Re: Why Can't Mike Vandeman EVER Tell the Truth?

[Edward Dolan]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8M%[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:00:29 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>
>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>
>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>
> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you start
> stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish, destructive sport",
> you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your alleged "smooth-soled"
> shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press down, twist, turn, etc. to
> traverse trails, don't you? Or do you stick to paved and/or gravel paths?
> How much destruction did it take to make THEM?!?)

There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does to a
trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be pretty
destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse users every year
as we move further away from being farmers and ranchers as a nation
ourselves.

> In terms of sheer numbers, hikers do FAR more damage than cyclists. Of
> course, deep down you know this; you just can't admit it.

Nope, you are wrong about that. I have seen trails that cyclists use that
are good for nothing, not even bikes.

But you miss the essential point of what Vandeman is about. Like me, he
doesn't want to see what is left of the natural world turned into a
playground for cretins who have more money than brains. Trail cyclists are
not into nature like a hiker is. They are just doing their rides, more often
as a kind of technical hurdle than anything else. This kind of mentality has
no place in a natural area and it is anathema in a wilderness.

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]...
>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>
>>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>>
>>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>>
>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you start
>> stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish, destructive sport",
>> you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your alleged "smooth-soled"
>> shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press down, twist, turn, etc. to
>> traverse trails, don't you? Or do you stick to paved and/or gravel
>> paths? How much destruction did it take to make THEM?!?)
>
> There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does to a
> trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be pretty
> destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse users every year
> as we move further away from being farmers and ranchers as a nation
> ourselves.
Actually, the complete and reputable studies of comparison show otherwise.
Hiking and off-road cycling have more similar impacts than not. The
perceptions, and the speed in which one group is likely to point at the
other, is the source of most of the issue. The capacity of any group,
(cyclists and hikers included) to misuse or act irresponsibly and the blame
and extent of cause can be too easily exxagerated as emotion and opinion
enter the frame of reference.


>
>> In terms of sheer numbers, hikers do FAR more damage than cyclists. Of
>> course, deep down you know this; you just can't admit it.
>
> Nope, you are wrong about that. I have seen trails that cyclists use that
> are good for nothing, not even bikes.
Anecdotal. I have seen mounds of trash left behind by hikers. Can I conclude
all hikers leave trash behind?


>
> But you miss the essential point of what Vandeman is about. Like me, he
> doesn't want to see what is left of the natural world turned into a
> playground for cretins who have more money than brains. Trail cyclists are
> not into nature like a hiker is. They are just doing their rides, more
> often as a kind of technical hurdle than anything else. This kind of
> mentality has no place in a natural area and it is anathema in a
> wilderness.
Where is anyone advancing the notion that ALL areas be accessible and
utlized for cycling or any other human recreation? This is not an "all or
nothing" discussion on the part of off-road cycling advocates. This is an
access for cycling in areas designated for multi-use recreation. Of course
there are areas that require strict rules of access. There are also areas
that easily sustain human interaction on several counts, including off-road
cycling. Your statements of why cyclists ride the trails is also anecdotal
and a reflection of your opinion stated from your point of view. You can not
make a realistic statement on someone else's experiences or motives by using
your opinions as a qualifier to base the statement on.


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

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mtq6g.8475$B42.8427@dukeread05...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>
>>>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>>>
>>>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>>>
>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you start
>>> stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish, destructive sport",
>>> you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your alleged "smooth-soled"
>>> shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press down, twist, turn, etc. to
>>> traverse trails, don't you? Or do you stick to paved and/or gravel
>>> paths? How much destruction did it take to make THEM?!?)
>>
>> There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does to a
>> trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be pretty
>> destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse users every
>> year as we move further away from being farmers and ranchers as a nation
>> ourselves.
>
> Actually, the complete and reputable studies of comparison show otherwise.
> Hiking and off-road cycling have more similar impacts than not. The
> perceptions, and the speed in which one group is likely to point at the
> other, is the source of most of the issue. The capacity of any group,
> (cyclists and hikers included) to misuse or act irresponsibly and the
> blame and extent of cause can be too easily exxagerated as emotion and
> opinion enter the frame of reference.

Even if everything you say above is true, I am still against cyclists on
footpaths because the mentality of cyclists and walkers are different. The
real purpose of a footpath is to encourage the contemplation of nature. I
have never yet seen any cyclist who was ever into the contemplation nature,
at least not while he was riding his bike. The very act of cycling
effectively prevents that whereas walking does not.

>>> In terms of sheer numbers, hikers do FAR more damage than cyclists. Of
>>> course, deep down you know this; you just can't admit it.
>>
>> Nope, you are wrong about that. I have seen trails that cyclists use that
>> are good for nothing, not even bikes.
> Anecdotal. I have seen mounds of trash left behind by hikers. Can I
> conclude all hikers leave trash behind?

Point well taken!

>> But you miss the essential point of what Vandeman is about. Like me, he
>> doesn't want to see what is left of the natural world turned into a
>> playground for cretins who have more money than brains. Trail cyclists
>> are not into nature like a hiker is. They are just doing their rides,
>> more often as a kind of technical hurdle than anything else. This kind of
>> mentality has no place in a natural area and it is anathema in a
>> wilderness.
>
> Where is anyone advancing the notion that ALL areas be accessible and
> utlized for cycling or any other human recreation? This is not an "all or
> nothing" discussion on the part of off-road cycling advocates. This is an
> access for cycling in areas designated for multi-use recreation. Of course
> there are areas that require strict rules of access. There are also areas
> that easily sustain human interaction on several counts, including
> off-road cycling.

Such areas are acceptable to me provided that the trails be constructed in
such a way as to accommodate both cyclists and walkers - in other words, a
muti-use trail and not strictly speaking a footpath for walkers. I do not
want to see any bikes on footpaths that were designed for walkers. Most
so-called trails in natural areas are actually just footpaths.

