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

[Beach Runner]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding
> where they don't belong. Tell the truth.
>
Well, than stop the fighting, there are remendous dangers we all must
unit
against.

1: Selling our national forests for the profit of a select few.
2: Logging and the destruction of habitat, and the loss of the forest.
T
his also increases runoff and erosion.
3: Oil drilling and mining in our forests.
4: Ending motorized vehicles in the parks.

These are critical issues, once lost, cause long term or permanent
devastation.

Let's face it, most people do nothing but use a remote control.
All the human powered activities, use a biki, hike,
run or jog, cross country ski,
and other human powered activities are all healthy and wonderful.

We are witnessing the largest mass extinction in history,
mostly from the loss of habitat.
Similarly, trees are a carbon sink, preventing global warming
and of course, maintaining soil integrity.

We face a real danger. The enemy is real, powerful, and rich.
Politicians are in the pocket of developers,
industrialists, oil companies and the like, and few care about the
ramifications of their short term profits. The less united, activite,
and motivated we are, the more
everyone will lose. And it won't be just us, it will be
everyone, wildlife, the environment,
and our children and our children's children.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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.

I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
will be over the mountain bikers' heads.

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
>
===
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 9 Jun 2006 12:17:42 -0700, "Beach Runner" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> 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.
>> >
>> > That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding
>> where they don't belong. Tell the truth.
>>
>Well, than stop the fighting, there are remendous dangers we all must
>unit
>against.
>
>1: Selling our national forests for the profit of a select few.
>2: Logging and the destruction of habitat, and the loss of the forest.
> T
>his also increases runoff and erosion.
>3: Oil drilling and mining in our forests.
>4: Ending motorized vehicles in the parks.
>
>These are critical issues, once lost, cause long term or permanent
>devastation.
>
>Let's face it, most people do nothing but use a remote control.
>All the human powered activities, use a biki, hike,
>run or jog, cross country ski,
>and other human powered activities are all healthy and wonderful.
>
>We are witnessing the largest mass extinction in history,
>mostly from the loss of habitat.

Mountain biking destroys habitat and teaches kids that the rough
treatment of nature is acceptable. Those are the kids that go on to be
big destroyers of the environment.

>Similarly, trees are a carbon sink, preventing global warming
>and of course, maintaining soil integrity.
>
>We face a real danger. The enemy is real, powerful, and rich.
>Politicians are in the pocket of developers,
>industrialists, oil companies and the like, and few care about the
>ramifications of their short term profits. The less united, activite,
>and motivated we are, the more
>everyone will lose. And it won't be just us, it will be
>everyone, wildlife, the environment,
>and our children and our children's children.

Then stop biking in nature, and the fight will be over. It's really
that simple. That shows where your priorities are: you would rather
mountain bike than work with real environmentalists to protect the
environment.
===
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

 

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"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.
>
>
> I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
> will be over the mountain bikers' heads.
>

or completely irrelevant.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, Edward Dolan wrote:

[newsgroups restored]

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

I have restored RBS because I want Vandeman and Curtiss to see my posts on
this issue. RBM is not into any of this, so they can be cut which I have now
done.

>> 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 means 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?

My main beef is that I do not trust mountain bikers to stay out of
wilderness areas and/or to stay off of trails that are for hikers only. I
KNOW that is where they want to ride their bikes.

> 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.

Yes, I agree with you about the necessity for enforcement. But it will ruin
my day if I have to report malfeasance to a ranger. It is extra work and it
is aggravation.

Regards,

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

 

[Beach Runner]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> 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.
>
As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.

> 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.
> ===
The differences are basically trivial in the big picture. You are on
the same
side in the big picture.

> 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.)
>
That is really wonderful! But habitat can be shared, if it's not
logged,
roads are built, chemicals are introduced, and developed.

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

 

[SMS]

Beach Runner wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.

Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
assumptions.

Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers. One study does show
a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.

Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
primary. This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
coming soon to a greenbelt near you.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:25 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"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.
>>
>>
>> I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
>> will be over the mountain bikers' heads.
>>
>
>or completely irrelevant.

So people's feelings are irrelevant? What planet do you come from?
===
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 9 Jun 2006 23:25:30 -0700, "Beach Runner" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>
>> 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.
>> ===
>The differences are basically trivial in the big picture. You are on
>the same
>side in the big picture.

Not if you mountain bike. It's a form of development (habitat
destruction).

>> 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.)
>>
>That is really wonderful! But habitat can be shared, if it's not
>logged,
>roads are built, chemicals are introduced, and developed.
>
>> 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 Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>
>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>assumptions.
>
>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.

That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
hikers:

Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
K. Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and
B. K. Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.

