"Responsible" Mountain Biker Supports MTB Racing!

Dear Nancy, It should be noted that not only are irresponsible bikers not always racers, racers are
not necessarily irresponsible bikers. Irresponsibility and racing are not linked at the hip, and it
should be easy for a rational person to separate these activities.

As you stated, racing should be done on closed courses designed for such activities, and racing
should not detract from the mission of habitat protection and preservation. Racing and preservation
are not mutually exclusive activities.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What part of "responsible" don't you understand?

Mike

From: Nancy Whyte <[email hidden]> Subject: ROMP Race team thoughts Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003
20:52:20 -0800

I had a few thoughts after I read some surprisingly negative messages

about

Quoted message said:

the potential to sponser a race team. First of all, all irresponsible

trail

Quoted message said:

users are not racers. Races should be done on a closed course, designed

for

Quoted message said:

such activity on a limited basis. Some of the messages are starting to

sound

Quoted message said:

like the comments we hear about all mountain bikers being a threat to

trail

Quoted message said:

use. Secondly, I do not see how sponsoring a race team could possibly detract from out advocacy
missions, or our standing with land management groups. In fact, I would propose that members in
good standing that want

to

Quoted message said:

race, be required to volunteer a minimum of 6 hours of time for projects such as trail repair,
organized rides, membership drives, letter stuffing and meeting with political figures. It also
might be wise to require a

race

Quoted message said:

member to attend a ROMP meeting every 3 months, to stay informed about the group activities.

I feel that as ROMP is a group of "pedalers", which to me means

bicyclists,

Quoted message said:

and as I see bicyclists as being both recreation and transportation, our group already endorses
the FUN of riding, and I might go as far as to say that riding for many of us is a passion.....I
suggest that we include competitive, athletic endeavors part of what we believe in. This is a

group,

Quoted message said:

and therefore, a plethora of opinions on what "Responsible", "Organized" means, exists. I am a
member who rides responsibly, promotes the ideals of working together to preserve the rights of
all trail user groups, but also supports racing mountain bikes!

Consider having race team members chosen from those who have been a

part

Quoted message said:

of ROMP for at least 6 months, and have met the requirements I have proposed. I do agree that
racers will be ambassadors for our cause, and I believe that racing CAN be a benefit to our club.

Nancy Whyte

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What part of "responsible" don't you understand?

Mike

And what part of tedious annoying troll dont you understand.

Vike Mandeman

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

What part of "responsible" don't you understand?

I always have trouble with the 'pons' part, though the 'espon' tends be a bit tricky too.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Races should be done on a closed course, designed for such activity on a limited basis.

What's wrong with this Mike ?

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:18:18 GMT, Smitty <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> .wrote : . .>Races should be
done on a closed course, designed for .>such activity on a limited basis. . . .What's wrong with
this Mike ?

Nothing, if the track is on existing pavement. Otherwise, it requires destruction of
wildlife habitat.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

Smitty said:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Races should be done on a closed course, designed for such activity on a limited basis.

What's wrong with this Mike ?

Notice that pavement is OK but, apparently biking on existing surfaces is not. Existing surfaces can
recover over time; those under pavement would require tens if not thousands of centuries to recover.
The time differential would be several orders of magnitude at best.

Pete H

--
A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococco.
B. Gray

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:18:18 GMT, Smitty <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> .wrote : . .>Races should
be done on a closed course, designed for .>such activity on a limited basis. . . .What's wrong
with this Mike ?

Nothing, if the track is on existing pavement. Otherwise, it requires destruction of wildlife
habitat.

Hahaha, mikey still thinks pavement grows on trees. Witness the majestic pavement gerbil in it's
natural habitat.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

"PeterH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Smitty said:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Races should be done on a closed course, designed for such activity on a limited basis.

What's wrong with this Mike ?

Notice that pavement is OK but, apparently biking on existing surfaces is not. Existing surfaces
can recover over time; those under pavement would require tens if not thousands of centuries to
recover. The time differential would be several orders of magnitude at best.

Come on Pete, everybody knows that natural habitat will recover under asphault after a few decades.
Sheesh, why be so overly dramatic?

