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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:09:49 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 15:34:47 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 4 May 2006 13:01:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Are we stating an opinion based on our assumptions made from an
>>>>>anti-cycling
>>>>>viewpoint? Camping and hiking as a means of commuting with nature and
>>>>>God...? Possibly, your motives (or anyone else's) for hiking or camping
>>>>>are
>>>>>fine with me. However, what makes it possible for you to make any
>>>>>statement
>>>>>on my reasons or motives for cycling? Do you envy my ability to control
>>>>>a
>>>>>bike and admire (commune, if you will) nature at the same time?
>>>>
>>>> NO ONE has that ability. If you don't pay attention to controlling the
>>>> bike, it will CRASH! But we already know that you are an iincorrigible
>>>> LIAR.
>>>
>>>What I find amazing is you find it so easy to make it seem so difficult
>>>for
>>>someone else to do something. Can you paint like Michelangelo? Can you
>>>sing
>>>like Pavarati?
>>>
>>>No...? Then what makes it so hard for you to grasp that anyone else can
>>>do
>>>something you can not.
>>
>> BS. NO ONE can do that.
>No one else can paint...? No one else can sing...? There are many talented
>artists of all types. The fact you may not be one does not alter that.
>>
>> A cyclist in the city avoids traffic and any number
>>>of distractions all in motion at different speeds with curbs, potholes and
>>>lights and you make it seem impossible for me to ride by a group of
>>>stationary trees on a trail and simply look at them at the same time?
>>
>> Yes. Anyone who claims he can enjoy watching nature whild mountain
>> biking is LYING. The same goes for other kinds of drivers. It is
>> physically impossible. On the other hand, a hiker can gaze at a tree
>> as long as he likes. There's no comparison.
>Since I and others can do it, and we can demonstrate that we can do it, your
>accusation of "LYING" is unfounded and based on nothing but your wish that
>it be so.
>A hiker has to stop to "gaze at a tree as long as he likes" or he will trip,
>fall or walk off the trail and into possible danger. A cyclist can stop and
>do the same thing.

They COULD, but they don't. I have observed that countless times. We
all have.

>>>You are the liar because you simply can not state with any fact or honesty
>>>that "NO ONE has that ability." It is demonstrated by cyclists every day,
>>>both on the road and on the trails. Your inability, or lack of desire to
>>>explore the ability, is hardly a qualifier in determining fact, or in this
>>>case, truth.
>>>Your LIES are obvious and they make every statement, every claim, every
>>>reference you make suspect.
>
>Funny how you choose to comment above and claim me to be "LYING" yet you do
>not comment here following the full context of my statement and the direct
>challenge to your honesty in the claim "NO ONE has that ability"
>>>>
>
===
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 Mon, 8 May 2006 18:13:48 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:46:49 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2006 14:40:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>>>By the way, I am very much in favor of bike trails constructed to go
>>>>>through
>>>>>natural areas. There is one in the Black Hills that is a miracle. It is
>>>>>about 100 miles in length and it is interesting and scenic all the way.
>>>>>What
>>>>>more could any cyclist ask for!
>>>>
>>>> That is just senseless destruction of wildlife habitat. If they want
>>>> to enjoy nature, they should WALK. (Of course, we both know that they
>>>> are too LAZY to do that.)
>>>
>>>No, the bike trail was built on an old railroad bed and there was no
>>>destruction of wildlife habitat that had not already taken place from the
>>>early days.
>>
>> ALL natural areas are habitat, including overgrown railroad tracks.
>> Also, the fact that it was messed up once doesn't make it okay to mess
>> it up some more (e.g. by paving it). It makes more sense tp restore
>> the habitat.
>
>Nope, you and are going to part company here. I do believe in compromise. We
>humans have pretty much wrecked the planet and there is no going back. Our
>numbers are too great for that.
>
>It is very important that we preserve what is left to preserve, but we
>cannot really restore that which has been lost. The wild animals, whatever
>is left of them, will perish along with their habitat and we humans will
>also do ourselves in by our own reckless use of the planet. Unless and until
>we control our numbers, we are as doomed as the wild animals - which is
>essentially all that we are anyway.

There are whole organizations, conferences, and university departments
dedicated to habitat restoration. I accept their opinion before yours.
We can't do it as well as Mother Nature, but we don't have to accept
thye status quo. If you were in charge, I doubt that the California
Condor would be coming back.

A book called _National Parks of Northwest Mexico_ made the point that
human impacts have TWO components: human NUMBERS, and human BEHAVIOR.
We can have an effect in both areas. India is far more populous than
the U.S., but Indians individually have 1/7 th of our footprint.