One study does show
>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.

That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.

>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>primary.

You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.

This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
===
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

 

[cc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:25 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>
>>>
>>>I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
>>>will be over the mountain bikers' heads.
>>>
>>
>>or completely irrelevant.
>
>
> So people's feelings are irrelevant? What planet do you come from?
> ===

Obviously not the same one you are on. That has been amply established.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.
What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation)
does not invalidate my choice of recreation. The nationwide cooperative
efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the diversity
of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the "science" and
research that supports them with support from the agencies that oversee and
enforce the rulings)

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
Your OPINIONS on these alleged effects is not a filter to validate or deny
access.
>
>>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!

"always"...? Generalization. No basis in fact. Your exaggerated claim is
not valid.
>
>>>>> 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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
Bike impacts that you continue to ALLEGE as an OPINION.
>
>>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.
Really? Then give us the names of the ones who support your OPINIONS and
have reviewed and commented on your presentations.
>
> 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.
> ===

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>>
>>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>>assumptions.
>>
>>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.
>
> That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
> This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
> hikers:
>
> Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
> K. Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and
> B. K. Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on
> mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
> Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.

The results from that study say something slightly different which you
ignore:
"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV
riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17
yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15
yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk again
were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by
horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain
bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])."

Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning" but
the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and exaggerate
the results out of context.
>
> One study does show
>>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.
>
> That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.

Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure
Vandeman!
>
>>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>>primary.
>
> You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
> homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.
>
> This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
> ===

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 01:51:34 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>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.
Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
at all for those of us who live in reality!


>
> 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.
>>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:32:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>>>
>>>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>>>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>>>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>>>assumptions.
>>>
>>>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>>>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>>>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.
>>
>> That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
>> This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
>> hikers:
>>
>> Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
>> K. Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and
>> B. K. Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on
>> mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
>> Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.
>
>The results from that study say something slightly different which you
>ignore:
>"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV
>riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17
>yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15
>yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk again
>were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by
>horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain
>bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])."
>
>Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning" but
>the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and exaggerate
>the results out of context.

You conveniently omitted the statistical results, which is the basis
for science.

>> One study does show
>>>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>>>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.
>>
>> That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.
>
>Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure
>Vandeman!
>>
>>>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>>>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>>>primary.
>>
>> You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
>> homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.
>>
>> This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>>>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>>>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
>> ===
>
===
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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7jhjg.1756$ZV5.914@dukeread05...

[RBM newsgroup deleted]

> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "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.
>
> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
> break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation)
> does not invalidate my choice of recreation.

Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat
spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little
wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers of
our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.

The nationwide cooperative
> efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the
> diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the
> "science" and research that supports them with support from the agencies
> that oversee and enforce the rulings)

The above is nothing but boilerplate by Curitss and has by now become
meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.

Regards,

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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:32:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.
>>>>
>>>>Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
>>>>important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
>>>>order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
>>>>assumptions.
>>>>
>>>>Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
>>>>credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
>>>>wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.
>>>
>>> That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
>>> This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
>>> hikers:
>>>
>>> Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
>>> K. Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and
>>> B. K. Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on
>>> mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
>>> Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.
>>
>>The results from that study say something slightly different which you
>>ignore:
>>"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV
>>riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17
>>yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15
>>yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk
>>again
>>were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by
>>horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and
>>mountain
>>bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])."
>>
>>Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning"
>>but
>>the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and
>>exaggerate
>>the results out of context.
>
> You conveniently omitted the statistical results, which is the basis
> for science.
You conveniently expect that statement to mean anything? Statistics are only
as relevant as the data and the context of the scope of that data. You can
not extrapolate "statistical" results from this study based only on your own
definitions of what those statistics should include.
>
>>> One study does show
>>>>a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
>>>>significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.
>>>
>>> That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.
>>
>>Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure
>>Vandeman!

No reply here...? So "statistical results" that counter your opinions are
pure BS as opposed to "statistical results" you can create from another
study twisted to favor you opinion...?
>>>
>>>>Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
>>>>where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
>>>>primary.
>>>
>>> You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
>>> homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.
>>>
>>> This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
>>>>contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
>>>>coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
>>> ===
>>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7jhjg.1756$ZV5.914@dukeread05...
>
> [RBM newsgroup deleted]
>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a
>> break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation)
>> does not invalidate my choice of recreation.
>
> Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat
> spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little
> wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers of
> our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world.
The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become
meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.

>
> The nationwide cooperative
>> efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the
>> diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the
>> "science" and research that supports them with support from the agencies
>> that oversee and enforce the rulings)
>
> The above is nothing but boilerplate by Curitss and has by now become
> meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>