"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"PeterH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Smitty said:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Races should be done on a closed course, designed for such activity on a limited basis.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Notice that pavement is OK but, apparently biking on existing surfaces is not. Existing surfaces
can recover over time; those under pavement would require tens if not thousands of centuries to
recover. The time differential would be several orders of magnitude at best.

Come on Pete, everybody knows that natural habitat will recover under asphault after a few
decades. Sheesh, why be so overly dramatic?

Camp Tamarancho is a good example how after years since a formal bike race, damage has not recovered
naturally or by any other means contrary to the claims of race promoters including convicted
criminal Christopher H. Lang co-founder of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition. Terri Alvillar
homepage.mac.comPhotoAlbum11.htmlOpen ↗

i wonder if we check that we'd find you and that toad turd mikey are the same person. you sound a
lot alike - both absolutly full of [censored].

And, the subject site has not been used for this sort of activity, nor any other activity
since then?

Where I live, there is a vehicle route that was closed some 15-odd years ago. It leads to a nature
preserve that is closed to all activity except hiking, equestrian, and bikes.The current use of the
area is not in dispute, and it is being used wisely, so what happens there is not really important.
What is important to this discussion is the closed route. It is no longer open to motor vehicles, in
keeping with the use of the area at the end of the trail, and it is not a route that the site
managers want to have in existance, so they do not perform any maintenance on the route. My point is
that in just over five years the trail has become so overgrown that it is virtually impassable by
anyone except the most energetic single file line of pedestrians. This is in a part of California
that sees about 10 inches of annual rainfall.

I live near (about 60 miles) from a State Park that is in the desert region. There is a route that
is of significant historical value, it was used by the Overland Express as a settler route. The
route happens to pass through Big Horn Sheep habitat, and is therefore closed now to all but hikers.
The trail is so utterly over grown that the very animals that we seek to protect are harmed. The few
hundred per year visitors that formerly passed through the area has dwindled to tens of visitors,
and the animals that formerly used the vehicle route to get to the precious water that they need to
survive must now get through dense overgrowth. Our presence in the area is actually beneficial to
the very animals that we seek to protect, our absence is a detriment.

As a responsible off road advocate, I fully support the seasonal closure that was imposed on this
desert route back in the mid-80s. I do not support the year-around closure because it appears the
results no only restrict public access to a historical route, but the whole idea of the closure
seems to harm the animals more than it helps them. The seasonal closure is during summer months when
water supplies are very limited, and the lambing season is in full swing. The year around closure
causes the very lamb population we want to help to have restricted access to the water. We know that
the Big Horn Sheep are not alarmed by the vehicles passing by because we have dozens of private
photos of them standing on the ridge watching the activity, we also have multiple photos of the same
animals standing on the center divide of a major regional highway, drinking water from the
sprinklers.

Nobody disputes that we need to preserve Big Horn Sheep habitat. We have encroached heavily on the
habitat in the Palm Springs area, including Indian Wells and Indio. Our significant encroachment
that harms the animals is condo complexes and golf courses. Nobody is calling for increasing the
number of trails in the Desert State Parks, we only say that the mere presence of a route that
history shows has been there for over a century, in some cases two centuries, is not a significant
issue for habitat protection.

As the enviro-activist agenda squeezes more and more poeple on fewer and fewer trails, the very
encounters of vehicles and pedestrians that you rally against are going to increase. Your efforts at
habitat protection are really making the habitats worse off. If we have a million miles of trails
and a million visitors, then we have a calculatable ratio of visitor per space. If we succeed in
halving the trail miles, then the visitor per space ratio doubles. The truth for habitat protection
is that if we can spread the visitors out over a larger area, then we can reduce the impact overall.
This does not mean that we need to build more and more trails, it means that we need to stop closing
them. Then, we need to divert some users of the high traffic trails to lesser used trails to spread
the visitors over a larger area. We need to stop the spread of bulldozers that result in condo
projects springing up in the middle of nowhere, but we seldom have a good reason to keep people out
that are only interested in spending an afternoon in the backcountry. I fully support the agenda
that says the bulldozers should stay out of the backcountry, I totally reject the notion that you
and I and our families need to stay out. As an aside, I support seasonal access, and I even support
restricted access for areas undergoing rehabilitation. These kinds of closures have a remarkable
benefit to both me ant the habitat. The benefit to me is that I can ultimately derive greater
enjoyment during my visits.

