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

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[newsgroups restored]

> Chris Foster wrote:
>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html
>>
>> WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.
>>
>>
>> All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
>> have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
>> real
>
> Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to tell
> you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than hiking in
> terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't pleasant to
> have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.

The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
bikers will never understand.

> However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.

Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
period!

I'd
> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs
> with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow
> powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for
> trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers
> only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and
> equestrians every February 30th.

DUH!

Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
don't you?

> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
> of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
> angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
> content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the
> lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.

Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that
concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.

Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It
has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.

I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary
results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs
like SMS are on the side of the Devil.

By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups
being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for Great
Ones like Myself.

Regards,

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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> [newsgroups restored]
>
>> Chris Foster wrote:
>>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html
>>>
>>> WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.
>>>
>>>
>>> All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
>>> have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
>>> real
>>
>> Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to
>> tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than
>> hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't
>> pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.
>
> The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
> bikers will never understand.

Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others on
the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other
people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are
constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what we
are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude is
not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and
recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of hiking
in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there.
>
>> However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.
>
> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
> period!

In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas
of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use
is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and
techniques are in place. And enforced.
>
> I'd
>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists
>> during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>
> DUH!
>
> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
> don't you?
Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>
>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
>> of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
>> angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
>> content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the
>> lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>
> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
> biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that
> concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
> bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.

If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in an
area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles. You do
have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are not
allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a trail
that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>
> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It
> has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
> bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
> converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.
You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We have
shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or foundation in
"fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his opinions, that is
up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a major contradiction:
You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion then proclaiming yourself
to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it is also your statement that
your persistance on usenet has little to do with actual information.
>
> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get picked
up by the Mother Ship?
>
> By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups
> being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for
> Great Ones like Myself.
>
The gauntlet of wisdom thrown as like an angry monkey, again, from Conan the
Librarian .

 

[SMS]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
> period!

They are not "hiking" trails, they are simply trails. I may not like
equestrians messing up the trails, and while hiking I may not like
bicycles on the trails, but hikers have no claim to exclusive use of the
trails, at least not based on impact to the trail or wildlife.

> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
> don't you?

It works very well for water sports. Personally I don't think it's all
that big a deal, but some hikers like MV have lost all connection with
reality when it comes to mountain bikes on trails.

> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
> biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject.

Oh please. If he's the expert, he would certainly have at least _one_
study, _one_ reference to support his position. He doesn't have
anything. He's good at ranting, but he has no facts or logic to support
his position.

> I am not that
> concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
> bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.

Yet in case after case, mountain bikers have prevailed in defending
their right to be on the trails, and parks continue to open more trails
to bicyclists. In most cases, the park management has done a good job in
their trail designations.

> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary
> results to his.

Of course you will. Facts and logic have no meaning to you. You base
everything on emotion. "You can't have a debate with someone who is
willing to make up the facts."

 

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:

> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas
> of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use
> is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and
> techniques are in place. And enforced.

In reality, hikers are allied strongly with other human-powered users
(XC skiers, mountain bikers, etc), in trying to prevent motorized
intrusion (snow-mobiles, off-road vehicles, etc.). There are very few
hikers that are as clueless as MV or Ed, when it comes to addressing the
real threats to trails and to the back-country.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hSZgg.19924$B42.8297@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> [newsgroups restored]
>>
>>> Chris Foster wrote:
>>>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html
>>>>
>>>> WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
>>>> have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
>>>> real
>>>
>>> Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to
>>> tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than
>>> hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't
>>> pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.
>>
>> The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that
>> mountain bikers will never understand.
>
> Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others
> on the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other
> people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are
> constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what
> we are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude
> is not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and
> recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of
> hiking in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there.
>>
>>> However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.
>>
>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>> period!
>
> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts
> and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>
>> I'd
>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>
>> DUH!
>>
>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>> don't you?
>
> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>
>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
>>> of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
>>> angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
>>> content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for
>>> the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>
>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am
>> not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>
> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in
> an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles.
> You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are
> not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a
> trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.

