Re: STILL Unrefuted, after15 Months of Mountain Bikers Fuming!: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wi



J

Jeff Strickland

Guest
Still unrefuted?

Are you stupid, or what? All that has happened is that your hogwash is
refuted far and wide. I, for one, have shown repeatedly that a single-track
trail -- by definition a trail that is only used for hiking and/or biking,
and perhaps motorcycle riding -- takes less than .04% of the habitat through
which it passes. Then, giving the environment the benefit of the doubt, I
have suggested that as much as 25% of that is destructive -- my gut feeling
is that much less than 25% of single-track really is destructive -- then we
are down to something under .01% of habitat is damaged by the use of
single-track routes. I think we all agree that there is a certain policing
quality that is lacking, but that quality is lacking in every recreation
community and your effort to point a crooked little finger at one community
to the exclusion of all others is nothing short of idiotic.

Since YOU are dialed in on bikes, then we must eliminate routes that are
used by other kinds of vehicles - cars, trucks, and obvious motorcycle
routes - as being harmful. Obviously, other kinds of vehicles create an
environmental impact, but you don't seem to care about that, you ONLY care
about bikes. Focusing specifically on the impacts of the bike community,
even if you were 100% effective in your crusade, you might possibly suceed
in saving a few acres out of thousands of square miles. That't like saving a
few tennis balls on a tennis court covered from line to line in a single
layer of tennis balls.

Personally, I think it is reasonalby good stewardship to use the environment
for recreation by thousands of people, and only have an impact on a few
acres out of hundreds of square miles.
 
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:15:45 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

..Still unrefuted?
..
..Are you stupid, or what? All that has happened is that your hogwash is
..refuted far and wide. I, for one, have shown repeatedly that a single-track
..trail -- by definition a trail that is only used for hiking and/or biking,
..and perhaps motorcycle riding -- takes less than .04% of the habitat through
..which it passes. Then, giving the environment the benefit of the doubt, I
..have suggested that as much as 25% of that is destructive -- my gut feeling
..is that much less than 25% of single-track really is destructive -- then we
..are down to something under .01% of habitat is damaged by the use of
..single-track routes. I think we all agree that there is a certain policing
..quality that is lacking, but that quality is lacking in every recreation
..community and your effort to point a crooked little finger at one community
..to the exclusion of all others is nothing short of idiotic.
..
..Since YOU are dialed in on bikes, then we must eliminate routes that are
..used by other kinds of vehicles - cars, trucks, and obvious motorcycle
..routes - as being harmful. Obviously, other kinds of vehicles create an
..environmental impact, but you don't seem to care about that, you ONLY care
..about bikes. Focusing specifically on the impacts of the bike community,
..even if you were 100% effective in your crusade, you might possibly suceed
..in saving a few acres out of thousands of square miles. That't like saving a
..few tennis balls on a tennis court covered from line to line in a single
..layer of tennis balls.
..
..Personally, I think it is reasonalby good stewardship to use the environment
..for recreation by thousands of people, and only have an impact on a few
..acres out of hundreds of square miles.

Did you say something?
===
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:15:45 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Still unrefuted?
> .
> .Are you stupid, or what? All that has happened is that your hogwash is
> .refuted far and wide. I, for one, have shown repeatedly that a
> single-track
> .trail -- by definition a trail that is only used for hiking and/or
> biking,
> .and perhaps motorcycle riding -- takes less than .04% of the habitat
> through
> .which it passes. Then, giving the environment the benefit of the doubt, I
> .have suggested that as much as 25% of that is destructive -- my gut
> feeling
> .is that much less than 25% of single-track really is destructive -- then
> we
> .are down to something under .01% of habitat is damaged by the use of
> .single-track routes. I think we all agree that there is a certain
> policing
> .quality that is lacking, but that quality is lacking in every recreation
> .community and your effort to point a crooked little finger at one
> community
> .to the exclusion of all others is nothing short of idiotic.
> .
> .Since YOU are dialed in on bikes, then we must eliminate routes that are
> .used by other kinds of vehicles - cars, trucks, and obvious motorcycle
> .routes - as being harmful. Obviously, other kinds of vehicles create an
> .environmental impact, but you don't seem to care about that, you ONLY
> care
> .about bikes. Focusing specifically on the impacts of the bike community,
> .even if you were 100% effective in your crusade, you might possibly
> suceed
> .in saving a few acres out of thousands of square miles. That't like
> saving a
> .few tennis balls on a tennis court covered from line to line in a single
> .layer of tennis balls.
> .
> .Personally, I think it is reasonalby good stewardship to use the
> environment
> .for recreation by thousands of people, and only have an impact on a few
> .acres out of hundreds of square miles.
>
> Did you say something?



