"Edward Dolan" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>> His "rage" is of his own making, and I question his sincerity on that
>> point. I think he goes out of his way to attract his rage, then he posts
>> it in a public forum with the tagline that everybody is as the author in
>> the notes he has posted.
>
> Nope, others use obscenities on him and he does not return the favor like
> I would. He shows us the mentality of mountain bikers when he posts their
> obscene emails to him on the newsgroups.
>
You're new here, aren't you?
>>>> Observe posters that try to talk to him rationally, and see how HE
>>>> retorts to name calling and invective. He is an obvious exception to
>>>> the traits you call out in your first post. But, I like your theory. It
>>>> holds up much of the time, just not in the case of Vandeman.
>>>
>>> I am so used to folks castigating me that everything now is like water
>>> off a duck's back. I have lost all of my former sensitivity and have
>>> grown the hide of rhinoceros. I will argue my positions with as much
>>> energy as I can muster, but I am not afraid to admit defeat when I have
>>> been shown the error of my ways.
>>>
>>> Vandeman no doubt is a true believer which requires him to take an
>>> extreme position the better to make his arguments stand out against all
>>> the static. All innovators and original minds are like that. I am more
>>> like the rest of you. I will make compromises and I can be a diplomat
>>> when it is required.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Mike makes the case that a single track trail is the bane of the
>> environment -- leaving aside for a moment that there may be other kinds
>> of users on the route. Assuming his assertion that a single track is
>> solely used by mountain bikers, and using the assumption that a single
>> track is 1.5ft wide, a route that bisects a square mile and is itself a
>> mile long, takes up less than 0.04% of the area it bisects. All of the
>> route is not possible to be the environmental wasteland that Mike makes
>> it out to be, but let's say that 25% of the route is what Mike asserts.
>> This makes 0.01% of the square mile into an environmental catastrophy,
>> hardly an issue that demands new laws and rules to prevent recreational
>> uses. This is roughly equivelent to a letter size sheet of paper
>> destroying the habitat the size of a tennis court. The math is, 1.5 x
>> 5,280 = 7,920 sq ft. There are 43,560 sq ft in an acre, and 640 acres in
>> a sq mi. The trail I described takes 18% of an acre, and this is 0.04% of
>> a sq mi. Keep in mind that the average residential lot in California is
>> roughly 7,500 sq ft, you see that a single track trail that is a mile
>> long is equivelent to the land that a house sits on. When there is one
>> house on 640 acres, that house has very little impact on the habitat or
>> the species that live there.
>>
>> Perspective. That is what Mike is missing.
>
> I am pretty sure it is not just about trail degradation, but the impact
> that humans can have on wildlife by being present in an area. A lone
> walker is not the same thing as group of mountain bikers. It appears to me
> that you are the one lacking perspective.
>
A "lone" hiker? Hikers are just as likely to be in a group of 5 as a bike
rider is. It's absurd to compare groups of one traveler and pretend that
other travelers always travel alone. If you are going to make a comparison
of bikers and hikers, at least use the same size population.
The Grand Canyon has trails that have absolutely NO bikes on them, the only
traveler is on foot or on horseback -- mule back, really. Should we surmise
that all foot travel is therefore harmfull because of the erosion at the
Grand Canyon? The Grand Canyon is a giant example of erosion, but none of it
comes at the sole of a shoe. The trails need to have a service call on them
on a regular basis, that's true. But the environment is none the worse for
the wear that comes from the foot traffic.
A bike route in the San Francisco Bay Area might need a service call from
time to time, big deal. The environment is none the worse for the wear, and
surely there are other way more harmful activities that are doing a number
on the region. Sequoia Park is smog ridden from the **** that blows in from
the bay, and the trees are suffering badly as a result. The bike trails in
the park are an insignificant source of damage in the grand scheme of
things. That, my friend, is perspective.
>> Vandeman claims that mountain bikers contribute to global warming. To the
>> extent they strap their bikes to the roof of the family sedan to get them
>> to the trail head, I suppose this is true. But, hikers also contribute in
>> the same way to global warming because they also pile into the family
>> sedan to drive to the trailhead. Let's not forget the mother driving to
>> the market to get a sack of groceries. She contributes to global warming.
>> I'm not suggesting we halt these activities, I'm suggesting that to
>> single out bike riders for special focus is inherently flawed. (Yes,
>> global warming is a serious problem, but banning mountain biking is not
>> the cure, as Mike would like you to believe.)