Michael J Vandeman is a lunatic fringe element that refuses to listen to the voice of reason, please
do not emulate him. I will happily engage in a debate if you can find it in your heart to remain
civil and rational. Mike has proven time and again that he is so utterly irrational that talking to
him is a real challenge.

"Terri Alvillar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"PeterH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Smitty wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Races should be done on a closed course, designed for such activity on a limited basis.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Notice that pavement is OK but, apparently biking on existing surfaces is not. Existing
surfaces can recover over time; those under pavement would require tens if not thousands of
centuries to recover. The time differential would be several orders of magnitude at best.

Come on Pete, everybody knows that natural habitat will recover under asphault after a few
decades. Sheesh, why be so overly dramatic?

Camp Tamarancho is a good example how after years since a formal bike race, damage has not
recovered naturally or by any other means contrary to the claims of race promoters including
convicted criminal Christopher H. Lang co-founder of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition. Terri
Alvillar homepage.mac.comPhotoAlbum11.htmlOpen ↗

PeterH <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Smitty wrote:

Quoted message said:

Notice that pavement is OK but, apparently biking on existing surfaces is not. Existing surfaces
can recover over time; those under pavement would require tens if not thousands of centuries to
recover. The time differential would be several orders of magnitude at best.

Pete H

Road biking serves a different purpose than mountain biking. It is a superb form of transportation
which can replace motor vehicle trips. Mountain biking is simply recreation. There is no legitimate
need to tear up nature just because a group of mostly spoiled white males with an average age of
32.5 feel they need this form of high intensity recreation and if they can't have it they throw a
tantrum. Terri Alvillar homepage.mac.comPhotoAlbum11.htmlOpen ↗

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:32:28 -0500, PeterH <[email hidden]> wrote:

.Smitty wrote: . .>On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> .>wrote :
.> .> .> .>>Races should be done on a closed course, designed for .>>such activity on a limited
basis. .>> .>> .> .> .>What's wrong with this Mike ? .> .> .Notice that pavement is OK but,
apparently biking on existing surfaces .is not. Existing surfaces can recover over time;

BS. Dead plants and animals don't come back! DUH! Eroded soil doesn't come back, either. You guys
are truly morons.

those under pavement .would require tens if not thousands of centuries to recover. The time
.differential would be several orders of magnitude at best. . .Pete H

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 07:20:43 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.And, the subject site has not been used for this sort of activity, nor any .other activity since
then? . .Where I live, there is a vehicle route that was closed some 15-odd years .ago. It leads to
a nature preserve that is closed to all activity except .hiking, equestrian, and bikes.The current
use of the area is not in dispute, .and it is being used wisely, so what happens there is not really
important. .What is important to this discussion is the closed route. It is no longer .open to motor
vehicles, in keeping with the use of the area at the end of .the trail, and it is not a route that
the site managers want to have in .existance, so they do not perform any maintenance on the route.
My point is .that in just over five years the trail has become so overgrown that it is .virtually
impassable by anyone except the most energetic single file line of .pedestrians. This is in a part
of California that sees about 10 inches of .annual rainfall. . .I live near (about 60 miles) from a
State Park that is in the desert region. .There is a route that is of significant historical value,
it was used by the .Overland Express as a settler route. The route happens to pass through Big .Horn
Sheep habitat, and is therefore closed now to all but hikers. The trail .is so utterly over grown
that the very animals that we seek to protect are .harmed. The few hundred per year visitors that
formerly passed through the .area has dwindled to tens of visitors, and the animals that formerly
used .the vehicle route to get to the precious water that they need to survive .must now get through
dense overgrowth. Our presence in the area is actually .beneficial to the very animals that we seek
to protect, our absence is a .detriment. . .As a responsible off road advocate, I fully support the
seasonal closure .that was imposed on this desert route back in the mid-80s. I do not support .the
year-around closure because it appears the results no only restrict .public access to a historical
route, but the whole idea of the closure seems .to harm the animals more than it helps them. The
seasonal closure is during .summer months when water supplies are very limited, and the lambing
season .is in full swing. The year around closure causes the very lamb population we .want to help
to have restricted access to the water. We know that the Big .Horn Sheep are not alarmed by the
vehicles passing by because we have dozens .of private photos of them standing on the ridge watching
the activity, we .also have multiple photos of the same animals standing on the center divide .of a
major regional highway, drinking water from the sprinklers. . .Nobody disputes that we need to
preserve Big Horn Sheep habitat. We have .encroached heavily on the habitat in the Palm Springs
area, including Indian .Wells and Indio. Our significant encroachment that harms the animals is
.condo complexes and golf courses.