Yes. I just refuted your lies.
 
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:15:45 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > .Still unrefuted?
> > .
> > .Are you stupid, or what? All that has happened is that your hogwash is
> > .refuted far and wide. I, for one, have shown repeatedly that a
> > single-track
> > .trail -- by definition a trail that is only used for hiking and/or
> > biking,
> > .and perhaps motorcycle riding -- takes less than .04% of the habitat
> > through
> > .which it passes. Then, giving the environment the benefit of the doubt, I
> > .have suggested that as much as 25% of that is destructive -- my gut
> > feeling
> > .is that much less than 25% of single-track really is destructive -- then
> > we
> > .are down to something under .01% of habitat is damaged by the use of
> > .single-track routes. I think we all agree that there is a certain
> > policing
> > .quality that is lacking, but that quality is lacking in every recreation
> > .community and your effort to point a crooked little finger at one
> > community
> > .to the exclusion of all others is nothing short of idiotic.
> > .
> > .Since YOU are dialed in on bikes, then we must eliminate routes that are
> > .used by other kinds of vehicles - cars, trucks, and obvious motorcycle
> > .routes - as being harmful. Obviously, other kinds of vehicles create an
> > .environmental impact, but you don't seem to care about that, you ONLY
> > care
> > .about bikes. Focusing specifically on the impacts of the bike community,
> > .even if you were 100% effective in your crusade, you might possibly
> > suceed
> > .in saving a few acres out of thousands of square miles. That't like
> > saving a
> > .few tennis balls on a tennis court covered from line to line in a single
> > .layer of tennis balls.
> > .
> > .Personally, I think it is reasonalby good stewardship to use the
> > environment
> > .for recreation by thousands of people, and only have an impact on a few
> > .acres out of hundreds of square miles.
> >
> > Did you say something?

>
>
> Yes. I just refuted your lies.


Has anyone read the following article on his webite.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm


" The last race was held last September 23. I visited the park four
days later, to document the damage that was done to the park. The race
course was twenty miles long, so I knew I couldn't possibly hike it in
a day. Consequently I borrowed a friend's mountain bike. It was lucky
that I did, because I discovered that, contrary to what the mountain
bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all! I rode
only on fire roads, but even there, I was continually subject to
violent jarring, due to the hoof- and tire-pocked "washboard" surface
of the road. (I know that there are bikes with a so-called
"suspension", but there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or
enjoyable.)

Not only was the ride physically very unpleasant, but having to
continually watch the trail and try to control the bike meant that it
was impossible to enjoy the scenery or listen to the subtle sounds of
nature. So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to
"enjoy nature"! Not having my feet in contact with the ground further
alienated me from the delightful sensations that I usually experience
when I hike."

Confirming only 5 things:
a: he did not ride/walk the trail before the race,m so scientifically
he has no control group.
b: he has no idea what a full suspension mtb feels like to ride.
c: He obviously has no control of the mtb
d: he has no credibility after all he used a mtb in the park.
e: I don't think he diservs a e:

Ride Free~Ride Safe~Ride Hard.
 
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:15:45 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > .Still unrefuted?
> > .
> > .Are you stupid, or what? All that has happened is that your hogwash is
> > .refuted far and wide. I, for one, have shown repeatedly that a
> > single-track
> > .trail -- by definition a trail that is only used for hiking and/or
> > biking,
> > .and perhaps motorcycle riding -- takes less than .04% of the habitat
> > through
> > .which it passes. Then, giving the environment the benefit of the doubt, I
> > .have suggested that as much as 25% of that is destructive -- my gut
> > feeling
> > .is that much less than 25% of single-track really is destructive -- then
> > we
> > .are down to something under .01% of habitat is damaged by the use of
> > .single-track routes. I think we all agree that there is a certain
> > policing
> > .quality that is lacking, but that quality is lacking in every recreation
> > .community and your effort to point a crooked little finger at one
> > community
> > .to the exclusion of all others is nothing short of idiotic.
> > .
> > .Since YOU are dialed in on bikes, then we must eliminate routes that are
> > .used by other kinds of vehicles - cars, trucks, and obvious motorcycle
> > .routes - as being harmful. Obviously, other kinds of vehicles create an
> > .environmental impact, but you don't seem to care about that, you ONLY
> > care
> > .about bikes. Focusing specifically on the impacts of the bike community,
> > .even if you were 100% effective in your crusade, you might possibly
> > suceed
> > .in saving a few acres out of thousands of square miles. That't like
> > saving a
> > .few tennis balls on a tennis court covered from line to line in a single
> > .layer of tennis balls.
> > .
> > .Personally, I think it is reasonalby good stewardship to use the
> > environment
> > .for recreation by thousands of people, and only have an impact on a few
> > .acres out of hundreds of square miles.
> >
> > Did you say something?