The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based on
who was there first.

>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
>> bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
>> converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.
>
> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it
> is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do
> with actual information.

Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares about
the mountain biker's point of view.

>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>
> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
> picked up by the Mother Ship?

I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.
[...]

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>> period!
>
> They are not "hiking" trails, they are simply trails. I may not like
> equestrians messing up the trails, and while hiking I may not like
> bicycles on the trails, but hikers have no claim to exclusive use of the
> trails, at least not based on impact to the trail or wildlife.

Nope, the trails were originally constructed for hikers and equestrians, not
for mountain bikers. If they had been constructed for cyclists, they would
be far different than what they are.

>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>> don't you?
>
> It works very well for water sports. Personally I don't think it's all
> that big a deal, but some hikers like MV have lost all connection with
> reality when it comes to mountain bikes on trails.
>
>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject.
>
> Oh please. If he's the expert, he would certainly have at least _one_
> study, _one_ reference to support his position. He doesn't have anything.
> He's good at ranting, but he has no facts or logic to support his
> position.

It is common sense that cyclists and hikers have very different impacts on
trails. Frankly, I do not need any studies to show me anything in that
regard. My own observations are sufficient.

>> I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>
> Yet in case after case, mountain bikers have prevailed in defending their
> right to be on the trails, and parks continue to open more trails to
> bicyclists. In most cases, the park management has done a good job in
> their trail designations.

It is nothing but pure politics, but that does not make it right. Very many
trails are not suited at all for cyclists, and it will send me into a rage
to see a cyclist trying to negotiate such a trail. However, many lowland
trails will work for cyclists, but still it would be better if they were
walking those trails. It is a matter of philosophy more than anything else.

>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>> contrary results to his.
>
> Of course you will. Facts and logic have no meaning to you. You base
> everything on emotion. "You can't have a debate with someone who is
> willing to make up the facts."

My contempt for facts is boundless. I do not worship them like you do. Facts
are for me to play with. I can make of them what I will.

Never confuse facts with logic. They are not the same at all. Philosophy 101
anyone?

Regards,

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

 

[Beach Runner]

Let's deal with priorities.

1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
2: Stop roads.
3: Stop motorized vehicles.
4: Protect wildlife.
5: Prevent polutants and runoff.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Beach Runner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Let's deal with priorities.
>
> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
> 2: Stop roads.
> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
> 4: Protect wildlife.
> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.

Yes, Beach Runner has got it exactly right. The whole issue of mountain
bikes on hiking trails is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things.
Perspective is everything - and the broader the perspective, the better.

When I get too narrowly focused on something I have a tendency to go to
extremes. I blame it all on Curtiss. He is a genius at driving me to
distraction.

Regards,

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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>>> period!
>>
>> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
>> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
>> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts
>> and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>>
>>> I'd
>>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>>
>>> DUH!
>>>
>>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>>> don't you?
>>
>> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>>
>>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are
>>>> plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a
>>>> self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason
>>>> he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make
>>>> up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>>
>>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am
>>> not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>>
>> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in
>> an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles.
>> You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are
>> not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a
>> trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>
> The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
> equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
> right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
> being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based
> on who was there first.

People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.
Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
only to see your own comments.
>
>>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
>>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the
>>> mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I
>>> can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a
>>> philosopher.
>>
>> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
>> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
>> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
>> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
>> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
>> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it
>> is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do
>> with actual information.
>
> Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares
> about the mountain biker's point of view.

Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments about
usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
Below - your statement from another thread
"Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan

>
>>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
>>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>>
>> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
>> picked up by the Mother Ship?
>
> I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.

I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....

 

[SMS]

Beach Runner wrote:
> Let's deal with priorities.
>
> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
> 2: Stop roads.
> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
> 4: Protect wildlife.
> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.

People like Vandeman and Dolan play right into the hands of the real
enemies of recreation that are many of the logging companies, and the
manufacturers of snow-mobiles, and ATVs. If they can get the
self-powered recreation users fighting among themselves, then there is
no unified constituency to go after the real abusers of the land.