>> There are many natural areas that are not really suitable for
>>>much walking as they tend to be rather dull and monotonous after awhile,
>>>but
>>>they can be quite good for a bike trail.
>>
>> That's just the result of habitat destruction. By your argument, any
>> area we destroy becomes okay to destroy some more.
>
>Yes, we can not really restore that which has been lost. The US now has a
>population of about 300 million. When I was a kid the population was 150
>million. Demography is destiny. Population 101.
>
>>>There is no real wilderness left in the Black Hills of South Dakota, but
>>>still there is much natural beauty.
>>
>> "Wilderness" is on a continuum. It isn't black and white.
>
>Agreed. Which is why we have to manage what is left. Wilderness is the most
>precious thing of all, but some other areas can be managed so as to minimize
>human impact. But most areas of this country are lost forever to any kind of
>management, other than zoning.

I choose not to hold such a pessimistic viewpoint. It's no fun, for
one thing.

>> It does not hurt to have a bike trail on
>>>an old railroad bed so that others can enjoy the natural scenery. Hey, it
>>>is
>>>thousand times better than just having them drive through the area in a
>>>car.
>>
>> But not as good as restoring the habitat. Roads & trails fragment
>> habitat (prevent wildlife from crossing them -- act as a kind of
>> barrier, even if it is physically possible for them to cross it.
>
>You are way too much a purist on this issue. The average American does not
>give a damn about wildlife and their habitat other than a few hunters and
>fisherman who only want to kill them for sport.

Even if true, I choose not to believe that. The Dali Lama says we must
retain hope. I agree. Not doing so is no fun. Pessimism actually
increases the incidence of heart disease and other diseases. A word to
the wise....

If you would know the future
>of humanity on this earth and it's wildlife, you need to go to China or
>India. Outside of extremely mountainous areas in those two nations, the only
>wildlife left are humans. Sic transit gloria mundi.
>
>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

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:21:21 GMT, Michael Halliwell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 May 2006 05:42:55 GMT, Michael Halliwell
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:wBC6g.125701$7a.77288@pd7tw1no...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope, all you have to do is get off your g.d. bike and go walking and you
>>>>>>>can enjoy nature just like Vandeman and I do. One thing is for sure, you
>>>>>>>do not even know what nature is while you are on your g.d. bike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ummm, Ed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vandeman's stated purpose in other threads is to get *ALL* forms of
>>>>>>recreation out of the woods....hiking included. He's after you and your
>>>>>>camping and hiking as much as he's after mountain bikers....he's just the
>>>>>>most vocal with those of us who ride off of the pavement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Michael Halliwell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that is hard to believe! Walking a footpath is the least infringement
>>>>>that you can have on nature. There would be no Wilderness Areas and National
>>>>>Parks at all if that were disallowed. Yes, I am a bit of an elitist, but I
>>>>>am not crazy!
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>aka
>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do a google search for Mike Vandeman's past posts or note his
>>>>signature...he wants "pure habitat" (meaning no people at all) and has
>>>>stated such.
>>>>
>>>>Michael Halliwell
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael Halliwell, being the liar that he is, omits the fact that I
>>>have never advocated that ALL areas be off-limits to humans -- only
>>>SOME.
>>
>>Re-read my post for context....I didn't say you wanted all areas off
>>limits to humans, but rather that you are after getting all forms of
>>recreation out of the woods (meaning the creation of "pure habitat")
>
>
> And that's a LIE. I have NEVER advocated that. Once you start lying,
> you can't get off the train, & keep getting in deeper & deeper. Come
> clean.

Then how, dear Dr. Vandeman do you propose to "create pure habitat" as
your signature so boldly states... If it is presently pure habitat,
then you are not creating it but merely preserving it...if you intend to
create it, then all human activities in that area, including recreation,
must cease.

Michael Halliwell

 

[Sorni]

Michael Halliwell wrote:

> Then how, dear Dr. Vandeman do you propose to "create pure habitat" as
> your signature so boldly states... If it is presently pure habitat,
> then you are not creating it but merely preserving it...if you intend
> to create it, then all human activities in that area, including
> recreation, must cease.

Psst. Ask him how BIG his proposed "pristine habitat" will be? (Hint:
It's smaller than the average backyard deck! LOL)

Bill "I live on a protected canyon, so I've got bunches of 'em right out my
back door" S.

PS: It's TEN FEET BY TEN FEET! (I couldn't keep it in any longer.) (No
cracks about that expression.)