Rail-trails are an example of a muti-use trail, and are ideal for cyclists,
whether paved or not, but are not so ideal for walkers as they tend to be
too boring. But I do not consider a rail-trail to be a footpath and you
hardly ever see anyone on them except cyclists.

Your statements of why cyclists ride the trails is also anecdotal
> and a reflection of your opinion stated from your point of view. You can
> not make a realistic statement on someone else's experiences or motives by
> using your opinions as a qualifier to base the statement on.

We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail bike
cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!

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]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:mtq6g.8475$B42.8427@dukeread05...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>>
>>>>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>>>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>>>>
>>>>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you start
>>>> stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish, destructive sport",
>>>> you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your alleged "smooth-soled"
>>>> shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press down, twist, turn, etc. to
>>>> traverse trails, don't you? Or do you stick to paved and/or gravel
>>>> paths? How much destruction did it take to make THEM?!?)
>>>
>>> There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does to a
>>> trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be pretty
>>> destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse users every
>>> year as we move further away from being farmers and ranchers as a nation
>>> ourselves.
>>
>> Actually, the complete and reputable studies of comparison show
>> otherwise. Hiking and off-road cycling have more similar impacts than
>> not. The perceptions, and the speed in which one group is likely to point
>> at the other, is the source of most of the issue. The capacity of any
>> group, (cyclists and hikers included) to misuse or act irresponsibly and
>> the blame and extent of cause can be too easily exxagerated as emotion
>> and opinion enter the frame of reference.
>
> Even if everything you say above is true, I am still against cyclists on
> footpaths because the mentality of cyclists and walkers are different. The
> real purpose of a footpath is to encourage the contemplation of nature. I
> have never yet seen any cyclist who was ever into the contemplation
> nature, at least not while he was riding his bike. The very act of cycling
> effectively prevents that whereas walking does not.
Wrong... Opinion... Supposition... I said it in another thread or post
or something. Your lack of understanding of the abilities of a cyclist and
the attention given to surroundings beyond the bike is obvious. Just as a
guitarist can play, sing and interact with the audience while maintaining
rhythm and chords, a cyclist can handle the bike and observe the natural
surroundings.
>
>>>> In terms of sheer numbers, hikers do FAR more damage than cyclists. Of
>>>> course, deep down you know this; you just can't admit it.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are wrong about that. I have seen trails that cyclists use
>>> that are good for nothing, not even bikes.
>> Anecdotal. I have seen mounds of trash left behind by hikers. Can I
>> conclude all hikers leave trash behind?
>
> Point well taken!
>
>>> But you miss the essential point of what Vandeman is about. Like me, he
>>> doesn't want to see what is left of the natural world turned into a
>>> playground for cretins who have more money than brains. Trail cyclists
>>> are not into nature like a hiker is. They are just doing their rides,
>>> more often as a kind of technical hurdle than anything else. This kind
>>> of mentality has no place in a natural area and it is anathema in a
>>> wilderness.
>>
>> Where is anyone advancing the notion that ALL areas be accessible and
>> utlized for cycling or any other human recreation? This is not an "all or
>> nothing" discussion on the part of off-road cycling advocates. This is an
>> access for cycling in areas designated for multi-use recreation. Of
>> course there are areas that require strict rules of access. There are
>> also areas that easily sustain human interaction on several counts,
>> including off-road cycling.
>
> Such areas are acceptable to me provided that the trails be constructed in
> such a way as to accommodate both cyclists and walkers - in other words, a
> muti-use trail and not strictly speaking a footpath for walkers. I do not
> want to see any bikes on footpaths that were designed for walkers. Most
> so-called trails in natural areas are actually just footpaths.
The FACT that hikers and cyclists all over are making shared-use trails work
is unimportant? Shared-use trails mean less intrusion and disruption of the
natural environment. However, in places where dual trails become the option,
that is fine too.
I really don't see what you are on about. You have Wilderness. You have the
majority of National Forests. Cyclist access is small in comparison.
>
> Rail-trails are an example of a muti-use trail, and are ideal for
> cyclists, whether paved or not, but are not so ideal for walkers as they
> tend to be too boring. But I do not consider a rail-trail to be a footpath
> and you hardly ever see anyone on them except cyclists.
>
> Your statements of why cyclists ride the trails is also anecdotal
>> and a reflection of your opinion stated from your point of view. You can
>> not make a realistic statement on someone else's experiences or motives
>> by using your opinions as a qualifier to base the statement on.
>
> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail bike
> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or National
Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make arrangemets on
trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been removed
from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an area... sorry.
You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either way, it is still an
opinion.
>

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:V9U6g.50837$k%3.37963@dukeread12...
[...]
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:mtq6g.8475$B42.8427@dukeread05...
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>>>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>>>>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you start
>>>>> stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish, destructive
>>>>> sport", you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your alleged
>>>>> "smooth-soled" shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press down,
>>>>> twist, turn, etc. to traverse trails, don't you? Or do you stick to
>>>>> paved and/or gravel paths? How much destruction did it take to make
>>>>> THEM?!?)
>>>>
>>>> There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does to
>>>> a trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be
>>>> pretty destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse users
>>>> every year as we move further away from being farmers and ranchers as a
>>>> nation ourselves.
>>>
>>> Actually, the complete and reputable studies of comparison show
>>> otherwise. Hiking and off-road cycling have more similar impacts than
>>> not. The perceptions, and the speed in which one group is likely to
>>> point at the other, is the source of most of the issue. The capacity of
>>> any group, (cyclists and hikers included) to misuse or act irresponsibly
>>> and the blame and extent of cause can be too easily exxagerated as
>>> emotion and opinion enter the frame of reference.
>>
>> Even if everything you say above is true, I am still against cyclists on
>> footpaths because the mentality of cyclists and walkers are different.
>> The real purpose of a footpath is to encourage the contemplation of
>> nature. I have never yet seen any cyclist who was ever into the
>> contemplation nature, at least not while he was riding his bike. The very
>> act of cycling effectively prevents that whereas walking does not.
>
> Wrong... Opinion... Supposition... I said it in another thread or post
> or something. Your lack of understanding of the abilities of a cyclist and
> the attention given to surroundings beyond the bike is obvious. Just as a
> guitarist can play, sing and interact with the audience while maintaining
> rhythm and chords, a cyclist can handle the bike and observe the natural
> surroundings.