You'd think that by now MV would have given up, in all these years he's
never been able to supply a single source that backs up his position.

 

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:

> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
> regardless of activity, is the priority.

Well-stated.

It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
might desire, a question of which users there are more of.

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
cyclists.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:s5Zhg.20105$B42.16069@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>>>> period!
>>>
>>> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
>>> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
>>> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative
>>> efforts and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>>>
>>>> I'd
>>>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>>>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>>>
>>>> DUH!
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real
>>>> why don't you?
>>>
>>> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>>>
>>>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>>>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are
>>>>> plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a
>>>>> self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason
>>>>> he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can
>>>>> make up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>>>
>>>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>>>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I
>>>> am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>>>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike
>>> in an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see
>>> bicycles. You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can
>>> not, or are not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a
>>> bicycle is on a trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>>
>> The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
>> equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
>> right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
>> being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based
>> on who was there first.
>
> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
> regardless of activity, is the priority.
> Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
> see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
> are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
> only to see your own comments.

Curtiss no doubt like me knows all about the joy of reading his own words.

>>>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
>>>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>>>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the
>>>> mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I
>>>> can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a
>>>> philosopher.
>>>
>>> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
>>> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
>>> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
>>> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
>>> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
>>> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again,
>>> it is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to
>>> do with actual information.
>>
>> Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares
>> about the mountain biker's point of view.
>
> Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments
> about usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
> Below - your statement from another thread
> "Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
> believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan

Curtiss is finally starting to get on to me!

>>>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>>>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
>>>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>>>
>>> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
>>> picked up by the Mother Ship?
>>
>> I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.
>
> I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....

It is truly amazing the amount of pills that I am taking. Up to the age of
50 I never had to take any medications at all, but now my medications
multiply after every visit to a doctor. Almost all of my medications stem
from my high blood pressure. I have to keep my wits about me to even set up
the proper schedule for taking them. I can clearly see that the only
solution for what ails me is death. Yea, that will solve all of my problems,
even this rather minor one I am presently having with Curtiss on Usenet.

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>
> Well-stated.
>
> It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
> might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>
> Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
> bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
> another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
> they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
> cyclists.

There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness. Frankly, I
would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they
viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into
wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for
them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.

Regards,

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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Beach Runner wrote:
>> Let's deal with priorities.
>>
>> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
>> 2: Stop roads.
>> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
>> 4: Protect wildlife.
>> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.
>
> People like Vandeman and Dolan play right into the hands of the real
> enemies of recreation that are many of the logging companies, and the
> manufacturers of snow-mobiles, and ATVs. If they can get the self-powered
> recreation users fighting among themselves, then there is no unified
> constituency to go after the real abusers of the land.

The problem we hikers have with mountain bikers is more a skirmish than
anything else. SMS is quite right to take note of who the major violators of
nature and wilderness are.
[...]

Regards,

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 01:51:34 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>[newsgroups restored]
>
>> Chris Foster wrote:
>>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html
>>>
>>> WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.
>>>
>>>
>>> All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
>>> have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
>>> real
>>
>> Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to tell
>> you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than hiking in
>> terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't pleasant to
>> have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.
>
>The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
>bikers will never understand.
>
>> However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.
>
>Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>period!
>
>I'd
>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs
>> with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow
>> powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for
>> trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers
>> only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and
>> equestrians every February 30th.
>
>DUH!
>
>Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>don't you?
>
>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
>> of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
>> angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
>> content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the
>> lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>
>Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
>biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that
>concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
>bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>
>Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It
>has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
>bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
>converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.
>
>I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary
>results to his.

You needn't worry. Nostudy can ever find mountain biking no more
harmful than hiking. Never has, never will. The best they can do is
lie.

Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs
>like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>
>By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups
>being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for Great
>Ones like Myself.
>
>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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:26:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
>>>> period!
>>>
>>> In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some
>>> areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness",
>>> multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts
>>> and techniques are in place. And enforced.
>>>>
>>>> I'd
>>>>> like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
>>>>> reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
>>>>> only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
>>>>> impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
>>>>> odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and
>>>>> bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.
>>>>
>>>> DUH!
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
>>>> don't you?
>>>
>>> Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...
>>>>
>>>>> I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
>>>>> reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
>>>>> While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are
>>>>> plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a
>>>>> self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason
>>>>> he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make
>>>>> up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.
>>>>
>>>> Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
>>>> mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am
>>>> not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned
>>>> about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.
>>>
>>> If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in
>>> an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles.
>>> You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are
>>> not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a
>>> trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.
>>
>> The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
>> equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
>> right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
>> being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based
>> on who was there first.
>
>People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>regardless of activity, is the priority.

You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking with
mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them. This is
not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you continue
to deny.

>Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
>see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
>are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
>only to see your own comments.

The fact is, bikers always demand that hikers yield to them: hikers
have to get out of the way, or bikers can't get by! DUH!

>>>> Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors.
>>>> It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
>>>> Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the
>>>> mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I
>>>> can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a
>>>> philosopher.
>>>
>>> You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We
>>> have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or
>>> foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his
>>> opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a
>>> major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion
>>> then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it
>>> is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do
>>> with actual information.
>>
>> Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares
>> about the mountain biker's point of view.
>
>Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments about
>usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
>Below - your statement from another thread
>"Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
>believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan
>
>>
>>>> I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
>>>> contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
>>>> and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
>>>
>>> Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get
>>> picked up by the Mother Ship?
>>
>> I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.
>
>I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....
>
===
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 Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:56:38 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>S Curtiss wrote:
>
>> People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
>> regardless of activity, is the priority.
>
>Well-stated.

BS. You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking
with mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them.
This is not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you
continue to deny.

>It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
>might desire, a question of which users there are more of.
>
>Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
>bicyclists than hikers,

BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
biking has much greater impacts than hiking.

you cannot argue for access of one group over
>another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
>they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
>cyclists.
===
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 7 Jun 2006 15:10:00 -0700, "Beach Runner" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Let's deal with priorities.
>
>1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
>2: Stop roads.
>3: Stop motorized vehicles.
>4: Protect wildlife.

That required stopping mountain biking.

>5: Prevent polutants and runoff.
===
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 Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:53:16 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Beach Runner wrote:
>> Let's deal with priorities.
>>
>> 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
>> 2: Stop roads.
>> 3: Stop motorized vehicles.
>> 4: Protect wildlife.
>> 5: Prevent polutants and runoff.
>
>People like Vandeman and Dolan play right into the hands of the real
>enemies of recreation that are many of the logging companies, and the
>manufacturers of snow-mobiles, and ATVs. If they can get the
>self-powered recreation users fighting among themselves,

That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding
where they don't belong. Tell the truth.

then there is
>no unified constituency to go after the real abusers of the land.
>
>You'd think that by now MV would have given up, in all these years he's
>never been able to supply a single source that backs up his position.
===
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

 

[BB]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, Edward Dolan wrote:

(irrelevant newsgroups trimmed; get a grip Ed and stop being a troll)

> There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
> impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
> much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
> views wilderness ... Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for
> them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.

As Curtiss keeps saying, bikes aren't allowed in designated wilderness so
anyone biking there is doing so illegally. They're not going to get any
support from me (or sympathy if they're arrested or their bike is
confiscated). You may not like the fact that biking is recreation, but
that's what recreational areas are for. Besides, nearly all of these areas
have designated hiking trails.

So if people aren't biking in designated wilderness, and don't bike on
designated hiking trails, WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR BEEF, Ed?

If the problem is people doing stuff illegally, then call the cops. I
don't ride on hiking-only trails, so I'll never catch them in the act, and
besides I'll never be riding anywhere near where you live so you can't
expect me to solve this problem. If you want tips on how to clearly
identify the bike and rider, we may be able to help. You need to report it
to the rangers and/or police instead of just Usenet.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address