>>
>> Personally, I drive a Jeep on the most rugged of routes that I can find.
>> This demands very low speeds where noise and dust are almost never an
>> issue for anybody. Yet, Vandeman would want you to believe that all
>> vehicle activity is unwanted by hikers and equestrians. In my vast
>> experience, NO hiker or equestrian has ever gotten mad at me or the group
>> I travel with. Admittedly, my sample is small, but I know lots of
>> off-highway vehicle operators, and except for the possible exception of
>> desert racers, I think that most of htem have the same experience with
>> hikers and horses that I've had. Basically, I'm suggesting that a very
>> few hikers and horsemen have been bothered by even fewer off highway
>> vehicle operators. Indeed, in most of my travels, the hikers and horsemen
>> will stop and watch as the group I'm with will negotiate a particularly
>> difficult section of trail.
>
> I am not much in favor of off-road vehicles ever being off the road. This
> is a much more serious issue than mountain bikes being off-road. You truly
> do not know how you are impacting other outdoor users. Who is going to get
> into a confrontation with strangers in this day and age when you are
> likely to get murdered over nothing at all. I can assure you that anyone
> who is not in an off-road vehicle himself DOES object to encountering such
> use by vehicles.
>
Wrong. I absolutely do know how I'm impacting other outdoor users. The vast
majority enjoy the show. I make it a point to slow to a crawl so I do not
kick up dust, and make lots of noise. I'm always friendly to whomever I come
across, and I carry ice and water, and frequently offer it. I stop
completely for horses, then proceed when the rider and the horse see me, and
I proceed in a manner to not alarm the horse. When I am negotiating a
particularly difficult section of trail, I draw crowds of horses and hikers,
and bikers. They always, that's A-W-A-Y-S, look and sound as though they
like what I am doing. And, I always travel in a group of at least 3, and
usually a group of 6 or 7.
I have been visiting the same areas for 40 years, give or take, and the
animals and plants are not showing any signs of distress as a result of
recreational activities. Yes, there might be some distress, but it is from
the air or from bugs that eat the trees, but not from the recreational uses
that occur there.
>> My life experience is vastly different than Vandeman's. I don't go around
>> calling on MORE off highway travel, but I do not support most calls for
>> less. I have research (I have had, I'm not sure I still have it) that
>> shows off highway travel is actually beneficial to a plant species that
>> the CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) is seeking to protect. The
>> irony is, the vehicles are better for the species than the protective
>> measures banning the vehicles.
>
> Nope, I will never believe any of the above to be true.
>
Well, you should. You said earlier that you don't do research, and are
largely opinion-based. The actual research does not support the opinion
youhave formed. Vandeman has the same problem, the actual research does not
support the opinions he has.
> In short, the CBD is destroying a plant species in the name of
>> protecting it. A result of trail closures is that more and more vehicles
>> are crammed into smaller and smaller places, then there is a self-serving
>> report written that says the overcrowded places are destroying habitat.
>> The fact is, most of the habitat is not destroyed until after the
>> concentration of activity is raised in an effort to protect another
>> place.
>
> All off-road vehicle activity should be banned everywhere.
>
> I have been
>> offroading for coming up on 40 years in Southern California, and I'm here
>> to say that the vast majority of the areas that "need" protection have
>> been doing very well these past 40 years. I argue they need no protection
>> beyond the occasional police action because there is always an idiot in
>> the crowd. The desert regions I visit have prospered despite being
>> designated off road vehicle recreation areas.
>
> You fail utterly to convince me. Vehicles off-road are very destructive of
> the natural scene, especially in desert areas. All natural areas are quite
> fragile and have only limited ability to recover from vehicles. Hence, the
> reason for roads.
>
Well, 99.9% of all off highway travel is on dirt roads. These are roads that
were built for any number of reasons, off highway travel being at the bottom
of the list. They are left over from these other uses, typically mining, but
we still like to use them. We can see all we want to see from the road, we
very seldom need to venture off the established road to get somewhere. Think
about it, if somewhere is worth getting to, the dirt road would already be
there, and venturing off the route isn't necessary or practical.
>> Now, if one wants to discuss bikes and feet on the same trail, then I
>> suppose that is a reasonable discussion. But, it is my limited experience
>> in this arena that a little trail ettiquete would go a very long way in
>> helping resolve most of the issues.
>
> There are different mental attitudes involved in the two activities. That
> is why they are not compatible.
>
********!
What makes you think that you have a different mindset than I have when we
are out on a trail? That's patently absurd, and selfish.