Nope, I know whenever I have ridden a bike on a trail (in my long lost
misguided youth) it was a disaster. My mind was not focused on my
surroundings, but rather on the confounded bike and how to move it along on
the confounded trail. It was one of the worst experiences of my life!

>>>>> In terms of sheer numbers, hikers do FAR more damage than cyclists.
>>>>> Of course, deep down you know this; you just can't admit it.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you are wrong about that. I have seen trails that cyclists use
>>>> that are good for nothing, not even bikes.
>>> Anecdotal. I have seen mounds of trash left behind by hikers. Can I
>>> conclude all hikers leave trash behind?
>>
>> Point well taken!
>>
>>>> But you miss the essential point of what Vandeman is about. Like me, he
>>>> doesn't want to see what is left of the natural world turned into a
>>>> playground for cretins who have more money than brains. Trail cyclists
>>>> are not into nature like a hiker is. They are just doing their rides,
>>>> more often as a kind of technical hurdle than anything else. This kind
>>>> of mentality has no place in a natural area and it is anathema in a
>>>> wilderness.
>>>
>>> Where is anyone advancing the notion that ALL areas be accessible and
>>> utlized for cycling or any other human recreation? This is not an "all
>>> or nothing" discussion on the part of off-road cycling advocates. This
>>> is an access for cycling in areas designated for multi-use recreation.
>>> Of course there are areas that require strict rules of access. There are
>>> also areas that easily sustain human interaction on several counts,
>>> including off-road cycling.
>>
>> Such areas are acceptable to me provided that the trails be constructed
>> in such a way as to accommodate both cyclists and walkers - in other
>> words, a muti-use trail and not strictly speaking a footpath for walkers.
>> I do not want to see any bikes on footpaths that were designed for
>> walkers. Most so-called trails in natural areas are actually just
>> footpaths.
>
> The FACT that hikers and cyclists all over are making shared-use trails
> work is unimportant? Shared-use trails mean less intrusion and disruption
> of the natural environment. However, in places where dual trails become
> the option, that is fine too.
> I really don't see what you are on about. You have Wilderness. You have
> the majority of National Forests. Cyclist access is small in comparison.

I love Wilderness Areas, the National Parks and the National Forests, in
that order. The National Parks (as well as State Parks) are very sensible
about where they allow cyclists, but I do not believe the National Forests
have a similar policy. The National Forests have miles and miles of forestry
roads that are ideal for cycling, but I also think they allow them on the
trails, except in their wilderness areas. But I may be wrong about this.

>> Rail-trails are an example of a muti-use trail, and are ideal for
>> cyclists, whether paved or not, but are not so ideal for walkers as they
>> tend to be too boring. But I do not consider a rail-trail to be a
>> footpath and you hardly ever see anyone on them except cyclists.
>>
>> Your statements of why cyclists ride the trails is also anecdotal
>>> and a reflection of your opinion stated from your point of view. You can
>>> not make a realistic statement on someone else's experiences or motives
>>> by using your opinions as a qualifier to base the statement on.
>>
>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail bike
>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>
> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or National
> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make arrangemets
> on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been
> removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an area...
> sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either way, it is
> still an opinion.

I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the nature of
the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the wilderness,
allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use in some areas,
generally designated as Recreation Areas.

Regards,

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 4 May 2006 13:03:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>
>>>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>>>
>>>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>>>
>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you start
>>> stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish, destructive sport",
>>> you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your alleged "smooth-soled"
>>> shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press down, twist, turn, etc. to
>>> traverse trails, don't you? Or do you stick to paved and/or gravel
>>> paths? How much destruction did it take to make THEM?!?)
>>
>> There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does to a
>> trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be pretty
>> destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse users every year
>> as we move further away from being farmers and ranchers as a nation
>> ourselves.
>Actually, the complete and reputable studies of comparison show otherwise.

You KNOW that's a LIE. See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

>Hiking and off-road cycling have more similar impacts than not. The
>perceptions, and the speed in which one group is likely to point at the
>other, is the source of most of the issue. The capacity of any group,
>(cyclists and hikers included) to misuse or act irresponsibly and the blame
>and extent of cause can be too easily exxagerated as emotion and opinion
>enter the frame of reference.
>
>
>>
>>> In terms of sheer numbers, hikers do FAR more damage than cyclists. Of
>>> course, deep down you know this; you just can't admit it.
>>
>> Nope, you are wrong about that. I have seen trails that cyclists use that
>> are good for nothing, not even bikes.
>Anecdotal. I have seen mounds of trash left behind by hikers. Can I conclude
>all hikers leave trash behind?
>
>
>>
>> But you miss the essential point of what Vandeman is about. Like me, he
>> doesn't want to see what is left of the natural world turned into a
>> playground for cretins who have more money than brains. Trail cyclists are
>> not into nature like a hiker is. They are just doing their rides, more
>> often as a kind of technical hurdle than anything else. This kind of
>> mentality has no place in a natural area and it is anathema in a
>> wilderness.
>Where is anyone advancing the notion that ALL areas be accessible and
>utlized for cycling or any other human recreation?

Mountain bikers are.

