mountain bike.
>
> ===
> 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

To bad you can't say the same about your $25 yard sale brain or was it
$0.25.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:6fRsg.7401$nK.1361@dukeread05...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:50:03 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My $25 yard sale bike is
>> just as effective as your expensive mountain bike.
>
> To bad you can't say the same about your $25 yard sale brain or was it
> $0.25.

Holy **** little old di - can I quote you on the above! There is nothing I
like better than wit and wisdom all combined into one terse sentence.
However, I suggest you work more on your cleverness. I do detect some
potential there, but so far I have not seen any realization. I mean, you do
not want me to think you are an idiot, do you?

Whoever heard of anyone who has consistently voted Republican over the years
like little old di has who was an idiot. However, it may be that little old
di is a first in this category.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Chris Foster]

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

> On 3 Jul 2006 22:36:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > On 2 Jul 2006 22:06:46 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> >>> [...]
>>> >>> >> Cross posting is not an infraction you idiot. It is done all
>>> >>> >> the time on
>>> >>> >> Usenet. But it should be done intelligently. I thought to
>>> >>> >> drag some others
>>> >>> >> from other newsgroups to ARBR with the idea of invigorating
>>> >>> >> that newsgroup,
>>> >>> >> but it was not to be because these other newsgroups are very
>>> >>> >> narrowly focused on just one subject - and my home group
>>> >>> >> (ARBR) is made up of nothing
>>> >>> >> but Freds who do not like controversy and invective. And so
>>> >>> >> we must get
>>> >>> >> these threads off of ARBR and RBM where they clearly do not
>>> >>> >> belong. What
>>> >>> >> is
>>> >>> >> there about this that you do not understand?
>>> >>> >> [...]
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Do you ever tire of saying the same old **** over and over
>>> >>> > again ... ad
>>> >>> > nauseum? Your posts are like a soap opera. It's easy to pick
>>> >>> > up where
>>> >>> > you left off because its the same old regurgitated ****, day
>>> >>> > after day,
>>> >>> > week after week, month after month. Get some ne material
>>> >>> > already. - Jim McNamara
>>> >>>
>>> >>> McNamara has now become that most pitiful and pathetic of all
>>> >>> creatures - a
>>> >>> stalker and a leech. He is nothing but a blood sucking parasite.
>>> >>> Try to find
>>> >>> a post of his where he is not sponging off the Great Ed Dolan.
>>> >>> You will have
>>> >>> to go back a ways and then you will find him sponging off of Tom
>>> >>> Sherman and
>>> >>> before him, Ed Gin. All he gains from these ventures is to pick
>>> >>> up some of
>>> >>> my precious vocabulary. He knows his own vocabulary is
>>> >>> irrelevant to anything in this world.
>>> >>
>>> >>With almost every post you contradict yourself. You accuse me of
>>> >>writing with a dictionary in one hand and a thesaurus in another
>>> >>and condemn me for my vocabulary. Then, you accuse me of picking
>>> >>up "your precious vocabulary". Then, you accuse me of a having a
>>> >>vocabulary that is irrelevant to anything in this world. You
>>> >>don't even make sense. Truth be told, you are an an
>>> >>insignificant, infinitesimal speck of protoplasm irrelvant to
>>> >>anything in the cosmos accept your precious Mikey V.
>>> >>
>>> >>As concerns being a stalker, leech and a sponge ... things you
>>> >>have accused others of as well, be advised that you created your
>>> >>own monsters. Quit your whining, already. You have only yourself
>>> >>to blame for the "stalkers", "leeches" and "sponges" that you have
>>> >>fallen victim of. You intentionally go trolling for fights. When
>>> >>you encounter a tenacious, formidable adversary, and find yourself
>>> >>hopelessly embroiled in an embarrassing no-win cyber-skirmish, in
>>> >>desperation, you move to disencumber yourself by seeking to
>>> >>discredit and dismiss your adversary ... labeling him or her as a
>>> >>stalker. This thinly disguised ploy of your has failed countless
>>> >>times. If you really want to escape your self-inflicted dilemma,
>>> >>then turn tail, crawl on out of here. Return to the rock that you
>>> >>slithered out from under. - Jim McNamara
>>> >>
>>> >>> McNamara is a sad case and should be an object lesson to us all.
>>> >>> Never let
>>> >>> jealousy guide you in your affairs. It is the one and only vice
>>> >>> that gives
>>> >>> no pleasure.
>>> >>
>>> >>Jealousy??? You really are delusional . Knowing how I and others
>>> >>here feel about you (Excluding Mike V, of course), how could you
>>> >>possibly conclude that anyone would be jealous of you. Don't
>>> >>flatter youself. What and who you are precludes the possibly to
>>> >>ignite even so much as a flicker of envy. - Jim McNamara
>>> >>
>>> >>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly fawning
>>> >>over one another in public. You two resemble a couple of closet
>>> >>queens in heat.
>>> >
>>> > Yawn.
>>
>>Now, dont' hrt yourself with such a snappy comeback.
>>
>>> Mike, this is the kind of **** that goes on all the time on ARBR. I
>>> have gotten so used to it that it is like water off a duck's back.
>>> Truth to tell, I do not even notice it any more, but I respond to
>>> the likes of Jimbo so he won't feel any worse than he already does.
>>> I am just too soft hearted I know!
>>
>>Soft "hearted"? I think you misspelled "headed". - Jim McNamara
>
> Yawn.