>
>
> Yes. I just refuted your lies.


Has anyone read the following article on his webite.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm


" The last race was held last September 23. I visited the park four
days later, to document the damage that was done to the park. The race
course was twenty miles long, so I knew I couldn't possibly hike it in
a day. Consequently I borrowed a friend's mountain bike. It was lucky
that I did, because I discovered that, contrary to what the mountain
bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all! I rode
only on fire roads, but even there, I was continually subject to
violent jarring, due to the hoof- and tire-pocked "washboard" surface
of the road. (I know that there are bikes with a so-called
"suspension", but there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or
enjoyable.)

Not only was the ride physically very unpleasant, but having to
continually watch the trail and try to control the bike meant that it
was impossible to enjoy the scenery or listen to the subtle sounds of
nature. So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to
"enjoy nature"! Not having my feet in contact with the ground further
alienated me from the delightful sensations that I usually experience
when I hike."

Confirming only 5 things:
a: he did not ride/walk the trail before the race,m so scientifically
he has no control group.
b: he has no idea what a full suspension mtb feels like to ride.
c: He obviously has no control of the mtb
d: he has no credibility after all he used a mtb in the park.
e: I don't think he diservs a e:

Ride Free~Ride Safe~Ride Hard.
 
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:15:45 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > .Still unrefuted?
> > .
> > .Are you stupid, or what? All that has happened is that your hogwash is
> > .refuted far and wide. I, for one, have shown repeatedly that a
> > single-track
> > .trail -- by definition a trail that is only used for hiking and/or
> > biking,
> > .and perhaps motorcycle riding -- takes less than .04% of the habitat
> > through
> > .which it passes. Then, giving the environment the benefit of the doubt, I
> > .have suggested that as much as 25% of that is destructive -- my gut
> > feeling
> > .is that much less than 25% of single-track really is destructive -- then
> > we
> > .are down to something under .01% of habitat is damaged by the use of
> > .single-track routes. I think we all agree that there is a certain
> > policing
> > .quality that is lacking, but that quality is lacking in every recreation
> > .community and your effort to point a crooked little finger at one
> > community
> > .to the exclusion of all others is nothing short of idiotic.
> > .
> > .Since YOU are dialed in on bikes, then we must eliminate routes that are
> > .used by other kinds of vehicles - cars, trucks, and obvious motorcycle
> > .routes - as being harmful. Obviously, other kinds of vehicles create an
> > .environmental impact, but you don't seem to care about that, you ONLY
> > care
> > .about bikes. Focusing specifically on the impacts of the bike community,
> > .even if you were 100% effective in your crusade, you might possibly
> > suceed
> > .in saving a few acres out of thousands of square miles. That't like
> > saving a
> > .few tennis balls on a tennis court covered from line to line in a single
> > .layer of tennis balls.
> > .
> > .Personally, I think it is reasonalby good stewardship to use the
> > environment
> > .for recreation by thousands of people, and only have an impact on a few
> > .acres out of hundreds of square miles.
> >
> > Did you say something?

>
>
> Yes. I just refuted your lies.


Has anyone read the following article on his webite.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ebrpd16.htm


" The last race was held last September 23. I visited the park four
days later, to document the damage that was done to the park. The race
course was twenty miles long, so I knew I couldn't possibly hike it in
a day. Consequently I borrowed a friend's mountain bike. It was lucky
that I did, because I discovered that, contrary to what the mountain
bikers claim, riding a bike off of paved roads is no fun at all! I rode
only on fire roads, but even there, I was continually subject to
violent jarring, due to the hoof- and tire-pocked "washboard" surface
of the road. (I know that there are bikes with a so-called
"suspension", but there is no way to make a ride like that "smooth" or
enjoyable.)

Not only was the ride physically very unpleasant, but having to
continually watch the trail and try to control the bike meant that it
was impossible to enjoy the scenery or listen to the subtle sounds of
nature. So much for the mountain bikers' claims that they use bikes to
"enjoy nature"! Not having my feet in contact with the ground further
alienated me from the delightful sensations that I usually experience
when I hike."

Confirming only 5 things:
a: he did not ride/walk the trail before the race,m so scientifically
he has no control group.
b: he has no idea what a full suspension mtb feels like to ride.
c: He obviously has no control of the mtb
d: he has no credibility after all he used a mtb in the park.
e: I don't think he diservs a e:

Ride Free~Ride Safe~Ride Hard.
 

Similar threads