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 18:13:48 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:46:49 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2006 14:40:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>>>By the way, I am very much in favor of bike trails constructed to go
>>>>>>through
>>>>>>natural areas. There is one in the Black Hills that is a miracle. It
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>about 100 miles in length and it is interesting and scenic all the
>>>>>>way.
>>>>>>What
>>>>>>more could any cyclist ask for!
>>>>>
>>>>> That is just senseless destruction of wildlife habitat. If they want
>>>>> to enjoy nature, they should WALK. (Of course, we both know that they
>>>>> are too LAZY to do that.)
>>>>
>>>>No, the bike trail was built on an old railroad bed and there was no
>>>>destruction of wildlife habitat that had not already taken place from
>>>>the
>>>>early days.
>>>
>>> ALL natural areas are habitat, including overgrown railroad tracks.
>>> Also, the fact that it was messed up once doesn't make it okay to mess
>>> it up some more (e.g. by paving it). It makes more sense tp restore
>>> the habitat.
>>
>>Nope, you and are going to part company here. I do believe in compromise.
>>We
>>humans have pretty much wrecked the planet and there is no going back. Our
>>numbers are too great for that.
>>
>>It is very important that we preserve what is left to preserve, but we
>>cannot really restore that which has been lost. The wild animals, whatever
>>is left of them, will perish along with their habitat and we humans will
>>also do ourselves in by our own reckless use of the planet. Unless and
>>until
>>we control our numbers, we are as doomed as the wild animals - which is
>>essentially all that we are anyway.
>
> There are whole organizations, conferences, and university departments
> dedicated to habitat restoration. I accept their opinion before yours.
> We can't do it as well as Mother Nature, but we don't have to accept
> thye status quo. If you were in charge, I doubt that the California
> Condor would be coming back.

Whatever wildlife is coming back is only temporary. It is all going the way
of the Dodo Bird and all your efforts will come to naught in the end.

> A book called _National Parks of Northwest Mexico_ made the point that
> human impacts have TWO components: human NUMBERS, and human BEHAVIOR.
> We can have an effect in both areas. India is far more populous than
> the U.S., but Indians individually have 1/7 th of our footprint.

That is the only thing that has saved otherwise very populous nations from
total environmental degradation, but that is all changing as they come up
more and more to Western industrial standards. They will never preserve or
conserve anything. Africa illustrates this to perfection. Their idea of a
National Park is that it is a good place to go hunting for large animals.
Elephants - anyone?

The truth is that the idea of preserving anything of the natural world is an
elitist idea and is extremely rare. Only a handful of societies have ever
been able to even grasp the idea, let alone implement it. The "tragedy of
the commons" is forever being played out everywhere in the world.

>>> There are many natural areas that are not really suitable for
>>>>much walking as they tend to be rather dull and monotonous after awhile,
>>>>but
>>>>they can be quite good for a bike trail.
>>>
>>> That's just the result of habitat destruction. By your argument, any
>>> area we destroy becomes okay to destroy some more.
>>
>>Yes, we can not really restore that which has been lost. The US now has a
>>population of about 300 million. When I was a kid the population was 150
>>million. Demography is destiny. Population 101.
>>
>>>>There is no real wilderness left in the Black Hills of South Dakota, but
>>>>still there is much natural beauty.
>>>
>>> "Wilderness" is on a continuum. It isn't black and white.
>>
>>Agreed. Which is why we have to manage what is left. Wilderness is the
>>most
>>precious thing of all, but some other areas can be managed so as to
>>minimize
>>human impact. But most areas of this country are lost forever to any kind
>>of
>>management, other than zoning.
>
> I choose not to hold such a pessimistic viewpoint. It's no fun, for
> one thing.

I used to have lots of hope when I was young that things would turn out
better than they have. Only the National Parks and Wilderness Areas have
ever come up to my expectations - and even those kind of set-asides continue
to be threatened. It is a losing battle.

>>> It does not hurt to have a bike trail on
>>>>an old railroad bed so that others can enjoy the natural scenery. Hey,
>>>>it
>>>>is
>>>>thousand times better than just having them drive through the area in a
>>>>car.
>>>
>>> But not as good as restoring the habitat. Roads & trails fragment
>>> habitat (prevent wildlife from crossing them -- act as a kind of
>>> barrier, even if it is physically possible for them to cross it.
>>
>>You are way too much a purist on this issue. The average American does not
>>give a damn about wildlife and their habitat other than a few hunters and
>>fisherman who only want to kill them for sport.
>
> Even if true, I choose not to believe that. The Dali Lama says we must
> retain hope. I agree. Not doing so is no fun. Pessimism actually
> increases the incidence of heart disease and other diseases. A word to
> the wise....