This is not an "all or
>nothing" discussion on the part of off-road cycling advocates. This is an
>access for cycling in areas designated for multi-use recreation. Of course
>there are areas that require strict rules of access. There are also areas
>that easily sustain human interaction on several counts, including off-road
>cycling. Your statements of why cyclists ride the trails is also anecdotal
>and a reflection of your opinion stated from your point of view. You can not
>make a realistic statement on someone else's experiences or motives by using
>your opinions as a qualifier to base the statement on.
>
>
>>
>> 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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:V9U6g.50837$k%3.37963@dukeread12...
> [...]
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:mtq6g.8475$B42.8427@dukeread05...
>>>>
>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>>>>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>>>>>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you
>>>>>> start stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish, destructive
>>>>>> sport", you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your alleged
>>>>>> "smooth-soled" shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press down,
>>>>>> twist, turn, etc. to traverse trails, don't you? Or do you stick to
>>>>>> paved and/or gravel paths? How much destruction did it take to make
>>>>>> THEM?!?)
>>>>>
>>>>> There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does to
>>>>> a trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be
>>>>> pretty destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse users
>>>>> every year as we move further away from being farmers and ranchers as
>>>>> a nation ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the complete and reputable studies of comparison show
>>>> otherwise. Hiking and off-road cycling have more similar impacts than
>>>> not. The perceptions, and the speed in which one group is likely to
>>>> point at the other, is the source of most of the issue. The capacity of
>>>> any group, (cyclists and hikers included) to misuse or act
>>>> irresponsibly and the blame and extent of cause can be too easily
>>>> exxagerated as emotion and opinion enter the frame of reference.
>>>
>>> Even if everything you say above is true, I am still against cyclists on
>>> footpaths because the mentality of cyclists and walkers are different.
>>> The real purpose of a footpath is to encourage the contemplation of
>>> nature. I have never yet seen any cyclist who was ever into the
>>> contemplation nature, at least not while he was riding his bike. The
>>> very act of cycling effectively prevents that whereas walking does not.
>>
>> Wrong... Opinion... Supposition... I said it in another thread or
>> post or something. Your lack of understanding of the abilities of a
>> cyclist and the attention given to surroundings beyond the bike is
>> obvious. Just as a guitarist can play, sing and interact with the
>> audience while maintaining rhythm and chords, a cyclist can handle the
>> bike and observe the natural surroundings.
>
> Nope, I know whenever I have ridden a bike on a trail (in my long lost
> misguided youth) it was a disaster. My mind was not focused on my
> surroundings, but rather on the confounded bike and how to move it along
> on the confounded trail. It was one of the worst experiences of my life!

If you can ride a bicycle around traffic, which is moving at varying speeds
and directions, with the distractions of lights and pedestrians and sudden
motion, then bicycling through stationary trees should be simple. The
pereception that it is more difficult may override the senses and set one up
for disappointment. Whatever the case... Your experience is yours and
suitable for you. My experience is different and suitable for me. The two do
not have to create conflict. The expansion of information and understanding
of how individuals and activities interact has served to ease these
conflicts and further discussion and cooperation.
>
>> The FACT that hikers and cyclists all over are making shared-use trails
>> work is unimportant? Shared-use trails mean less intrusion and disruption
>> of the natural environment. However, in places where dual trails become
>> the option, that is fine too.
>> I really don't see what you are on about. You have Wilderness. You have
>> the majority of National Forests. Cyclist access is small in comparison.
>
> I love Wilderness Areas, the National Parks and the National Forests, in
> that order. The National Parks (as well as State Parks) are very sensible
> about where they allow cyclists, but I do not believe the National Forests
> have a similar policy. The National Forests have miles and miles of
> forestry roads that are ideal for cycling, but I also think they allow
> them on the trails, except in their wilderness areas. But I may be wrong
> about this.

Many National Forests and Parks have areas accessible for cycling. Many do
not. It is the land managers and specifics of the area that set the
standards. By looking over the IMBA website (International Mountain
Bicycling Association), you can see that consistency of designation is
desirable. Of course IMBA wants more areas open for cycling. They also
support the designation of Wilderness (note caps). The consistency of
designation would fix a lot of the confusion over access, enforcement and
seperate user conflicts.
>
>>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail bike
>>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
>>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>>
>> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or National
>> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make arrangemets
>> on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been
>> removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an
>> area... sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either way,
>> it is still an opinion.
>
> I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the nature of
> the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the
> wilderness, allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use in
> some areas, generally designated as Recreation Areas.

