RR: Losing her cherry (Klondike Bluffs)



"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 29 Nov 2006 13:30:39 -0800, "black" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>You are sick.

>>
>>As a matter of fact, YES. I think I am coming down with a cold.
>>
>>> And your selfish pleasures are all that matters, right?
>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans
>>> ("pure habitat").

>>
>>Again, YES. Just as your selfish pleasure of working to create a
>>wildlife habitat that is off limits to humans.

>
> Protecting wildlife is the OPPOSITE of selfishness. Another name for
> it is "compassion".

Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern for
wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road cycling.
>
> If it is off limits to
>>humans, may I ask why are you there?

>
> I'm not.

Then why do you hike.....? If wildlife is better off without "us", it is
certainly better off without you. If your presence (and other hikers) causes
no further consequence, then our presence is also of no consequence.
>
> Moreover, who made you the
>>ecological/wildlife habitat police,

>
> SOMEBODY needs to do it, since mountain bikers won't. All they care
> about is their own selfish pleasures.

"All they care about..." is your OPINION.
Mountain bikes in the hands of rangers would be the most efficient and
non-polluting method of policing your "human free" habitat.
Unless you want them in Jeeps or SUVs.... Or overhead in helicopters....
I'm sure that would make the wildlife feel really comfortable.
You have yet to offer anything resembling a real plan for creation of,
enforcement of, cost of, care of, or location of this "habitat" of yours.
Simply stating you are working to "create one" is all warm and fuzzy. But
what of the specifics of this designation? There are areas, (shrinking
because of development you care not about) that are still remote and
"wilderness". Areas that shrink because you would rather have a building
somewhere rather than allow cyclists the cooperative efforts with other
outdoor users to protect the accessible areas that allow recreation.
>
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 29 Nov 2006 13:30:39 -0800, "black" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>You are sick.

>>
>>As a matter of fact, YES. I think I am coming down with a cold.
>>
>>> And your selfish pleasures are all that matters, right?
>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans
>>> ("pure habitat").

>>
>>Again, YES. Just as your selfish pleasure of working to create a
>>wildlife habitat that is off limits to humans.

>
> Protecting wildlife is the OPPOSITE of selfishness. Another name for
> it is "compassion".
>


Not the way you go about it ...

The way YOU do it is pure selfishness.
 
S Curtiss wrote:

> Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern for
> wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road cycling.


FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he cares
deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat. I believe
that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction at
every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes that any
additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be stopped. He
sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having seen
firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails, off-trail
habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his position).

Bruce Jensen
 
Bruce Jensen wrote:
> S Curtiss wrote:
>
> > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern for
> > wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road cycling.

>
> FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he cares
> deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.


Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His positions
are so silly at times...

> I believe
> that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction at
> every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes that any
> additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be stopped.


And going after one of the least harmful human activities accomplishes,
what?

> He
> sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having seen
> firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails, off-trail
> habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his position).


The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use? When I
see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that EVERY
backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human waste?

His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.

Is that the position you understand?

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Bruce Jensen wrote:
> > S Curtiss wrote:
> >
> > > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern for
> > > wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road cycling.

> >
> > FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he cares
> > deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.

>
> Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His positions
> are so silly at times...


Yeah, but I know him from a awhile ago, and I recall that his consuming
passion is for wild animals...this before bikes became a sideline. He
got some good things done around these parts for the critters.

> > I believe
> > that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction at
> > every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes that any
> > additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be stopped.

>
> And going after one of the least harmful human activities accomplishes,
> what?


"Least" winds up being a relative term. Compared to bulldozing
forests, yes, it is a small thing. Compared to birdwatching, it is
considerably worse. You have to decide how far you will take your
crusade. He decided to take it pretty far, presumably based on what
he'd seen in local areas where animals and bikes came into conflict.

> > He
> > sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having seen
> > firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails, off-trail
> > habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his position).

>
> The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use?