I am getting ready to die sooner rather than later anyway. So is everyone
else too, but they just don't realize it yet like I do.

> If you would know the future
>>of humanity on this earth and it's wildlife, you need to go to China or
>>India. Outside of extremely mountainous areas in those two nations, the
>>only
>>wildlife left are humans. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Regards,

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:50:59 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>S Curtiss wrote:
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 14:45:41 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>>
>>> BS. When you skid your bike tire (which is impossible to avoid), it
>>> can't possibly be good for nature.
>> When your foot slips and your heel digs into the trail, it can't
>> possibly be good for nature.
>
>If you've ever seen "real hikers", they plant, dig in, twist, and push off a
>LOT. (Not to mention the ones short-cutting switchbacks, littering, walking
>two-abreast, etc.)

I've never seen that. That is a good way to get blisters, not a good
way to hike. You can tell by looking at the footprints.

>Mike is a moronic maroon.
>
>HTH, BS
>
===
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

 

[Sorni]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:50:59 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If you've ever seen "real hikers", they plant, dig in, twist, and
>> push off a LOT. (Not to mention the ones short-cutting switchbacks,
>> littering, walking two-abreast, etc.)

> I've never seen that. That is a good way to get blisters, not a good
> way to hike. You can tell by looking at the footprints.

Unless you stick to multi-use /paths/ and not true /trails/, do(r)c, I find
that VERY hard to believe.

Real hikers are out there for an adventure and workout -- they move, they
sweat. It's a SPORT to them. They get along fine with other trail users,
all enjoying the challenge and beauty of nature.

Then there are nancies who just walk from A to B and back again. They're
slow. Weak. It's a selfinsh indlugence and they don't CARE about other
trail users. They avoid difficult terrain and will often attempt to
"sanitize" it by removing or plowing obstacles.

We all know in which camp you pitch your puptent, Nancy Do(r)c.

Have a nice easy stroll.

Bill S.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:48:15 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> BS. When you skid your bike tire (which is impossible to avoid), it
>>> can't possibly be good for nature.
>>When your foot slips and your heel digs into the trail, it can't possibly
>>be
>>good for nature.
>
> I never said it is. But you claim that mountain biking is harmless.

Wrong again. I claim mountain biking and hiking are similar in impact. If
you are going to stand up and say "ban all bicycles (mountain biking)" then
you also have to say say "ban all hiking". If you insist some outdoor areas
are suitable for hiking (human entrance) then you also have to maintain some
outdoor areas would be suitable for off-road cycling.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:03:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> Here's proof: try riding a bike without being able to see the trail,
>>> and see how far you can go (how many inches) without crashing.
>>
>>Fine. Go hiking without seeing the trail.
>>Same comparison.
>
> No, because a hiker can stop and look at nature. Bikers rarely stop,
> since it doesn't give them the necessary THRILL. For a hiker, stopping
> and looking is one of the most thrilling parts of the trip.

It is merely an assumption that off-road cyclists are after a THRILL. Some
are, some aren't. Some hikers are after an extreme experience by testing the
survival skills in adverse conditions. It is the SAME thing. And again, you
split context. Complete text below...
>
> Try walking without paying attention the trail. Is that a
>>root? Or a rock? Is the trail going left or right? How steep is it?
>>Your statements are misleading. You also have to give attention to the
>>surface you walk on or you will trip, fall into a hole, walk off the trail
>>and into a tree or step on a snake, a bird nest or whatever.
>>Riding a bike is similar in that I can look around, glance ahead, adjust
>>my
>>course and continue to observe the surroundings. Just like hiking, I can
>>also stop and observe more closely.
>
> But you don't. Look at any mountain biking video. They go for long
> periods without stopping (except when they crash), when they aren't
> admiting nature.
A mountain bike video by nature of marketing and sales is going to show the
extreme, the dangerous and as much non-stop action as possible. There
probably are some instructional videos that fall outside your
classification, however, I do not know as I do not seek out mountain bike
videos.
>
> Your insistence it is impossible when it
>>is done every day by thousands of cyclists is.... ridiculous.
>>>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 18:38:34 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Human walking seems to work well in the mall and between subway trains,
>>> but that does not mean it is the only acceptable place to do it.
>>
>>Human walking is the one thing that we were evolved to do above all else.
>>Our primate ancestors came down out of the trees and began to earn their
>>living walking on the savanna. If a human does not walk, he will rot away
>>and become diseased. He will not live long. It is walk or die!
>
> And the fact that mountain biking causes impotence proves it! It is
> survival of the fittest, which means HIKERS. Some of the fattest
> people I have ever seen have been mountain bikers. Off their bikes,
> they can barely walk....
>
You are stretching. Don't hurt yourself.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:09:49 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>No...? Then what makes it so hard for you to grasp that anyone else can
>>>>do
>>>>something you can not.
>>>
>>> BS. NO ONE can do that.
>>No one else can paint...? No one else can sing...? There are many
>>talented
>>artists of all types. The fact you may not be one does not alter that.