I have no desire to ride in Wilderness Areas. For several reasons. Among
them is an agreement that some areas are too fragile, too unique or as yet,
simply undeveloped to sustain or justify the activity. I also have no desire
to experience an accident outside of a commonly traveled area or cellphone
range. One reason is admittedly "soft and cuddly" and the other may seem
"selfish". They are among my reasons for supporting off-road cycling the
way I do.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Kkq7g.50932$k%3.9816@dukeread12...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:V9U6g.50837$k%3.37963@dukeread12...
>> [...]
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:mtq6g.8475$B42.8427@dukeread05...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't
>>>>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>>>>>>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you
>>>>>>> start stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish,
>>>>>>> destructive sport", you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your
>>>>>>> alleged "smooth-soled" shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press
>>>>>>> down, twist, turn, etc. to traverse trails, don't you? Or do you
>>>>>>> stick to paved and/or gravel paths? How much destruction did it take
>>>>>>> to make THEM?!?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does
>>>>>> to a trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be
>>>>>> pretty destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse
>>>>>> users every year as we move further away from being farmers and
>>>>>> ranchers as a nation ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the complete and reputable studies of comparison show
>>>>> otherwise. Hiking and off-road cycling have more similar impacts than
>>>>> not. The perceptions, and the speed in which one group is likely to
>>>>> point at the other, is the source of most of the issue. The capacity
>>>>> of any group, (cyclists and hikers included) to misuse or act
>>>>> irresponsibly and the blame and extent of cause can be too easily
>>>>> exxagerated as emotion and opinion enter the frame of reference.
>>>>
>>>> Even if everything you say above is true, I am still against cyclists
>>>> on footpaths because the mentality of cyclists and walkers are
>>>> different. The real purpose of a footpath is to encourage the
>>>> contemplation of nature. I have never yet seen any cyclist who was ever
>>>> into the contemplation nature, at least not while he was riding his
>>>> bike. The very act of cycling effectively prevents that whereas walking
>>>> does not.
>>>
>>> Wrong... Opinion... Supposition... I said it in another thread or
>>> post or something. Your lack of understanding of the abilities of a
>>> cyclist and the attention given to surroundings beyond the bike is
>>> obvious. Just as a guitarist can play, sing and interact with the
>>> audience while maintaining rhythm and chords, a cyclist can handle the
>>> bike and observe the natural surroundings.
>>
>> Nope, I know whenever I have ridden a bike on a trail (in my long lost
>> misguided youth) it was a disaster. My mind was not focused on my
>> surroundings, but rather on the confounded bike and how to move it along
>> on the confounded trail. It was one of the worst experiences of my life!
>
> If you can ride a bicycle around traffic, which is moving at varying
> speeds and directions, with the distractions of lights and pedestrians and
> sudden motion, then bicycling through stationary trees should be simple.
> The pereception that it is more difficult may override the senses and set
> one up for disappointment. Whatever the case... Your experience is yours
> and suitable for you. My experience is different and suitable for me. The
> two do not have to create conflict. The expansion of information and
> understanding of how individuals and activities interact has served to
> ease these conflicts and further discussion and cooperation.

You simply cannot compare riding your bike on a road with riding your bike
on a trail. A road will be relatively smooth and you only need to pay
minimum attention to it. At trail will be relatively rough and you will need
to pay maximum attention to it or you will soon crash.

>>> The FACT that hikers and cyclists all over are making shared-use trails
>>> work is unimportant? Shared-use trails mean less intrusion and
>>> disruption of the natural environment. However, in places where dual
>>> trails become the option, that is fine too.
>>> I really don't see what you are on about. You have Wilderness. You have
>>> the majority of National Forests. Cyclist access is small in comparison.
>>
>> I love Wilderness Areas, the National Parks and the National Forests, in
>> that order. The National Parks (as well as State Parks) are very sensible
>> about where they allow cyclists, but I do not believe the National
>> Forests have a similar policy. The National Forests have miles and miles
>> of forestry roads that are ideal for cycling, but I also think they allow
>> them on the trails, except in their wilderness areas. But I may be wrong
>> about this.
>
> Many National Forests and Parks have areas accessible for cycling. Many do
> not. It is the land managers and specifics of the area that set the
> standards. By looking over the IMBA website (International Mountain
> Bicycling Association), you can see that consistency of designation is
> desirable. Of course IMBA wants more areas open for cycling. They also
> support the designation of Wilderness (note caps). The consistency of
> designation would fix a lot of the confusion over access, enforcement and
> seperate user conflicts.
>>
>>>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail bike
>>>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
>>>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>>>
>>> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or National
>>> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make
>>> arrangemets on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists
>>> have been removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed
>>> from an area... sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil.
>>> Either way, it is still an opinion.
>>
>> I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the nature
>> of the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the
>> wilderness, allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use in
>> some areas, generally designated as Recreation Areas.
>
> I have no desire to ride in Wilderness Areas. For several reasons. Among
> them is an agreement that some areas are too fragile, too unique or as
> yet, simply undeveloped to sustain or justify the activity. I also have no
> desire to experience an accident outside of a commonly traveled area or
> cellphone range. One reason is admittedly "soft and cuddly" and the other
> may seem "selfish". They are among my reasons for supporting off-road
> cycling the way I do.

I do not think we really disagree with one another all that much. But I
would like your bias to be in favor of preservation and conservation, not
any kind of development. I think you have already said as much.

Regards,

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:42:38 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:V9U6g.50837$k%3.37963@dukeread12...
>> [...]
>>>
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:mtq6g.8475$B42.8427@dukeread05...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They could do all of that without mountain biking. You haven't yet
>>>>>>>>>> produced a SINGLE good reason to allow bikes off-road.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Same reason lugged-sole HIKING SHOES are allowed off-road. Ban
>>>>>>>>> them, and then you can squawk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't think of a good reason to allow either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, but you advocate, recommend and encourage hiking. Until you
>>>>>>> start stalking HIKING groups and attack /their/ "selfish, destructive
>>>>>>> sport", you're nothing but a hypocrite. (And yes, your alleged
>>>>>>> "smooth-soled" shoes do damage, too. That is, you DO press down,
>>>>>>> twist, turn, etc. to traverse trails, don't you? Or do you stick to
>>>>>>> paved and/or gravel paths? How much destruction did it take to make
>>>>>>> THEM?!?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is simply no comparison at all between what a trail bike does to
>>>>>> a trail and what a hiker does to a trail. Admitedly horses can be
>>>>>> pretty destructive of a trail, but I think there are fewer horse users
>>>>>> every year as we move further away from being farmers and ranchers as
>>>>>> a nation ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the complete and reputable studies of comparison show
>>>>> otherwise. Hiking and off-road cycling have more similar impacts than
>>>>> not. The perceptions, and the speed in which one group is likely to
>>>>> point at the other, is the source of most of the issue. The capacity of
>>>>> any group, (cyclists and hikers included) to misuse or act
>>>>> irresponsibly and the blame and extent of cause can be too easily
>>>>> exxagerated as emotion and opinion enter the frame of reference.
>>>>
>>>> Even if everything you say above is true, I am still against cyclists on
>>>> footpaths because the mentality of cyclists and walkers are different.
>>>> The real purpose of a footpath is to encourage the contemplation of
>>>> nature. I have never yet seen any cyclist who was ever into the
>>>> contemplation nature, at least not while he was riding his bike. The
>>>> very act of cycling effectively prevents that whereas walking does not.
>>>
>>> Wrong... Opinion... Supposition... I said it in another thread or
>>> post or something. Your lack of understanding of the abilities of a
>>> cyclist and the attention given to surroundings beyond the bike is
>>> obvious. Just as a guitarist can play, sing and interact with the
>>> audience while maintaining rhythm and chords, a cyclist can handle the
>>> bike and observe the natural surroundings.
>>
>> Nope, I know whenever I have ridden a bike on a trail (in my long lost
>> misguided youth) it was a disaster. My mind was not focused on my
>> surroundings, but rather on the confounded bike and how to move it along
>> on the confounded trail. It was one of the worst experiences of my life!
>
>If you can ride a bicycle around traffic, which is moving at varying speeds
>and directions, with the distractions of lights and pedestrians and sudden
>motion, then bicycling through stationary trees should be simple.

