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.
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.