nothing...?
>>>
>>> A cyclist in the city avoids traffic and any number
>>>>of distractions all in motion at different speeds with curbs, potholes
>>>>and
>>>>lights and you make it seem impossible for me to ride by a group of
>>>>stationary trees on a trail and simply look at them at the same time?
>>>
>>> Yes. Anyone who claims he can enjoy watching nature whild mountain
>>> biking is LYING. The same goes for other kinds of drivers. It is
>>> physically impossible. On the other hand, a hiker can gaze at a tree
>>> as long as he likes. There's no comparison.
>>Since I and others can do it, and we can demonstrate that we can do it,
>>your
>>accusation of "LYING" is unfounded and based on nothing but your wish that
>>it be so.
>>A hiker has to stop to "gaze at a tree as long as he likes" or he will
>>trip,
>>fall or walk off the trail and into possible danger. A cyclist can stop
>>and
>>do the same thing.
>
> They COULD, but they don't. I have observed that countless times. We
> all have.

Anecdotal. I can just as easily say I have seen hikers do any number of
things.
>
>>>>You are the liar because you simply can not state with any fact or
>>>>honesty
>>>>that "NO ONE has that ability." It is demonstrated by cyclists every
>>>>day,
>>>>both on the road and on the trails. Your inability, or lack of desire to
>>>>explore the ability, is hardly a qualifier in determining fact, or in
>>>>this
>>>>case, truth.
>>>>Your LIES are obvious and they make every statement, every claim, every
>>>>reference you make suspect.
>>
>>Funny how you choose to comment above and claim me to be "LYING" yet you
>>do
>>not comment here following the full context of my statement and the direct
>>challenge to your honesty in the claim "NO ONE has that ability"
>>>>>
>>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:44:07 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 18:13:48 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:46:49 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2006 14:40:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>By the way, I am very much in favor of bike trails constructed to go
>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>natural areas. There is one in the Black Hills that is a miracle. It
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>about 100 miles in length and it is interesting and scenic all the
>>>>>>>way.
>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>more could any cyclist ask for!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is just senseless destruction of wildlife habitat. If they want
>>>>>> to enjoy nature, they should WALK. (Of course, we both know that they
>>>>>> are too LAZY to do that.)
>>>>>
>>>>>No, the bike trail was built on an old railroad bed and there was no
>>>>>destruction of wildlife habitat that had not already taken place from
>>>>>the
>>>>>early days.
>>>>
>>>> ALL natural areas are habitat, including overgrown railroad tracks.
>>>> Also, the fact that it was messed up once doesn't make it okay to mess
>>>> it up some more (e.g. by paving it). It makes more sense tp restore
>>>> the habitat.
>>>
>>>Nope, you and are going to part company here. I do believe in compromise.
>>>We
>>>humans have pretty much wrecked the planet and there is no going back. Our
>>>numbers are too great for that.
>>>
>>>It is very important that we preserve what is left to preserve, but we
>>>cannot really restore that which has been lost. The wild animals, whatever
>>>is left of them, will perish along with their habitat and we humans will
>>>also do ourselves in by our own reckless use of the planet. Unless and
>>>until
>>>we control our numbers, we are as doomed as the wild animals - which is
>>>essentially all that we are anyway.
>>
>> There are whole organizations, conferences, and university departments
>> dedicated to habitat restoration. I accept their opinion before yours.
>> We can't do it as well as Mother Nature, but we don't have to accept
>> thye status quo. If you were in charge, I doubt that the California
>> Condor would be coming back.
>
>Whatever wildlife is coming back is only temporary. It is all going the way
>of the Dodo Bird and all your efforts will come to naught in the end.

But at least I will feel good for having done the right thing.