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.





>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>> aka
>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris Foster]

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

> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:59:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly fawning
>>>>>over one another in public. You two resemble a couple of closet
>>>>>queens in heat.
>>>>
>>>> Yawn.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, Vandy is opening wide to receive Ed. Hope you enjoy it
>>> Ed.
>>
>>Are you sure you want to be indentified with Jimbo? He is a pathetic
>>figure who at least had the guts to do battle with Ed Gin, the most
>>notorious criminal vandal troll ever to infect ARBR. Everyone felt
>>sorry for him because Ed Gin was such a scoundrel, but Jimbo does not
>>know how to relate to anyone who is not a scoundrel. Hang in there
>>Foster as I think you will soon qualify yourself. Just keep telling
>>Jimbo that he is great and you will be OK, but the minute you tell him
>>that he is not great, he will whine and carry on like a school girl.
>>You have been warned!
>>
>>The one thing you both have going for you is that you are a couple of
>>half-wits who are incapable of a good rejoinder, something that
>>Vandeman and I do all the time on a regular basis. Jimbo and Foster,
>>half-witted sexual innuendoes - yea, that is as good as it is ever
>>going to get with them! Once a jarhead, always a jarhead apparently!
>>
>>By the way, I now believe you are lying about your Ph.D. in electrical
>>engineering. There is just no way anyone as stupid as you could
>>possibly have any higher degrees.
>
> Yes. Good catch.


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.





>
> Even Curtiss is occasionally able to say something
>>that indicates he has some intelligence, but not you. I doubt you even
>>have a high school diploma?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>aka
>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris Foster]

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

> On 07 Jul 2006 11:58:57 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 05 Jul 2006 13:59:47 GMT, Chris Foster
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly fawning
>>>>>>over one another in public. You two resemble a couple of closet
>>>>>>queens in heat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Once again, Vandy is opening wide to receive Ed. Hope you enjoy it
>>>>Ed.
>>>
>>> Once again, Chris Foster reveals his primary interest in life: other
>>> people's sex life.
>>
>>Ouch, now that hurt.
>
> It's the truth.


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.




> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris Foster]

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

> On 30 Jun 2006 22:15:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> > news:[email protected]:
>>> >
>>> >> On 27 Jun 2006 12:00:49 GMT, Chris Foster
>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> >>>news:[email protected]:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Some cross posting will involve a half dozen newsgroups. This
>>> >>>>>> is almost always wrong. However, there can be some cross
>>> >>>>>> posting to one or two other newsgroups from time to time. For
>>> >>>>>> instance, these threads on mountain biking on hiking trails
>>> >>>>>> seem to belong to AMB and RBS, but not to ARBR and RBM. What
>>> >>>>>> is there about this that you do not understand?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> You are a hypocrite, you and Vandy are the ones cross posting.
>>> >>>>> Then you tell everyone to not cross post. I understand very
>>> >>>>> clearly. I also understand very clearly that you are a
>>> >>>>> hypocrite.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> What you don't understand is an explanation. How the hell did
>>> >>>> you ever get through Graduate School? See the above message and
>>> >>>> read it at least ten times or however many it takes for it to
>>> >>>> sink into that addled brain of yours.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Who did the cross posting fool ??? It was either you or Vandy.
>>> >>>What dont you undestand about that???
>>> >>>
>>> >>>It wasnt Curtiss or I, What dont you undestand about that???
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Since you created the infraction,
>>> >>
>>> >> What is the "infraction"?
>>> >
>>> > cross posting
>>>
>>> Cross posting is not an infraction you idiot. It is done all the
>>> time on Usenet. But it should be done intelligently. I thought to
>>> drag some others from other newsgroups to ARBR with the idea of
>>> invigorating that newsgroup, but it was not to be because these
>>> other newsgroups are very narrowly focused on just one subject - and
>>> my home group (ARBR) is made up of nothing but Freds who do not like
>>> controversy and invective. And so we must get these threads off of
>>> ARBR and RBM where they clearly do not belong. What is there about
>>> this that you do not understand? [...]
>>
>>Do you ever tire of saying the same old **** over and over again ...
>>ad nauseum? Your posts are like a soap opera. It's easy to pick up
>>where you left off because its the same old regurgitated ****, day
>>after day, week after week, month after month. Get some ne material
>>already. -
>
> Provide your OWN material, you lazy bum.



So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.