I have no way to gauge that proportion. It might be 1% or 100%. I can
tell you that it represents a significant fraction of the mountain
bikers I have personally witnessed who are not on a "wide road" type of
trail. While sauntering, I have seen plenty of small animals crushed
because mountain bikers have run them down, in most cases totally
unaware that it happened...usually on footpaths. I have been nearly
whacked a couple of times, and my 6-year-old son actually had his
finger injured once by a guy who grazed him - and didn't bother to
stop.

> When I see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that EVERY
> backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human waste?


Of course not. I never said that was an appropriate assumption.

> His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
> there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.


So it would seem.

> Is that the position you understand?


Yepp...and I don't agree with it either.

But based on what I've read, many bikers' positions *seem to be* that
they do no significant harm and perhaps even contribute (strongly?) to
environmental awareness. I don't think that's very honest either. The
world is made up of people over the full spectrum, from responsible to
reckless, and to assume that most or all bikers fall into the former
category is wishful thinking - or politics. I'd guess that the
distribution across the board is comparable to real life - and my own
experience with people is that, with things that they consider to be
"non-crimes," they are responsible as long as it does not inconvenience
them or could get caught. When it is easier to slide one through, they
might just do it. In the woods, with nobody looking, sliding one
through is usually a piece of cake. What harm will it do?

Everybody comes to the table, any table, with their arguments about
their positions. Everyone argues the strongest possible way to support
their views, whether truthful or not, and unless someone (perhaps a
moderator, perhaps a pragmatic person) decides to find the common
ground first and work from there, nobody is likely to get beyond the
"mutual anger" phase very soon...people will stick to their guns in an
attempt to get *something* for their trouble.

To end this discussion on a positive note, everyone must first come to
the table with honesty and be willing to admit (1) that not all biking
is bad, and (2) that under the best of circumstances, problems will
occur because of human nature and the nature of the sport. On this
group, anyway, I don't see those things brought to the table.

I don't intend to get embroiled in this conversation much more. While
I have opinions on the topic, my far greater concern is getting vital
habitats and wilderness preserved before they are lost forever. The
way we treat them after they are protected from bulldozers is another
fight for another day, AFAIAC.

Bruce Jensen
 
To whom it may concern, or not concern:

This was "originally" a thread that was meant to bring attention to me
(i.e. a newbie) by someone that cares about my personal
accomplishment(s) and me as a person. I, wholeheartedly appreciate the
attention it brought me, simply because it provides me inspiration and
encouragement. Moreover, the additional comments posted are (for the
mostpart) appreciated.

Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
"Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
you missed the bigger picture?

I venture to assert that you were one of those pesky kids that jumped
into other peoples conversations (big peoples conversations), not
knowing what the subject was, then left scratching your head why no one
wanted to be your friend, much less speak to you.... There was nothing
that stopped you from posting a thread that could bring attention to
your cause in a positive manner, say perhaps on a board that is
relevant to your own interests. Rather, you presented yourself as
annoying, unwelcomed, and, and, and, and.......

Blk
 
black wrote:
> To whom it may concern, or not concern:
>
> This was "originally" a thread that was meant to bring attention to me
> (i.e. a newbie) by someone that cares about my personal
> accomplishment(s) and me as a person. I, wholeheartedly appreciate the
> attention it brought me, simply because it provides me inspiration and
> encouragement. Moreover, the additional comments posted are (for the
> mostpart) appreciated.
>
> Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
> simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
> "Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
> to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
> thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
> encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
> etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
> you missed the bigger picture?
>
> I venture to assert that you were one of those pesky kids that jumped
> into other peoples conversations (big peoples conversations), not
> knowing what the subject was, then left scratching your head why no one
> wanted to be your friend, much less speak to you.... There was nothing
> that stopped you from posting a thread that could bring attention to
> your cause in a positive manner, say perhaps on a board that is
> relevant to your own interests. Rather, you presented yourself as
> annoying, unwelcomed, and, and, and, and.......
>
> Blk
>

Good on you and by the congrats hope you still riding
 
black wrote:

> Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
> simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
> "Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
> to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
> thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
> encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
> etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
> you missed the bigger picture?