>> A book called _National Parks of Northwest Mexico_ made the point that
>> human impacts have TWO components: human NUMBERS, and human BEHAVIOR.
>> We can have an effect in both areas. India is far more populous than
>> the U.S., but Indians individually have 1/7 th of our footprint.
>
>That is the only thing that has saved otherwise very populous nations from
>total environmental degradation, but that is all changing as they come up
>more and more to Western industrial standards. They will never preserve or
>conserve anything. Africa illustrates this to perfection. Their idea of a
>National Park is that it is a good place to go hunting for large animals.
>Elephants - anyone?
>
>The truth is that the idea of preserving anything of the natural world is an
>elitist idea and is extremely rare. Only a handful of societies have ever
>been able to even grasp the idea, let alone implement it. The "tragedy of
>the commons" is forever being played out everywhere in the world.

You need to get out more. Specifically, you need to attend a meeting
of the Society for Conservation Biology. You will be AMAZED at how
fast it is growing, all over the world.

>>>> There are many natural areas that are not really suitable for
>>>>>much walking as they tend to be rather dull and monotonous after awhile,
>>>>>but
>>>>>they can be quite good for a bike trail.
>>>>
>>>> That's just the result of habitat destruction. By your argument, any
>>>> area we destroy becomes okay to destroy some more.
>>>
>>>Yes, we can not really restore that which has been lost. The US now has a
>>>population of about 300 million. When I was a kid the population was 150
>>>million. Demography is destiny. Population 101.
>>>
>>>>>There is no real wilderness left in the Black Hills of South Dakota, but
>>>>>still there is much natural beauty.
>>>>
>>>> "Wilderness" is on a continuum. It isn't black and white.
>>>
>>>Agreed. Which is why we have to manage what is left. Wilderness is the
>>>most
>>>precious thing of all, but some other areas can be managed so as to
>>>minimize
>>>human impact. But most areas of this country are lost forever to any kind
>>>of
>>>management, other than zoning.
>>
>> I choose not to hold such a pessimistic viewpoint. It's no fun, for
>> one thing.
>
>I used to have lots of hope when I was young that things would turn out
>better than they have. Only the National Parks and Wilderness Areas have
>ever come up to my expectations - and even those kind of set-asides continue
>to be threatened. It is a losing battle.

No, it's a glass half full.

>>>> It does not hurt to have a bike trail on
>>>>>an old railroad bed so that others can enjoy the natural scenery. Hey,
>>>>>it
>>>>>is
>>>>>thousand times better than just having them drive through the area in a
>>>>>car.
>>>>
>>>> But not as good as restoring the habitat. Roads & trails fragment
>>>> habitat (prevent wildlife from crossing them -- act as a kind of
>>>> barrier, even if it is physically possible for them to cross it.
>>>
>>>You are way too much a purist on this issue. The average American does not
>>>give a damn about wildlife and their habitat other than a few hunters and
>>>fisherman who only want to kill them for sport.
>>
>> Even if true, I choose not to believe that. The Dali Lama says we must
>> retain hope. I agree. Not doing so is no fun. Pessimism actually
>> increases the incidence of heart disease and other diseases. A word to
>> the wise....
>
>I am getting ready to die sooner rather than later anyway. So is everyone
>else too, but they just don't realize it yet like I do.

On that cheery note, ...

>> If you would know the future
>>>of humanity on this earth and it's wildlife, you need to go to China or
>>>India. Outside of extremely mountainous areas in those two nations, the
>>>only
>>>wildlife left are humans. Sic transit gloria mundi.
>
>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 Tue, 09 May 2006 04:05:20 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:21:21 GMT, Michael Halliwell
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 May 2006 05:42:55 GMT, Michael Halliwell
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:wBC6g.125701$7a.77288@pd7tw1no...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nope, all you have to do is get off your g.d. bike and go walking and you
>>>>>>>>can enjoy nature just like Vandeman and I do. One thing is for sure, you
>>>>>>>>do not even know what nature is while you are on your g.d. bike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ummm, Ed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Vandeman's stated purpose in other threads is to get *ALL* forms of
>>>>>>>recreation out of the woods....hiking included. He's after you and your
>>>>>>>camping and hiking as much as he's after mountain bikers....he's just the
>>>>>>>most vocal with those of us who ride off of the pavement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Michael Halliwell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, that is hard to believe! Walking a footpath is the least infringement
>>>>>>that you can have on nature. There would be no Wilderness Areas and National
>>>>>>Parks at all if that were disallowed. Yes, I am a bit of an elitist, but I
>>>>>>am not crazy!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>>aka
>>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do a google search for Mike Vandeman's past posts or note his
>>>>>signature...he wants "pure habitat" (meaning no people at all) and has
>>>>>stated such.
>>>>>
>>>>>Michael Halliwell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Michael Halliwell, being the liar that he is, omits the fact that I
>>>>have never advocated that ALL areas be off-limits to humans -- only
>>>>SOME.
>>>
>>>Re-read my post for context....I didn't say you wanted all areas off
>>>limits to humans, but rather that you are after getting all forms of
>>>recreation out of the woods (meaning the creation of "pure habitat")
>>
>>
>> And that's a LIE. I have NEVER advocated that. Once you start lying,
>> you can't get off the train, & keep getting in deeper & deeper. Come
>> clean.
>
>Then how, dear Dr. Vandeman do you propose to "create pure habitat" as
>your signature so boldly states...