> I think our efforts should be focused on
>> development, not recreation. Sure, there may be locales where recreation
>> is a bad thing, but these locales are the exception to the rule that
>> recreation isn't a bad thing. Recreation can be beneficial, and is
>> usually beneficial to all but that which happens to be in the middleof
>> the single track itself.
>
> Certain areas can be developed for human recreation as they are already
> pretty much ruined anyway. They can be restored possibly, but all really
> natural and pristine areas need to be set aside and not developed at all.
> Have some pity on the wild things of the earth.
>
I already gave you an example of a weed that is in a set-aside area for off
road vehicles, and was subsequently closed to the vehicles. The weed is in
decline where the vehciles are banned, and is spreading where the vehicles
are still allowed. There are sand dunes near hear that were cut in half, one
side closed and the other remains open (both sides were once open), and the
plant that they want to protect is dying off in the closed area, but they
closed the area solely to protect the plant, and the plant flourishes where
the vehicles are still allowed. The exact opposite result is happening. I
have lots of studies that counter pretty much every opinion you hold. It's a
pity really that you would extrapolate your narrow experience on people that
have been living in the real world where this argument has been going on for
a very long time, and the plants and animals that should have been gone long
ago -- using the environmentalist's cries of doom and gloom.
I can cite the Big Horn Sheep habitat experience if you want; tell you how
the give and take from the offroad community to share the land has resulted
in a series of gates that keep the off road community out year around. We
agreed that the sheep -- lambs actually -- were scared of the vehicles and
would not come to the water. We agreed that the route past the water should
be gated part of the year so the lambs would not be frightened -- even
though the population decline could not be shown to be a result of offroad
activity. We agreed to give up access to the route for part of the year.
This went on for several years, then the gates remained locked year around.
Now, the water is so overgrown that the lambs can't get past the brush to
the water, and mountain lions lie in wait in the overgrown brush to attack
the lambs as they drink. The brush that grows across the trail now block a
historic route used by the Pony Express. The issue was that the Big Horn
Sheep habitat was being encroached upon by the golf courses in Palm Springs,
so since the habitat was shrinking, then we should close off a remote and
historic route that is used by less than 1500 visitors per year. This is a
strategy that makes no sense at all, and the few vehicles that went through
kept the brush back so the lambs could get to the water, and the mountain
lions had fewer places to hide so they could get at the lambs. The strategy
to save the lambs turns out to not only deny public access to public lands,
it harms the lamb population they were trying to save. Two bad things come
from the same strategy, and nothing good comes from it. And, public access
to public lands was never part of the problem faced by the Big Horn Sheep.
>> Mike insists that as soon as a mountain bike is pulled out of the garage,
>> the environment goes to hell, despite mountains of evidence that this is
>> not true in the vast majority of his cites. Mike can only make his
>> baseless assertions because he has no perspective.
>
> Mountain bikes belong on some kind of road, however rough. They do not
> belong on footpaths anywhere.
>
> Jeff, you have not convinced me at all that Vandeman is being
> unreasonable. He is just being a purist. We need these types. They force
> us to rethink our own positions. Vandeman engenders as much response as he
> does because he is not unreasonable. If he were, everyone would write him
> off as crazy and ignore him. It is not possible to do that because there
> is sense to what he says, no matter how much you might disagree with him.
>
He is completely unreasonable. He blamed a mountain lion attack on bikers as
being a result of the bikes! How unreasonable do you need him to be before
you see how unreasonable he is? HE cites the actions of two kids in a park
using bikes to jump over fallen trees as indicitive of the illegal actions
of all bike riders everywhere. How unreasonable do you need him to be?
Surely, you are not the same unreasonable sort as Vandeman.
Everyone DOES write him off as crazy, except, apparently, you. I accept the
notion that we need the discussion, and the watchdog. But Vandeman is
clearly not the person that should be talking or watching. His agenda is to
have you visit the wilderness by going to a museum and looking at a display
through the glass. He, and perhaps you, lives in one of the most congested
places in California -- I could give his address and you could GoogleEarth
his house -- so clearly his perspective is tainted. He works at Berkely, and
lives within walking distance. He wants everybody to walk to work because he
can. He wants everybody to sit at home on the weekend so he can go outside
and be alone. He can't go anywhere and be alone, and that frustrates him.
Today the bike tires, tomorrow the boot soles. Pick your rubber, one day it
will be banned if Mike gets his way.