Welcome to Alt.Mountain-Bike. That's how it is, just get over it and
keep posting. The USENET is a strange place and A.M-B is even stranger.
Here's some info to give you a heads up:

http://www.schnauzers.ws/ambfaq.html

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws
 
Thanks for the info, and advice. Although I am a member of other sites,
I do have to say I really appreciate the link you offered as a heads
up. This is the "stuff" I like to see.... THANK YOU.



> Welcome to Alt.Mountain-Bike. That's how it is, just get over it and
> keep posting. The USENET is a strange place and A.M-B is even stranger.
> Here's some info to give you a heads up:
>
> http://www.schnauzers.ws/ambfaq.html
>
> --
> o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
> www.schnauzers.ws
 
On 4 Dec 2006 21:12:26 -0800, "black" <[email protected]> wrote:

>To whom it may concern, or not concern:
>
>This was "originally" a thread that was meant to bring attention to me
>(i.e. a newbie) by someone that cares about my personal
>accomplishment(s) and me as a person. I, wholeheartedly appreciate the
>attention it brought me, simply because it provides me inspiration and
>encouragement. Moreover, the additional comments posted are (for the
>mostpart) appreciated.
>
>Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
>simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
>"Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
>to elaborate on thier own self interest


You seem to have attracted those with bigger egos and more potent
agendas somewhere along the line. If I read some of the references
from the preceding posts correctly, somewhere you got into a Mike
thread. This translates as: You had bad luck and found out why the
'Net sucks sometimes.

If I were you (we both know I'm not, right?), I'd scrape this whole
thread off my shoe and go on to something else.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 29 Nov 2006 13:30:39 -0800, "black" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>You are sick.

> >
> >As a matter of fact, YES. I think I am coming down with a cold.
> >
> >> And your selfish pleasures are all that matters, right?
> >> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans

("pure habitat").
> >
> >Again, YES. Just as your selfish pleasure of working to create a
> >wildlife habitat that is off limits to humans.

>
> Protecting wildlife is the OPPOSITE of selfishness. Another name for
> it is "compassion".


I think you misspelled , "obsession".

HTH,
GG
 
My apologies - I did not see the original post about what you discuss
below, only the pro vs. con biker extension. I am sorry if I
contributed to the derailment of your topic.

Bruce Jensen
****************
black wrote:
> To whom it may concern, or not concern:
>
> This was "originally" a thread that was meant to bring attention to me
> (i.e. a newbie) by someone that cares about my personal
> accomplishment(s) and me as a person. I, wholeheartedly appreciate the
> attention it brought me, simply because it provides me inspiration and
> encouragement. Moreover, the additional comments posted are (for the
> mostpart) appreciated.
>
> Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
> simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
> "Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
> to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
> thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
> encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
> etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
> you missed the bigger picture?
>
> I venture to assert that you were one of those pesky kids that jumped
> into other peoples conversations (big peoples conversations), not
> knowing what the subject was, then left scratching your head why no one
> wanted to be your friend, much less speak to you.... There was nothing
> that stopped you from posting a thread that could bring attention to
> your cause in a positive manner, say perhaps on a board that is
> relevant to your own interests. Rather, you presented yourself as
> annoying, unwelcomed, and, and, and, and.......
>
> Blk
 
black wrote:
> To whom it may concern, or not concern:
>
> This was "originally" a thread that was meant to bring attention to me
> (i.e. a newbie) by someone that cares about my personal
> accomplishment(s) and me as a person. I, wholeheartedly appreciate the
> attention it brought me, simply because it provides me inspiration and
> encouragement. Moreover, the additional comments posted are (for the
> mostpart) appreciated.
>
> Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
> simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
> "Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
> to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
> thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
> encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
> etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
> you missed the bigger picture?
>
> I venture to assert that you were one of those pesky kids that jumped
> into other peoples conversations (big peoples conversations), not
> knowing what the subject was, then left scratching your head why no one
> wanted to be your friend, much less speak to you.... There was nothing
> that stopped you from posting a thread that could bring attention to
> your cause in a positive manner, say perhaps on a board that is
> relevant to your own interests. Rather, you presented yourself as
> annoying, unwelcomed, and, and, and, and.......
>
> Blk
>


In addition to what others have offered, I recommend you look into
killfiles or message rules (depending on what you use to read these
messages) so you can easily ignore those who are just here to disrupt
things.
There are two regulars I keep killfiled (you've encountered one as far
as I can tell). Unfortunately others still respond to them, so I see the
responses, but the killfile helps cut down on the useless clutter.
Another thing to look for is cross posting. These people add more
newsgroups to the post in hops of drawing more people into their topic
derailment. So if you need to respond, make sure you remove the extra
groups they added so you aren't just fueling the fire.