Simple: by humans deciding not to go there, just as I and many others
have done on our own property.

If it is presently pure habitat,
>then you are not creating it but merely preserving it...if you intend to
>create it, then all human activities in that area, including recreation,
>must cease.

Of course. What's your point?

>Michael Halliwell
===
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 Tue, 09 May 2006 06:24:35 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Michael Halliwell wrote:
>
>> Then how, dear Dr. Vandeman do you propose to "create pure habitat" as
>> your signature so boldly states... If it is presently pure habitat,
>> then you are not creating it but merely preserving it...if you intend
>> to create it, then all human activities in that area, including
>> recreation, must cease.
>
>Psst. Ask him how BIG his proposed "pristine habitat" will be? (Hint:
>It's smaller than the average backyard deck! LOL)
>
>Bill "I live on a protected canyon, so I've got bunches of 'em right out my
>back door" S.
>
>PS: It's TEN FEET BY TEN FEET! (I couldn't keep it in any longer.) (No
>cracks about that expression.)

Which makes it the largest habitat off-limits to humans in the world.
===
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

 

[Sorni]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 09 May 2006 06:24:35 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:


>>Psst. Ask him how BIG his proposed "pristine habitat" will be? (Hint:
>>It's smaller than the average backyard deck! LOL)
>>
>>Bill "I live on a protected canyon, so I've got bunches of 'em right out
>>my
>>back door" S.
>>
>>PS: It's TEN FEET BY TEN FEET! (I couldn't keep it in any longer.) (No
>>cracks about that expression.)


> Which makes it the largest habitat off-limits to humans in the world.

ROTFL Stop it, Do(r)c, you're killin' me!

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:50:59 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> If you've ever seen "real hikers", they plant, dig in, twist, and
>>> push off a LOT. (Not to mention the ones short-cutting switchbacks,
>>> littering, walking two-abreast, etc.)
>
>> I've never seen that. That is a good way to get blisters, not a good
>> way to hike. You can tell by looking at the footprints.
>
> Unless you stick to multi-use /paths/ and not true /trails/, do(r)c, I
> find that VERY hard to believe.
>
> Real hikers are out there for an adventure and workout -- they move, they
> sweat. It's a SPORT to them. They get along fine with other trail users,
> all enjoying the challenge and beauty of nature.

I am not much in favor of "real hikers" either. Like Thoreau, I merely like
to amble about in the wilderness for days on end. I move as slowly as
possible as I do not like to rush through paradise. I prefer not to carry a
heavy pack, but I will do so if I am going to be out for several days. But I
must admit I am really a day hiker. Funny, I have never in my life thought
of hiking as a sport. Gosh, there are some really weird people in this world
if you ask me!

> Then there are nancies who just walk from A to B and back again. They're
> slow. Weak. It's a selfinsh indlugence and they don't CARE about other
> trail users. They avoid difficult terrain and will often attempt to
> "sanitize" it by removing or plowing obstacles.

A really rough trail is something only mountain climbers like. The rest of
us like reasonably smooth trails. As I stroll about in the wilderness I find
that my head is more often in the clouds than on the trail. Big trees will
automatically attract my most earnest attention. I have been known to
occasionally hug a tree. They are my very best friends in all the world. I
talk to the trees as I amble along the trail. I believe I may have mentioned
once or twice before that I would like to come back to this world after my
passing as a Mighty Sequoia Tree.

> We all know in which camp you pitch your puptent, Nancy Do(r)c.

Well, I can't help it if I am just so superior to everyone else. Believe you
me, it is not easy to go though life surrounded by nothing but idiots,
morons and imbeciles.

> Have a nice easy stroll.

It is the ONLY way to go. Try it sometime, you may like it!

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:vKp8g.51122$k%3.25951@dukeread12...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:03:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Here's proof: try riding a bike without being able to see the trail,
>>>> and see how far you can go (how many inches) without crashing.
>>>
>>>Fine. Go hiking without seeing the trail.
>>>Same comparison.
>>
>> No, because a hiker can stop and look at nature. Bikers rarely stop,
>> since it doesn't give them the necessary THRILL. For a hiker, stopping
>> and looking is one of the most thrilling parts of the trip.
>
> It is merely an assumption that off-road cyclists are after a THRILL. Some
> are, some aren't. Some hikers are after an extreme experience by testing
> the survival skills in adverse conditions. It is the SAME thing. And
> again, you split context. Complete text below...