It's no fun at all. It's exactly the same as negotiating an obstacle
course -- something that might appeal to prepubescent boys, but no one
else. Experiencing nature is infinitely more pleasurable.

The
>pereception that it is more difficult may override the senses and set one up
>for disappointment. Whatever the case... Your experience is yours and
>suitable for you. My experience is different and suitable for me. The two do
>not have to create conflict. The expansion of information and understanding
>of how individuals and activities interact has served to ease these
>conflicts and further discussion and cooperation.
>>
>>> The FACT that hikers and cyclists all over are making shared-use trails
>>> work is unimportant? Shared-use trails mean less intrusion and disruption
>>> of the natural environment. However, in places where dual trails become
>>> the option, that is fine too.
>>> I really don't see what you are on about. You have Wilderness. You have
>>> the majority of National Forests. Cyclist access is small in comparison.
>>
>> I love Wilderness Areas, the National Parks and the National Forests, in
>> that order. The National Parks (as well as State Parks) are very sensible
>> about where they allow cyclists, but I do not believe the National Forests
>> have a similar policy. The National Forests have miles and miles of
>> forestry roads that are ideal for cycling, but I also think they allow
>> them on the trails, except in their wilderness areas. But I may be wrong
>> about this.
>
>Many National Forests and Parks have areas accessible for cycling. Many do
>not. It is the land managers and specifics of the area that set the
>standards. By looking over the IMBA website (International Mountain
>Bicycling Association), you can see that consistency of designation is
>desirable. Of course IMBA wants more areas open for cycling.

That's putting it mildly. They want every trail open to bikes.

They also
>support the designation of Wilderness (note caps). The consistency of
>designation would fix a lot of the confusion over access, enforcement and
>seperate user conflicts.

Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
nature.

>>>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail bike
>>>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
>>>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>>>
>>> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or National
>>> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make arrangemets
>>> on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been
>>> removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an
>>> area... sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either way,
>>> it is still an opinion.
>>
>> I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the nature of
>> the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the
>> wilderness, allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use in
>> some areas, generally designated as Recreation Areas.
>
>I have no desire to ride in Wilderness Areas.

IMBA does.

For several reasons. Among
>them is an agreement that some areas are too fragile, too unique or as yet,
>simply undeveloped to sustain or justify the activity. I also have no desire
>to experience an accident outside of a commonly traveled area or cellphone
>range. One reason is admittedly "soft and cuddly" and the other may seem
>"selfish". They are among my reasons for supporting off-road cycling the
>way I do.
>
===
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 Sun, 7 May 2006 13:42:38 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nope, I know whenever I have ridden a bike on a trail (in my long lost
>>> misguided youth) it was a disaster. My mind was not focused on my
>>> surroundings, but rather on the confounded bike and how to move it along
>>> on the confounded trail. It was one of the worst experiences of my life!
>>
>>If you can ride a bicycle around traffic, which is moving at varying
>>speeds
>>and directions, with the distractions of lights and pedestrians and sudden
>>motion, then bicycling through stationary trees should be simple.
>
> It's no fun at all. It's exactly the same as negotiating an obstacle
> course -- something that might appeal to prepubescent boys, but no one
> else. Experiencing nature is infinitely more pleasurable.