Welcome and good job on your ride. Keep riding and writing!

Matt
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 29 Nov 2006 13:30:39 -0800, "black" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>You are sick.
>>>
>>>As a matter of fact, YES. I think I am coming down with a cold.
>>>
>>>> And your selfish pleasures are all that matters, right?
>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>> humans ("pure habitat").
>>>
>>>Again, YES. Just as your selfish pleasure of working to create a
>>>wildlife habitat that is off limits to humans.

>>
>> Protecting wildlife is the OPPOSITE of selfishness. Another name for
>> it is "compassion".

> Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern for
> wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road cycling.
>>
>> If it is off limits to
>>>humans, may I ask why are you there?

>>
>> I'm not.

> Then why do you hike.....? If wildlife is better off without "us", it
> is certainly better off without you. If your presence (and other
> hikers) causes no further consequence, then our presence is also of no
> consequence.
>>
>> Moreover, who made you the
>>>ecological/wildlife habitat police,

>>
>> SOMEBODY needs to do it, since mountain bikers won't. All they care
>> about is their own selfish pleasures.

> "All they care about..." is your OPINION.
> Mountain bikes in the hands of rangers would be the most efficient and
> non-polluting method of policing your "human free" habitat.
> Unless you want them in Jeeps or SUVs.... Or overhead in
> helicopters.... I'm sure that would make the wildlife feel really
> comfortable. You have yet to offer anything resembling a real plan for
> creation of, enforcement of, cost of, care of, or location of this
> "habitat" of yours. Simply stating you are working to "create one" is
> all warm and fuzzy. But what of the specifics of this designation?
> There are areas, (shrinking because of development you care not about)
> that are still remote and "wilderness". Areas that shrink because you
> would rather have a building somewhere rather than allow cyclists the
> cooperative efforts with other outdoor users to protect the accessible
> areas that allow recreation.
>>

>
>

Mikey has a 20 x 20 foot space in his back yard that he claims to be
human free.

See this lovely web site http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.htm

The truth is that he is simply too damn lazy too keep the weeds down in
his own yard


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Cyli wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006 21:12:26 -0800, "black" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >To whom it may concern, or not concern:
> >
> >This was "originally" a thread that was meant to bring attention to me
> >(i.e. a newbie) by someone that cares about my personal
> >accomplishment(s) and me as a person. I, wholeheartedly appreciate the
> >attention it brought me, simply because it provides me inspiration and
> >encouragement. Moreover, the additional comments posted are (for the
> >mostpart) appreciated.



Yeah, ignore the doof-patrol.

> >Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
> >simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
> >"Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
> >to elaborate on thier own self interest



That's vandamnan's modus operandi. Ignore the doof and the doofi who
respond to said doof.

> You seem to have attracted those with bigger egos and more potent
> agendas somewhere along the line. If I read some of the references
> from the preceding posts correctly, somewhere you got into a Mike
> thread. This translates as: You had bad luck and found out why the
> 'Net sucks sometimes.



The net sucks all of the time, unless you ignore the doofi.

> If I were you (we both know I'm not, right?), I'd scrape this whole
> thread off my shoe and go on to something else.



Like the turd vandamnan is.

> r.bc: vixen
> Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
> Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli



Trippy stuff: http://www.visi.com/~cyli/hunter.jpg

JD
 
Thanks so much for the comments about my ride. There was only "pne"
that tried to make it something other than what it was. Any way, I am
quite familiar with doofi like this, and I will certainly wipe my heels
clean. Thanks again for those that made it fun, and interesting.... I
am sure I will keep posting and elaborating on my experience of my
newfound appreciation and passion....

