>>> No... I am defending bikes on singletrack in designated multi-use and
>>> recreation areas. You have Wilderness areas and many National Forest
>>> lands
>>> that are off-limits to bikes. You can hike without bikes any time you
>>> wish. Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space
>>> is
>>> transparaent because it is not happening. What is wrongheaded is to
>>> portray misinformation as truth.
>>
>>I am not hard-hearted about this. I want you to enjoy the out-of-doors as
>>I
>>have in the past. Those areas that have already been developed for
>>multiple
>>use can stay as they are. But the one thing we need to be adding to our
>>nation's inventory of natural resources are more wilderness areas, not
>>more
>>recreation areas.
And preventing natural areas (with or without trail designations) from being
developed. The natural footprint is getting smaller. Cooperation among all
interested should be the focus to keep the natural areas from being
destroyed. More space means more resource for everyone, recreation,
contemplation and wildlife.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You can ride your bike around the TOWN of Aspen and down the ski slopes
>>>> there which I believe is what they are mainly used for in the summer
>>>> season. I do not want you riding your bike on the back country
>>>> footpaths.
>>>
>>> If those "back country footpaths" are part of designated multi-use areas
>>> or recreation areas, then they are "singletrack" and open for cycling
>>> unless the local land managers designate otherwise. If these areas are
>>> already closed to cycling, what are you *****ing about?
>>
>>Too many trails are designated single track when they are actually
>>footpaths. A single track suitable for bikes will have to have some
>>development for that purpose. If it hasn't had this devopment, then it
>>should be reserved strictly for hikers (walkers).
That is among the points of contention. Who makes these determinations?
You...? Vandeman...? Me...?
It is cooperation and consistency of designation that will provide the best
solutions.
>>
>>If they allow cycling...
>>> you can try to get them closed. However, take a lesson from Vandeman...
>>> You better have real information and real documented evidence because
>>> lies, opinion and biased science are meaningless. Vandeman has been
>>> presenting his opinion as fact for a dozen years and has earned nothing
>>> but ridicule. If you want to blame someone for any perceived degradation
>>> of trails from cyclists, blame Vandeman. It is his manipulation of
>>> information that has contributed to the focus of real and actual
>>> information on the part of cyclists that has either kept trails open or,
>>> in some cases, expanded access.
>>
>>None of what you say above makes any sense. Those who manage our natural
>>resources do their own studies and come to their own conclusions. You have
>>obviously let your feud with Vandeman color your perceptions and
>>judgments.
Actually... Vandeman has been "quoting" the studies referenced by many of
these organizations for years. The issue is the manner he presents them.
Often with pieces of the context removed or completely disregarding the
researchers' conclusions and substituting his own. (Google groups search
"vandeman" offers examples of this going back years)
Beyond that, all of these organizations have, by law, access for public
comment and presentation when determining directions of action or study. It
is misinformation that clouds this process. I, and others who advocate
shared access cycling, have only challenged this misinformation. For our
efforts, we have been called liars, criminals, morons, idiots, and more.
Beyond that, we have been given nothing beyond his opinion, bias and points
to his own self-appointed authority and website as any answer whatsoever on
these challenges.
>>
>>>>> Is it Vandeman's "no bikes off pavement anywhere" or is it our
>>>>> "multi-use recreation areas can share resources with cyclists". Are
>>>>> you
>>>>> going for opinion or reason?
>>
>>Well, let's face it, "no bikes off pavement anywhere" is never going to
>>fly
>>in this country. But still it is good to hear it. I like to be exposed to
>>extreme views. They refresh my own point of view. Your bias ought to be in
>>favor of fewer rather than more bikes in the wilderness. Vandeman is more
>>right than you are in his gut reaction to off-road bikes.
Where are we discussing bikes in "wilderness"? Wilderness designations do
not allow bicycles. There is a push for consistency of designation from
advocay organizations. However, among this discussion, I have seperated
"wilderness" from other areas open to off-road cycling.
>
> It's not just a gut reaction. It is suported by science (conservation
> biology) -- something mountain bikers don't know anything about.
Opinion... see the International Mountain Biking Association website for
many references and discussions of knowledge and real information. To say
mountain bikers "know nothing" simply because they offer a different
opinion, viewpoint or reference of information is ludicrous.
>
>>>> I tend to agree with Vandeman more than I do with you, that is for
>>>> sure!
>>>> However, I am in favor of specially constructed bike trails in natural
>>>> areas. However, Wilderness Areas are strictly for walkers. I NEVER want
>>>> to see anyone on a bike in a Wilderness Area. Please review your
>>>> Thoreau
>>>> if you would like to know where I am coming from.
>>>
>>> Are you as blind as Vandeman, too? Where have I said all areas need to
>>> be
>>> open for cyclists? Where have I made any statement advocating Wilderness
>>> areas open the rules to allow cycling? Are some Wilderness areas
>>> improperly classified...? Yes. Are some recreation areas over-utilized?
>>> Yes. How do we fix this disparity...?
>>
>>I am using the word wilderness to describe any area that is relatively
>>unspoiled and roadless, whether designated wilderness or not. When I am
>>specifically referring to a designated wilderness, I will capitalize it
>>so -
>>Wilderness Area.
>>
>>> Hey - I know! Lets continue to fight about bikes and singletrack and who
>>> made who... Lets do this while the real natural areas are sold for
>>> exploration or expansion and chip away at the available land for
>>> wildlife,
>>> recreation or contemplation.
>>
>>The latter is something separate altogether and I agree far more serious.
>>Development is ruining everything. Why the hell do people want to have
>>homes
>>away from already established towns and cities anyway? Some rich slob,
>>instead of buying a home in Aspen, will build way out in a beautiful
>>mountain valley or on a mountain top, thereby ruining the vista for
>>everyone
>>forever. We badly need laws forbidding all kinds of development.
For this line, I would agree. You may also include the instances of natural
area development instead of re-using areas and land within city limits
fallen into disrepair or sitting empty. I have seen over and over a new
office be built when another sits empty. There simply is no consistency in
zoning, or enforcement of zoning. Often, a little money gets a zoning
designation changed before the public is aware and can speak against it. If
consistency of zoning (and designation of natural areas) were followed, it
is likely this process could be better controlled.
>>
>>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
