"Responsible" Mountain Biker Supports MTB Racing!

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, Mar 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. What part of "responsible" don't you understand?

    Mike

    From: Nancy Whyte <[email protected]> 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 the potential to sponser
    a race team. First of all, all irresponsible trail users are not racers. Races should be done on a
    closed course, designed for such activity on a limited basis. Some of the messages are starting to
    sound like the comments we hear about all mountain bikers being a threat to trail 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 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 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, 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, 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 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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
    Tags:


  2. 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 protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > What part of "responsible" don't you understand?
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >
    > From: Nancy Whyte <[email protected]> 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
    > the potential to sponser a race team. First of all, all irresponsible
    trail
    > users are not racers. Races should be done on a closed course, designed
    for
    > such activity on a limited basis. Some of the messages are starting to
    sound
    > like the comments we hear about all mountain bikers being a threat to
    trail
    > 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
    > 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
    > 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,
    > 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,
    > 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
    > 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.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  3. Dpm

    Dpm Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > What part of "responsible" don't you understand?
    >
    > Mike
    >

    And what part of tedious annoying troll dont you understand.

    Vike Mandeman
     
  4. Fish!

    Fish! Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > 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.
     
  5. Smitty

    Smitty Guest

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

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

    What's wrong with this Mike ?
     
  6. On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:18:18 GMT, Smitty <[email protected]> wrote:

    .On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  7. Peterh

    Peterh Guest

    Smitty wrote:

    >On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> 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; 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
     
  8. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:18:18 GMT, Smitty <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .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 http://www.ramsays-online.com
     
  9. "PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Smitty wrote:
    >
    > >On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> 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; 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?
     
  10. "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Smitty wrote:
    > >
    > > >On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote :

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

    > > 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
    http://homepage.mac.com/terrialvillar/mountainbikedamage/PhotoAlbum11.html
     
  11. 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 shit.
     
  12. 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 protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "PeterH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > > Smitty wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote :
    >
    > > > >>Races should be done on a closed course, designed for such activity on a limited basis.
    >
    > > > 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 http://homepage.mac.com/terrialvillar/mountainbikedamage/PhotoAlbum11.html
     
  13. PeterH <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Smitty wrote:

    > 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 http://homepage.mac.com/terrialvillar/mountainbikedamage/PhotoAlbum11.html
     
  14. On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:32:28 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Smitty wrote: . .>On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .>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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  15. On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 07:20:43 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> 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 protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]... .> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message .news:<[email protected]>... .> > "PeterH" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message .> > news:[email protected]... .> > > Smitty wrote: .> > > .> > > >On Wed,
    05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .> > > >wrote : .> .> > > >>Races
    should be done on a closed course, designed for .> > > >>such activity on a limited basis. .> .> >
    > 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 .>
    http://homepage.mac.com/terrialvillar/mountainbikedamage/PhotoAlbum11.html .

    ===
    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
     
  16. 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.

    snip to end
     
  17. Tom Kuyek

    Tom Kuyek Guest

    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 shit, 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!
     
  18. Mr. E. Mann

    Mr. E. Mann Guest

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

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:18:18 GMT, Smitty <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:25 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .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.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  19. On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:18:58 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> 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.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  20. "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:18:58 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
    <[email protected]>
    > 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.

    You are SOOOO full of crap. 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.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...