I did not say "fun"... I said "simple". But I will accept "fun" because it
is that also. Your opinion of how fun or simple or difficult an activity is
that you do not engage in, profess to hate, and claim is harmful does not
have any bearing on anything.
I can say the "Rolling Stones" are better than "Brooks & Dunn" but it is
only my opinion. I don't like country music so the comparison has no real
value.
>
> The
>>pereception that it is more difficult may override the senses and set one
>>up
>>for disappointment. Whatever the case... Your experience is yours and
>>suitable for you. My experience is different and suitable for me. The two
>>do
>>not have to create conflict. The expansion of information and
>>understanding
>>of how individuals and activities interact has served to ease these
>>conflicts and further discussion and cooperation.
>>>
>>>> The FACT that hikers and cyclists all over are making shared-use trails
>>>> work is unimportant? Shared-use trails mean less intrusion and
>>>> disruption
>>>> of the natural environment. However, in places where dual trails become
>>>> the option, that is fine too.
>>>> I really don't see what you are on about. You have Wilderness. You have
>>>> the majority of National Forests. Cyclist access is small in
>>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> I love Wilderness Areas, the National Parks and the National Forests, in
>>> that order. The National Parks (as well as State Parks) are very
>>> sensible
>>> about where they allow cyclists, but I do not believe the National
>>> Forests
>>> have a similar policy. The National Forests have miles and miles of
>>> forestry roads that are ideal for cycling, but I also think they allow
>>> them on the trails, except in their wilderness areas. But I may be wrong
>>> about this.
>>
>>Many National Forests and Parks have areas accessible for cycling. Many do
>>not. It is the land managers and specifics of the area that set the
>>standards. By looking over the IMBA website (International Mountain
>>Bicycling Association), you can see that consistency of designation is
>>desirable. Of course IMBA wants more areas open for cycling.
>
> That's putting it mildly. They want every trail open to bikes.
>
> They also
>>support the designation of Wilderness (note caps). The consistency of
>>designation would fix a lot of the confusion over access, enforcement and
>>seperate user conflicts.
>
> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
> having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
> nature.
Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.
>
>>>>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail
>>>>> bike
>>>>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
>>>>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>>>>
>>>> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or
>>>> National
>>>> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make
>>>> arrangemets
>>>> on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been
>>>> removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an
>>>> area... sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either
>>>> way,
>>>> it is still an opinion.
>>>
>>> I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the nature
>>> of
>>> the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the
>>> wilderness, allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use in
>>> some areas, generally designated as Recreation Areas.
>>
>>I have no desire to ride in Wilderness Areas.
>
> IMBA does.
Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to open some
areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where suitable and
wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it from any
given area.
>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:42:38 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I know whenever I have ridden a bike on a trail (in my long lost
>>>> misguided youth) it was a disaster. My mind was not focused on my
>>>> surroundings, but rather on the confounded bike and how to move it along
>>>> on the confounded trail. It was one of the worst experiences of my life!
>>>
>>>If you can ride a bicycle around traffic, which is moving at varying
>>>speeds
>>>and directions, with the distractions of lights and pedestrians and sudden
>>>motion, then bicycling through stationary trees should be simple.
>>
>> It's no fun at all. It's exactly the same as negotiating an obstacle
>> course -- something that might appeal to prepubescent boys, but no one
>> else. Experiencing nature is infinitely more pleasurable.
>
>I did not say "fun"... I said "simple". But I will accept "fun" because it
>is that also. Your opinion of how fun or simple or difficult an activity is
>that you do not engage in, profess to hate, and claim is harmful does not
>have any bearing on anything.
>I can say the "Rolling Stones" are better than "Brooks & Dunn" but it is
>only my opinion. I don't like country music so the comparison has no real
>value.
>>
>> The
>>>pereception that it is more difficult may override the senses and set one
>>>up
>>>for disappointment. Whatever the case... Your experience is yours and
>>>suitable for you. My experience is different and suitable for me. The two
>>>do
>>>not have to create conflict. The expansion of information and
>>>understanding
>>>of how individuals and activities interact has served to ease these
>>>conflicts and further discussion and cooperation.
>>>>
>>>>> The FACT that hikers and cyclists all over are making shared-use trails
>>>>> work is unimportant? Shared-use trails mean less intrusion and
>>>>> disruption
>>>>> of the natural environment. However, in places where dual trails become
>>>>> the option, that is fine too.
>>>>> I really don't see what you are on about. You have Wilderness. You have
>>>>> the majority of National Forests. Cyclist access is small in
>>>>> comparison.
>>>>
>>>> I love Wilderness Areas, the National Parks and the National Forests, in
>>>> that order. The National Parks (as well as State Parks) are very
>>>> sensible
>>>> about where they allow cyclists, but I do not believe the National
>>>> Forests
>>>> have a similar policy. The National Forests have miles and miles of
>>>> forestry roads that are ideal for cycling, but I also think they allow
>>>> them on the trails, except in their wilderness areas. But I may be wrong
>>>> about this.
>>>
>>>Many National Forests and Parks have areas accessible for cycling. Many do
>>>not. It is the land managers and specifics of the area that set the
>>>standards. By looking over the IMBA website (International Mountain
>>>Bicycling Association), you can see that consistency of designation is
>>>desirable. Of course IMBA wants more areas open for cycling.
>>
>> That's putting it mildly. They want every trail open to bikes.
>>
>> They also
>>>support the designation of Wilderness (note caps). The consistency of
>>>designation would fix a lot of the confusion over access, enforcement and
>>>seperate user conflicts.
>>
>> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
>> having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
>> nature.
>Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.

I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.

>>>>>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail
>>>>>> bike
>>>>>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
>>>>>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or
>>>>> National
>>>>> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make
>>>>> arrangemets
>>>>> on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been
>>>>> removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an
>>>>> area... sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either
>>>>> way,
>>>>> it is still an opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the nature
>>>> of
>>>> the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the
>>>> wilderness, allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use in
>>>> some areas, generally designated as Recreation Areas.
>>>
>>>I have no desire to ride in Wilderness Areas.
>>
>> IMBA does.
>Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to open some
>areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where suitable and
>wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it from any
>given area.

ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They think
all ridable trails should be open to them.
===
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 Mon, 8 May 2006 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
>>> having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
>>> nature.
>>Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.
>
> I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.

Then you will have to call the ranger and report it. The lack of enforcement
is a seperate issue.
>
>>>>>>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail
>>>>>>> bike
>>>>>>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or
>>>>>> National
>>>>>> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make
>>>>>> arrangemets
>>>>>> on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been
>>>>>> removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an
>>>>>> area... sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either
>>>>>> way,
>>>>>> it is still an opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the
>>>>> nature
>>>>> of
>>>>> the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the
>>>>> wilderness, allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use
>>>>> in
>>>>> some areas, generally designated as Recreation Areas.
>>>>
>>>>I have no desire to ride in Wilderness Areas.
>>>
>>> IMBA does.
>>Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to open some
>>areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where suitable
>>and
>>wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it from any
>>given area.
>
> ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They think
> all ridable trails should be open to them.


Just as you say all trails should be closed to them. Two extremes clashing
while reality exists in the middle.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:56:14 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
>>>> having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
>>>> nature.
>>>Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.
>>
>> I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.
>
>Then you will have to call the ranger and report it. The lack of enforcement
>is a seperate issue.