As well as the presence of peoplre in their habitat.

Nobody is calling for increasing the .number of trails in the Desert State Parks, we only say that
the mere .presence of a route that history shows has been there for over a century, in .some cases
two centuries, is not a significant issue for habitat protection. . .As the enviro-activist agenda
squeezes more and more poeple on fewer and .fewer trails, the very encounters of vehicles and
pedestrians that you rally .against are going to increase. Your efforts at habitat protection are
really .making the habitats worse off. If we have a million miles of trails and a .million
visitors, then we have a calculatable ratio of visitor per space. If .we succeed in halving the
trail miles, then the visitor per space ratio .doubles. The truth for habitat protection is that if
we can spread the .visitors out over a larger area, then we can reduce the impact overall. This
.does not mean that we need to build more and more trails, it means that we .need to stop closing
them. Then, we need to divert some users of the high .traffic trails to lesser used trails to
spread the visitors over a larger .area. We need to stop the spread of bulldozers that result in
condo projects .springing up in the middle of nowhere, but we seldom have a good reason to .keep
people out that are only interested in spending an afternoon in the .backcountry. I fully support
the agenda that says the bulldozers should stay .out of the backcountry, I totally reject the
notion that you and I and our .families need to stay out. As an aside, I support seasonal access,
and I .even support restricted access for areas undergoing rehabilitation. These .kinds of closures
have a remarkable benefit to both me ant the habitat. The .benefit to me is that I can ultimately
derive greater enjoyment during my .visits. . .Michael J Vandeman is a lunatic fringe element that
refuses to listen to the .voice of reason, please do not emulate him. I will happily engage in a
.debate if you can find it in your heart to remain civil and rational. Mike .has proven time and
again that he is so utterly irrational that talking to .him is a real challenge. . . . . ."Terri
Alvillar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
."]news:[email hidden]... .> "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message .news:<[email hidden]>... .> > "PeterH" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message .> > "]news:[email hidden]... .> > > Smitty wrote: .> > > .> > > >On Wed,
05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> .> > > >wrote : .> .> > > >>Races
should be done on a closed course, designed for .> > > >>such activity on a limited basis. .> .> >

Quoted message said:

Notice that pavement is OK but, apparently biking on existing surfaces .> > > is not. Existing

surfaces can recover over time; those under pavement .> > > would require tens if not thousands of
centuries to recover. The time .> > > differential would be several orders of magnitude at best. .>

Quoted message said:

.> > Come on Pete, everybody knows that natural habitat will recover under .> > asphault after a

few decades. Sheesh, why be so overly dramatic? .> .> .> .> .> Camp Tamarancho is a good example
how after years since a formal bike .> race, damage has not recovered naturally or by any other
means .> contrary to the claims of race promoters including convicted criminal .> Christopher H.
Lang co-founder of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition. .> Terri Alvillar .>
homepage.mac.comPhotoAlbum11.htmlOpen ↗ .

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

Snip

Quoted message said:

As well as the presence of peoplre in their habitat.

Thank you for ignoring facts, again. Perhaps you have positive proof that visitors to a habitat
are the sole cause for the destruction of the habitat and the forcing out of the animals that
live there.

Your casual observation is that any human contact is harmful, my casual observation is that
permanant human contact is the real problem. Proof of my observation is that there are huge numbers
of wild animals in the midst of human centers, such as campgrounds, and national and state parks
and forests.

snip to end

I looked at these pictures on here and almost popped a nut laughing at them, and that Terri Alvillar
character.... This line impressed me, actually no, it didn't...