:)

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

> On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bruce Jensen wrote:
>>> S Curtiss wrote:
>>>
>>> > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern
>>> > for wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road
>>> > cycling.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he
>>> cares deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.

>>
>>Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His
>>positions are so silly at times...
>>
>>> I believe
>>> that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction at
>>> every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes that
>>> any additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be
>>> stopped.

>>
>>And going after one of the least harmful human activities
>>accomplishes, what?

>
> BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our parks
> and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a lot of
> damage.
>
>>> He
>>> sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having seen
>>> firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails, off-trail
>>> habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his position).

>>
>>The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use? When
>>I see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that EVERY
>>backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human waste?
>>
>>His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
>>there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.

>
> Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
> reason to allow bikes in natural areas.
>
>>Is that the position you understand?



Mike,
Give me ONE good reason you should be allowed to post on the USNET??
What ever answers you come up with, all apply to why off-road cycling
should be allowed.
Chris Foster

>>
>>E.P.

> ===
> 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.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
> are fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On 4 Dec 2006 13:01:22 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Bruce Jensen wrote:
>> S Curtiss wrote:
>>
>> > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern for
>> > wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road cycling.

>>
>> FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he cares
>> deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.

>
>Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His positions
>are so silly at times...
>
>> I believe
>> that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction at
>> every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes that any
>> additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be stopped.

>
>And going after one of the least harmful human activities accomplishes,
>what?


BS. There are millions of mountain bikers, out ripping up our parks
and running over our wildlife every week. That adds up to a lot of
damage.

>> He
>> sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having seen
>> firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails, off-trail
>> habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his position).

>
>The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use? When I
>see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that EVERY
>backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human waste?
>
>His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
>there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.


Of course. In 12 yeasr of asking, I have yet to hear even ONE good
reason to allow bikes in natural areas.

>Is that the position you understand?
>
>E.P.

===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 4 Dec 2006 13:52:31 -0800, "Bruce Jensen" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> Bruce Jensen wrote:
>> > S Curtiss wrote:
>> >
>> > > Of which you have none. You have yet to exhibit any real concern for
>> > > wildlife. Only a concern for your OPINIONS about off-road cycling.
>> >
>> > FWIW, I can vouch for Mike in this regard. I am certain that he cares
>> > deeply and wholeheartedly about wildlife and its habitat.

>>
>> Maybe. I'm not convinced he's not just a pro-MTB shill. His positions
>> are so silly at times...

>
>Yeah, but I know him from a awhile ago, and I recall that his consuming
>passion is for wild animals...this before bikes became a sideline. He
>got some good things done around these parts for the critters.
>
>> > I believe
>> > that he sees wildlife as being threatened with harm or extinction at
>> > every turn (and this is true in some cases), and he believes that any
>> > additional unnecessary stress placed on them ought to be stopped.

>>
>> And going after one of the least harmful human activities accomplishes,
>> what?

>
>"Least" winds up being a relative term. Compared to bulldozing
>forests, yes, it is a small thing. Compared to birdwatching, it is
>considerably worse. You have to decide how far you will take your
>crusade. He decided to take it pretty far, presumably based on what
>he'd seen in local areas where animals and bikes came into conflict.
>
>> > He
>> > sees Mountain Bikes in this last category (and frankly, having seen
>> > firsthand the damage that *some* of them do to trails, off-trail
>> > habitat and individual creatures, I can understand his position).

>>
>> The "damage" you have seen represents what fraction of MTB use?

>
>I have no way to gauge that proportion. It might be 1% or 100%. I can
>tell you that it represents a significant fraction of the mountain
>bikers I have personally witnessed who are not on a "wide road" type of
>trail. While sauntering, I have seen plenty of small animals crushed
>because mountain bikers have run them down,


Whenever that happens, take them home in a plastic bag & put them in
the freezer. Then call William Lidicker at U.C. Berkeley and ask him
if he would like to see it and put it in the Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology. There are two snakes there already that were killed by
mountain bikers. I brought one of them.

in most cases totally
>unaware that it happened...usually on footpaths. I have been nearly
>whacked a couple of times, and my 6-year-old son actually had his
>finger injured once by a guy who grazed him - and didn't bother to
>stop.
>
>> When I see litter/**** in the backcountry, do I then assume that EVERY
>> backpacker litters and doesn't properly dispose of human waste?