Which is why mountain biking should be banned. It's too expensive to
enforce.

>>>>>>>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail
>>>>>>>> bike
>>>>>>>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or
>>>>>>> National
>>>>>>> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make
>>>>>>> arrangemets
>>>>>>> on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been
>>>>>>> removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an
>>>>>>> area... sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either
>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>> it is still an opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the
>>>>>> nature
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the
>>>>>> wilderness, allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> some areas, generally designated as Recreation Areas.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have no desire to ride in Wilderness Areas.
>>>>
>>>> IMBA does.
>>>Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to open some
>>>areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where suitable
>>>and
>>>wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it from any
>>>given area.
>>
>> ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They think
>> all ridable trails should be open to them.
>
>
>Just as you say all trails should be closed to them. Two extremes clashing
>while reality exists in the middle.

I have NEVER said that, LIAR. I have said that trails should be closed
to BIKES. I know, that's over your head, because it contains words of
more than one syl-la-ble.
===
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 Wed, 10 May 2006 13:56:14 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
>>>>> having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
>>>>> nature.
>>>>Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.
>>>
>>> I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.
>>
>>Then you will have to call the ranger and report it. The lack of
>>enforcement
>>is a seperate issue.
>
> Which is why mountain biking should be banned. It's too expensive to
> enforce.
No more expensive to enfore than a completely "human free habitat". Is it
too expensive to enfore any rule...? Enforcement is easier with consistency
and cooperation. But you don't want that, do you?
>
>>>>Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to open
>>>>some
>>>>areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where suitable
>>>>and
>>>>wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it from
>>>>any
>>>>given area.
>>>
>>> ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They think
>>> all ridable trails should be open to them.
>>
>>
>>Just as you say all trails should be closed to them. Two extremes clashing
>>while reality exists in the middle.
>
> I have NEVER said that, LIAR. I have said that trails should be closed
> to BIKES. I know, that's over your head, because it contains words of
> more than one syl-la-ble.
Need I remind you of this conversation... again?
February, 2006 "Sudden Oak Death and Wet-Weather Mountain Biking"

MV.> .> I have NEVER recommended "the removal of the cyclists", liar, only
removal of BIKES. DUH! You guys are AMAZINGLY dense!

SC> .Again - because you don't get it. A cyclist, when walking, is a
pedestrian (or hiker). Banning bikes also bans mountain biking because the
activity of offroad cycling is what defines the action as mountain biking.

..>

MV.> Right, but banning bikes doesn't ban mountain bikers. They can WALK.
DUHHHHH!

SC .So explain what defines a "mountain biker" if (A) they can not ride the
bikes in such a manner as to be a "mountain biker" and (B) if bikes are
banned from all trails and everybody must "WALK DUHHHHH!", then what would
be defined as "mountain biking" and (C) what would ultimately define someone
as a "mountain biker" when walking side by side with other "hikers"?

MV There wouldn't be any. That would make most of the world happier.

SC ."There wouldn't be any." Your words, not mine. Proving the point that
banning "bikes" in essence bans "mountain bikers".

MV Nope, you CAN walk, you know.

SC Too late... you have already made it clear. "There wouldn't be any". Your
double-speak and wordplay on this issue is over.

 

[Chris Foster]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:FWL8g.9622$B42.8982@dukeread05:

>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:56:14 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort
>>>>>> of having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to
>>>>>> experience nature.
>>>>>Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.
>>>>
>>>> I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.
>>>
>>>Then you will have to call the ranger and report it. The lack of
>>>enforcement
>>>is a seperate issue.
>>
>> Which is why mountain biking should be banned. It's too expensive to
>> enforce.
> No more expensive to enfore than a completely "human free habitat". Is
> it too expensive to enfore any rule...? Enforcement is easier with
> consistency and cooperation. But you don't want that, do you?
>>
>>>>>Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to
>>>>>open some
>>>>>areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where
>>>>>suitable and
>>>>>wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it
>>>>>from any
>>>>>given area.
>>>>
>>>> ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They
>>>> think all ridable trails should be open to them.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just as you say all trails should be closed to them. Two extremes
>>>clashing while reality exists in the middle.
>>
>> I have NEVER said that, LIAR. I have said that trails should be
>> closed to BIKES. I know, that's over your head, because it contains
>> words of more than one syl-la-ble.
> Need I remind you of this conversation... again?
> February, 2006 "Sudden Oak Death and Wet-Weather Mountain Biking"
>
> MV.> .> I have NEVER recommended "the removal of the cyclists", liar,
> only removal of BIKES. DUH! You guys are AMAZINGLY dense!
>
> SC> .Again - because you don't get it. A cyclist, when walking, is a
> pedestrian (or hiker). Banning bikes also bans mountain biking because
> the activity of offroad cycling is what defines the action as mountain
> biking.
>
> .>
>
> MV.> Right, but banning bikes doesn't ban mountain bikers. They can
> WALK. DUHHHHH!
>
> SC .So explain what defines a "mountain biker" if (A) they can not
> ride the bikes in such a manner as to be a "mountain biker" and (B) if
> bikes are banned from all trails and everybody must "WALK DUHHHHH!",
> then what would be defined as "mountain biking" and (C) what would
> ultimately define someone as a "mountain biker" when walking side by
> side with other "hikers"?
>
> MV There wouldn't be any. That would make most of the world happier.
>
> SC ."There wouldn't be any." Your words, not mine. Proving the point
> that banning "bikes" in essence bans "mountain bikers".
>
> MV Nope, you CAN walk, you know.
>
> SC Too late... you have already made it clear. "There wouldn't be
> any". Your double-speak and wordplay on this issue is over.
>
>
>
>






Face it Mike, not only is he smarter than you, he argues MUCH better.

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