There is no legitimate need to tear up nature just because a group of mostly spoiled white males
with an average age of 32.5 feel they need this form of high intensity recreation and if they can't
have it they throw a tantrum. Terri Alvillar

An average age of 32.5? Wake up chum, I sure wouldn't say 32.5 is an average age, but that's besides
the point... I don't even really know what the point is... What do you do Terri? Do you ride MTB or
are you a roadie? Sure, there's nothing wrong with Roadies, and there's nothing wrong with anyone
who rides an MTB... Sure, there's people out there who mess the trails up for some people, and then
that causes those people to snap and ban mtb at those particular trails. Mostly spoiled whit males??
That's where your wrong again... I'm working my ass of to afford a new bike, it's 2200 and it's not
cheap, so, nope, sure aren't spoiled and you must be referring back to your own personal experience
with the whole spoiled thing. I agree, there's no need to tear up a trail, but wtf are we 'humans'
suppose to do on this planet? Sit around and get fat? Oh wait, your amazing retaliation to that
would be ride a roadie... K bud, just for some reason, a road bike doesn't give me or probably a lot
more people the "high intensity" you say.... So what, don't ride anywhere where there is dirt and
soil and stick to the roads... All righty then... What a lot of other people said in this forum
about seasonal riding in certain area's... That's great... I'd consider myself a hunter, when we
take our trucks or four wheelers *Oh my god, yes, a motorized atv* through these back logging roads
or trails, or whatever, it controls the amount a trail is going to be taken over by grass, and
brush... How many times do you think I see moose tracks or deer tracks on these roads?? They use em'
to get around and once those are gone then what?? You should feed that line to all the people at
Whistler BC, I'm sure they'll have a few things to say to you...

Tom Kuyek.

P.S - You take a dirt bike on one of those trails for 10 laps, you won't have a trail left... you
take a mountain bike on that trail over and over, and holy [censored], a little bit of soil loss over
three years??? And maybe a larger hiking trail so you can fit 2-3 people wide so you don't have
to stare at each others ass' all day long? Get people together, trail repair!! Try it!

Aha! Simple solution. Let's just pave EVERYTHING!

Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:18:18 GMT, Smitty <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> .wrote : . .>Races should
be done on a closed course, designed for .>such activity on a limited basis. . . .What's wrong
with this Mike ?

Nothing, if the track is on existing pavement. Otherwise, it requires destruction of wildlife
habitat.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:18:58 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote:

. .Snip .> .> As well as the presence of peoplre in their habitat. .> . .Thank you for ignoring
facts, again. Perhaps you have positive proof that .visitors to a habitat are the sole cause for the
destruction of the habitat .and the forcing out of the animals that live there. . .Your casual
observation is that any human contact is harmful, my casual .observation is that permanant human
contact is the real problem. Proof of my .observation is that there are huge numbers of wild animals
in the midst of .human centers, such as campgrounds, and national and state parks and .forests.

That only proves that SOME animals tolerate the presence of humans. Many of them are probably
desperate, since we have destroyed most of their habitat.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:18:58 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

wrote:

. .Snip .> .> As well as the presence of peoplre in their habitat. .> . .Thank you for ignoring
facts, again. Perhaps you have positive proof that .visitors to a habitat are the sole cause for
the destruction of the

habitat

Quoted message said:

.and the forcing out of the animals that live there. . .Your casual observation is that any human
contact is harmful, my casual .observation is that permanant human contact is the real problem.
Proof of

my

Quoted message said:

.observation is that there are huge numbers of wild animals in the midst

of

Quoted message said:

.human centers, such as campgrounds, and national and state parks and .forests.

That only proves that SOME animals tolerate the presence of humans. Many

of them

Quoted message said:

are probably desperate, since we have destroyed most of their habitat.

You are SOOOO full of [censored]. Destruction of habitat occurs when we build homes, highways, minimalls,
golf courses, etc. Destruction of habitat to the extent that animals flee or die seldom happens
because of a visitor that comes in in the morning and leaves by the afternoon, and typically only
visits on a Saturday or Sunday.

When we are talking about 30 or 40, or 100 visitor trips on a weekend, the impact on habitat is
negligible. Proof is that the habitat continues to thrive on either side of the trail even though
the trail has been on the ground for several decades.