Curtiss should come along with me on one of my desultory hikes. It is an
exercise in meditation only and is full of mostly nothing but pure thought.
I will occasionally stop to hug a tree, as they are my very best friends in
all the world, but I suspect Curtiss would be bored by my kind of excursion.
Nay, like all mountain bikers, he is into nothing but thrills and spills. I
have never been able to figure out why God does not strike such sacrilegious
slobs dead with lightening bolts.

Mountain bikers are entitled to have their fun, but not on my sacred trails.
[...]

Regards,

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 15:58:33 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:50:59 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> If you've ever seen "real hikers", they plant, dig in, twist, and
>>> push off a LOT. (Not to mention the ones short-cutting switchbacks,
>>> littering, walking two-abreast, etc.)
>
>> I've never seen that. That is a good way to get blisters, not a good
>> way to hike. You can tell by looking at the footprints.
>
>Unless you stick to multi-use /paths/ and not true /trails/, do(r)c, I find
>that VERY hard to believe.
>
>Real hikers are out there for an adventure and workout -- they move, they
>sweat. It's a SPORT to them. They get along fine with other trail users,
>all enjoying the challenge and beauty of nature.
>
>Then there are nancies who just walk from A to B and back again. They're
>slow. Weak. It's a selfinsh indlugence and they don't CARE about other
>trail users. They avoid difficult terrain and will often attempt to
>"sanitize" it by removing or plowing obstacles.
>
>We all know in which camp you pitch your puptent, Nancy Do(r)c.
>
>Have a nice easy stroll.
>
>Bill S.
>

I wonder how you would know, since mountain bikers are too lazy to
ever hike?
===
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 Wed, 10 May 2006 13:45:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:48:15 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BS. When you skid your bike tire (which is impossible to avoid), it
>>>> can't possibly be good for nature.
>>>When your foot slips and your heel digs into the trail, it can't possibly
>>>be
>>>good for nature.
>>
>> I never said it is. But you claim that mountain biking is harmless.
>
>Wrong again. I claim mountain biking and hiking are similar in impact.

That's a lie. You can't prove it.

If
>you are going to stand up and say "ban all bicycles (mountain biking)" then
>you also have to say say "ban all hiking". If you insist some outdoor areas
>are suitable for hiking (human entrance) then you also have to maintain some
>outdoor areas would be suitable for off-road cycling.
>
>
===
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 Wed, 10 May 2006 13:51:16 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:03:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Here's proof: try riding a bike without being able to see the trail,
>>>> and see how far you can go (how many inches) without crashing.
>>>
>>>Fine. Go hiking without seeing the trail.
>>>Same comparison.
>>
>> No, because a hiker can stop and look at nature. Bikers rarely stop,
>> since it doesn't give them the necessary THRILL. For a hiker, stopping
>> and looking is one of the most thrilling parts of the trip.
>
>It is merely an assumption that off-road cyclists are after a THRILL. Some
>are, some aren't. Some hikers are after an extreme experience by testing the
>survival skills in adverse conditions. It is the SAME thing. And again, you
>split context. Complete text below...

It doesn't matter. It's still impossible to experience nature while on
a bike.

>> Try walking without paying attention the trail. Is that a
>>>root? Or a rock? Is the trail going left or right? How steep is it?
>>>Your statements are misleading. You also have to give attention to the
>>>surface you walk on or you will trip, fall into a hole, walk off the trail
>>>and into a tree or step on a snake, a bird nest or whatever.
>>>Riding a bike is similar in that I can look around, glance ahead, adjust
>>>my
>>>course and continue to observe the surroundings. Just like hiking, I can
>>>also stop and observe more closely.
>>
>> But you don't. Look at any mountain biking video. They go for long
>> periods without stopping (except when they crash), when they aren't
>> admiting nature.
>A mountain bike video by nature of marketing and sales is going to show the
>extreme, the dangerous and as much non-stop action as possible.

Who said anyhting about commercial videos? I didn't. You FABRICATED
that, as usual.

There
>probably are some instructional videos that fall outside your
>classification, however, I do not know as I do not seek out mountain bike
>videos.
>>
>> Your insistence it is impossible when it
>>>is done every day by thousands of cyclists is.... ridiculous.
>>>>
>
===
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