>
>>Jim McNamara
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>> aka
>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris Foster]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chris Foster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "worthless piece of ****" is name calling bright boy. I know you
>>>>> are a little slow, but try to keep up.
>>>>
>>>> Can we end this thread already? It's degraded into this sort of
>>>> name calling.
>>>>
>>>> I started this thread in order to get the evidence out there to
>>>> counter the false statements by Vandeman. While Dolan may not be
>>>> the most diplomatic poster, at least he has admitted that in fact
>>>> the reason he doesn't like mountain bikers is that they disrupt the
>>>> solitude of hiking (though mountain bikers could say the same thing
>>>> about hikers disrupting their experience as well).
>>>>
>>>> The important thing is that no one, not even Dolan, disputes the
>>>> fact that mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of
>>>> recreation, including hiking.
>>>>
>>>> All the studies, and all the evidence supports this fact. No one
>>>> has ever posted anything that disputes it.
>>>
>>> All thread topics wander after the initial posts to the original
>>> subject. I think what we should do from time to time is change the
>>> subject headings to reflect more accurately where the topic is at.
>>> We could now designate this topic 'how to name call'. That is what
>>> most topics degenerate to anyway as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>> SMS is a reasonable person and I have no bones to pick with him, but
>>> Curtiss tries my patience. He just goes on and on and finally
>>> becomes pointless and brainless. We really do not need Chris Foster
>>> chipping in with his inane comments, but I do not mind him as much
>>> as I do Curtiss. I do not think it is fair at all to Vandeman the
>>> way he is being treated on these newsgroups. All I see is a lot of
>>> bullying going on. Even SMS should object to that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If Vandeman didn't attack, we wouldn't defend.
>
> Vandeman posts original material that is of interest. All you and
> Curtiss do is post ****.



So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.




> [...]
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris Foster]

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

> On 29 Jun 2006 12:09:43 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chris Foster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "worthless piece of ****" is name calling bright boy. I know you
>>>>> are a little slow, but try to keep up.
>>>>
>>>> Can we end this thread already? It's degraded into this sort of name
>>>> calling.
>>>>
>>>> I started this thread in order to get the evidence out there to
>>>> counter the false statements by Vandeman. While Dolan may not be the
>>>> most diplomatic poster, at least he has admitted that in fact the
>>>> reason he doesn't like mountain bikers is that they disrupt the
>>>> solitude of hiking (though mountain bikers could say the same thing
>>>> about hikers disrupting their experience as well).
>>>>
>>>> The important thing is that no one, not even Dolan, disputes the
fact
>>>> that mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of
>>>> recreation, including hiking.
>>>>
>>>> All the studies, and all the evidence supports this fact. No one has
>>>> ever posted anything that disputes it.
>>>
>>> All thread topics wander after the initial posts to the original
>>> subject. I think what we should do from time to time is change the
>>> subject headings to reflect more accurately where the topic is at. We
>>> could now designate this topic 'how to name call'. That is what most
>>> topics degenerate to anyway as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>> SMS is a reasonable person and I have no bones to pick with him, but
>>> Curtiss tries my patience. He just goes on and on and finally becomes
>>> pointless and brainless. We really do not need Chris Foster chipping
>>> in with his inane comments, but I do not mind him as much as I do
>>> Curtiss. I do not think it is fair at all to Vandeman the way he is
>>> being treated on these newsgroups. All I see is a lot of bullying
>>> going on. Even SMS should object to that.
>>>
>>
>>
>>If Vandeman didn't attack, we wouldn't defend.
>
> I don't "attack". I just tell the truth -- something mountain bikers
> can't stand.


Here is the truth


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.












>
>>Have you noticed that Mike is absent in the past week or so, maybe he
is
>>out actually accomplishing something, unlike Conan the Librarian
> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris Foster]

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

> On 30 Jun 2006 13:28:13 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:31Uog.26048$FR1.17635@dukeread05:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> I am showing all your mountain biker buddies that you are even a
>>>>>>>> greater asshole than they suspected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keyword "buddies"... They already don't like you so and I am
>>>>>>> inconsequential to them either way. You have about as much
>>>>>>> influence on their opinion of me as you would changing the orbit
>>>>>>> of the moon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would be surprised at how fickle people can be. I assure you
>>>>>> there are probably very many mountain bikers on AMB who do not
like
>>>>>> you at all.
>>>>> ...and, if even true, that effects me how....? Besides... How many
>>>>> are still riding bikes on trails because Vandy's opinions have not
>>>>> been accepted?
>>>>>>I consider it a badge of honor if they do not like me. I am revered
>>>>>>on my own group ARBR where I am not only a Great Saint but indeed a
>>>>>>God!
>>>>>>
>>>>> ROFLMAO!!!! Damn... Now I need new pants...
>>>>
>>>> Spot on, on many levels.
>>>>
>>>> I needed new pants after rading this and laughing so hard.
>>>
>>> Just a couple of **** heads and that is how I will treat them from
now
>>> on.
>>>
>>Name calling again, simply pathetic
>
> But ACCURATE. Live with it.


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.





> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com