>
>Of course not. I never said that was an appropriate assumption.
>
>> His position is that ALL MTBing is harmful, ALL the time, and that
>> there is no reasonable place for MTBs off-road.

>
>So it would seem.
>
>> Is that the position you understand?

>
>Yepp...and I don't agree with it either.
>
>But based on what I've read, many bikers' positions *seem to be* that
>they do no significant harm and perhaps even contribute (strongly?) to
>environmental awareness. I don't think that's very honest either. The
>world is made up of people over the full spectrum, from responsible to
>reckless, and to assume that most or all bikers fall into the former
>category is wishful thinking - or politics. I'd guess that the
>distribution across the board is comparable to real life


What's important is BEHAVIOR, not sentiment. Many mountain bikers CALL
themselves environmentalists, but their BEHAVIOR is harmful.

- and my own
>experience with people is that, with things that they consider to be
>"non-crimes," they are responsible as long as it does not inconvenience
>them or could get caught. When it is easier to slide one through, they
>might just do it. In the woods, with nobody looking, sliding one
>through is usually a piece of cake. What harm will it do?
>
>Everybody comes to the table, any table, with their arguments about
>their positions. Everyone argues the strongest possible way to support
>their views, whether truthful or not, and unless someone (perhaps a
>moderator, perhaps a pragmatic person) decides to find the common
>ground first and work from there, nobody is likely to get beyond the
>"mutual anger" phase very soon...people will stick to their guns in an
>attempt to get *something* for their trouble.
>
>To end this discussion on a positive note, everyone must first come to
>the table with honesty and be willing to admit (1) that not all biking
>is bad, and (2) that under the best of circumstances, problems will
>occur because of human nature and the nature of the sport. On this
>group, anyway, I don't see those things brought to the table.
>
>I don't intend to get embroiled in this conversation much more. While
>I have opinions on the topic, my far greater concern is getting vital
>habitats and wilderness preserved before they are lost forever.


Yeah. Too bad we have to get sidetracked trying to keep mountain
biking from destroying habitat and killing wildlife in existing parks.
But someone has to do it! The alternative (we may be there already) is
Empty Park Syndrome: hardly any wildlife left.

The
>way we treat them after they are protected from bulldozers is another
>fight for another day, AFAIAC.
>
>Bruce Jensen

===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 4 Dec 2006 21:12:26 -0800, "black" <[email protected]> wrote:

>To whom it may concern, or not concern:
>
>This was "originally" a thread that was meant to bring attention to me
>(i.e. a newbie) by someone that cares about my personal
>accomplishment(s) and me as a person. I, wholeheartedly appreciate the
>attention it brought me, simply because it provides me inspiration and
>encouragement. Moreover, the additional comments posted are (for the
>mostpart) appreciated.
>
>Perplexing as it may be, I don't understand how one person could use a
>simple thread that should bring back nostalgic memories of being a
>"Newbie" (commonality or not) and turn it into an opportunistic chance
>to elaborate on thier own self interest and assert that viewpoint on a
>thread that isn't of any relation. Instead of writing and offering
>encouragement from your own personal accomplishments, triumphs etc.
>etc...you brought something irrelevent to something relevent. Perhaps,
>you missed the bigger picture?
>
>I venture to assert that you were one of those pesky kids that jumped
>into other peoples conversations (big peoples conversations), not
>knowing what the subject was, then left scratching your head why no one
>wanted to be your friend, much less speak to you.... There was nothing
>that stopped you from posting a thread that could bring attention to
>your cause in a positive manner, say perhaps on a board that is
>relevant to your own interests. Rather, you presented yourself as
>annoying, unwelcomed, and, and, and, and.......
>
>Blk


You were and are off-base. Mountain biking is nothing to be proud of!
DUH!
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande