M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
At 10:51 PM 5/19/04 -0700, kc <[email protected]> wrote:
>Good on ya mate.
I wish you the best of luck and I thank you for your efforts to slow the
asphalting of our planet.
Sorry you've had some tough experiences with mountain bikers. Do you think
there is any place appropriate for mountain biking?
Of course: on paved roads.
>While I appreciate your points below, it does ring clear that you have
placed extraordinary priority on mountain bike impacts especially when
compared to the many other looming environmental issues that should demand
greater attention.
That's nonsense. One look at my web site would tell you otherwise. Why do
mountain bikers have such a hard time telling the truth???
> I'm not trying to shut you up with that sort of comment -
Yes, you are. Why is it so hard for you guys to simply tell the truth??? You
said I should stop talking about mountain biking and talk about something else.
It couldn't have been plainer.
>just presenting a point (partly a question) and enjoying the dialog. Even in
mild written dialog you seem prone to hostility. I apologize for prompting
this.
WHAT hostility? I am just telling the truth -- something I guess you aren't used
to. You interpret that as hostility.
>Good luck and so long.
Kc
Ps
>Here's an interesting site to look at.
http://www.vhemt.org/
Thanks. If you read my web site, you'd know that I already have a link to it.
Cheers5/19/04 10:14 PMMike [email protected]
> At 12:41 PM 5/19/04 -0700, kc wrote:
>> Dear Dr Vandeman,
>> I appreciate the priority you place on the natural environment as well as
>> the emphasis you place on wildlands and forever-wild distinctions.
>> However, I would caution you against an overly generalized reaction to
>> mountain bike users. While there are offenders amongst them, they are (as a
>> group) environmentally minded and proactive in the areas of conservation,
>> restoration and reduction of fossil fuel dependence to the extent that they
>> understand these issues. Unlike jet-skis and four-wheelers, mountain bike
>> users simply do not have the ability to devastate the sheer volume of
>> natural resources that internal combustion enables even if this was their de
>> facto objective. Again and to avoid a defensive reaction, I acknowledge that
>> there are offenders to sensitive land use within the mountain bike community
>> - many of them. But to emphasize this group alongside much more egregious
>> offenders weakens the credibility of your message (our message) to the
>> status of personal rant while alienating a potential resource (mountain bike
>> riders) that can help further environmental awareness. Your message is one
>> worthy of protection.
>
> Although you claim thet they are only a few bad apples, there are enough
> that they can easily be found in every park in the world where mountain
> biking is allowed, and many where it's NOT allowed. But my argument doesn't
> hinge on the characteristics of the bikers. The most polite, conscious
> biker in the world still accelerates erosion, drives other trail users out
> of the park, and drives the wildlife away from the resources they need.
>
>> Would you disagree with the notion, for example, that your time may better
>> benefit your objectives if spent fighting for world population reduction?
>
> Maybe and maybe not. It doesn't interest me. I have a vasectomy & no kids.
> There are plenty of people doing that.
>
>> I
>> suspect that the global environmental net negative impact of one devout
>> Catholic is greater than that of one devout mountain biker (provided that
>> said mountain biker is not Catholic).
>
> I don't know that. Mountain bikers offer a negative role model to thousands
> of kids who don't know better.
>
>> Pick your battles carefully and allocate your resources for the greatest
>> strategic gain. You are a finite resource as well.
>> In the case of mountain bike users, I would encourage a tactic of inclusion
>> whereby you may find an audience sympathetic to your suggestions.
>
> I tried that for many years. In fact, I haven't abandoned it. But mountain
> bikers respond negatively to ANY criticism of mountain biking. I have yet
> to meet even ONE who is open to giving up their selfish, destructive sport.
> I just tell the truth. It's your move.
>
>> Demographically, they are likely to be supporters and voters. I can not say
>> that of many of the other "outdoorsman" stereotypes who are most likely to
>> be conservative, republican, Born-Again EPA haters who consider natural
>> resources as mere consumables as authorized by their Mighty One who
>> proclaimed that Man has dominion over Earth and animals.
>
> In California, they are actively opposing Wilderness designation. Those are
> NOT "environmentalists" or "allies".
>
>> Before spending a single calorie fighting the effects mountain bikers, I
>> would suggest careful scrutiny of the following examples as comparative
>> analysis and strategic planning. Might these, regarded in totality, be
>> examples of subjects more significant to the endeavor of environmental
>> protection than mountain bike mis-use:
>>
>> 1. Leaf blowers
>> 2. Yard-care products (usually carried to fresh water habitats by
>> storm-drain systems)
>> 3. Contraception-adverse Organized religions
>> 4. Politically significant groups that de-emphasize long-term environmental
>> priorities (Kyoto, EPA, etc.)
>> 5. An uninformed voting public
>> 6. Recycling and reuse
>> 7. National petroleum use and automotive efficiency standards
>> 8. Consumption based rewards programs
>> 9. Misappropriated anti-conservation federal subsidies (+6000lb SUV tax
>> loophole)
>> 10. Indigenous seed-stock modification (Monsanto)......and so on.
>>
>> I suggest that, relative to bigger environmental threats such as those
>> listed above, targeting mountain bikers
>
> I don't "target mountain bikers". I target mountain BIKING. Get it?
>
>> is time wasted on a comparatively
>> insignificant factor even if we assume worst-case behavior of 100% of the
>> mountain bike rider population.
>
> This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.
> It's about mountain biking.
>
>> Why alienate the swing voters unless you care less about the bigger cause
>> than a personal rant.
>
> That's where you went off track. I don't "alienate" anyone. I just tell the
> truth.
>
>> Keep up the good work but sharpen the focus.
>> Focus, focus, focus.
>
> Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest
> too much", if you get my drift. Why are mountain bikers so interested in
> shutting me up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I
> am convinced that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror. True
> environmentalists don't try to shut up other environmentalists.
>
>> Sincerely,
>> Karsen Chinook
>
> ===
> 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
>
===
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
>Good on ya mate.
I wish you the best of luck and I thank you for your efforts to slow the
asphalting of our planet.
Sorry you've had some tough experiences with mountain bikers. Do you think
there is any place appropriate for mountain biking?
Of course: on paved roads.
>While I appreciate your points below, it does ring clear that you have
placed extraordinary priority on mountain bike impacts especially when
compared to the many other looming environmental issues that should demand
greater attention.
That's nonsense. One look at my web site would tell you otherwise. Why do
mountain bikers have such a hard time telling the truth???
> I'm not trying to shut you up with that sort of comment -
Yes, you are. Why is it so hard for you guys to simply tell the truth??? You
said I should stop talking about mountain biking and talk about something else.
It couldn't have been plainer.
>just presenting a point (partly a question) and enjoying the dialog. Even in
mild written dialog you seem prone to hostility. I apologize for prompting
this.
WHAT hostility? I am just telling the truth -- something I guess you aren't used
to. You interpret that as hostility.
>Good luck and so long.
Kc
Ps
>Here's an interesting site to look at.
http://www.vhemt.org/
Thanks. If you read my web site, you'd know that I already have a link to it.
Cheers5/19/04 10:14 PMMike [email protected]
> At 12:41 PM 5/19/04 -0700, kc wrote:
>> Dear Dr Vandeman,
>> I appreciate the priority you place on the natural environment as well as
>> the emphasis you place on wildlands and forever-wild distinctions.
>> However, I would caution you against an overly generalized reaction to
>> mountain bike users. While there are offenders amongst them, they are (as a
>> group) environmentally minded and proactive in the areas of conservation,
>> restoration and reduction of fossil fuel dependence to the extent that they
>> understand these issues. Unlike jet-skis and four-wheelers, mountain bike
>> users simply do not have the ability to devastate the sheer volume of
>> natural resources that internal combustion enables even if this was their de
>> facto objective. Again and to avoid a defensive reaction, I acknowledge that
>> there are offenders to sensitive land use within the mountain bike community
>> - many of them. But to emphasize this group alongside much more egregious
>> offenders weakens the credibility of your message (our message) to the
>> status of personal rant while alienating a potential resource (mountain bike
>> riders) that can help further environmental awareness. Your message is one
>> worthy of protection.
>
> Although you claim thet they are only a few bad apples, there are enough
> that they can easily be found in every park in the world where mountain
> biking is allowed, and many where it's NOT allowed. But my argument doesn't
> hinge on the characteristics of the bikers. The most polite, conscious
> biker in the world still accelerates erosion, drives other trail users out
> of the park, and drives the wildlife away from the resources they need.
>
>> Would you disagree with the notion, for example, that your time may better
>> benefit your objectives if spent fighting for world population reduction?
>
> Maybe and maybe not. It doesn't interest me. I have a vasectomy & no kids.
> There are plenty of people doing that.
>
>> I
>> suspect that the global environmental net negative impact of one devout
>> Catholic is greater than that of one devout mountain biker (provided that
>> said mountain biker is not Catholic).
>
> I don't know that. Mountain bikers offer a negative role model to thousands
> of kids who don't know better.
>
>> Pick your battles carefully and allocate your resources for the greatest
>> strategic gain. You are a finite resource as well.
>> In the case of mountain bike users, I would encourage a tactic of inclusion
>> whereby you may find an audience sympathetic to your suggestions.
>
> I tried that for many years. In fact, I haven't abandoned it. But mountain
> bikers respond negatively to ANY criticism of mountain biking. I have yet
> to meet even ONE who is open to giving up their selfish, destructive sport.
> I just tell the truth. It's your move.
>
>> Demographically, they are likely to be supporters and voters. I can not say
>> that of many of the other "outdoorsman" stereotypes who are most likely to
>> be conservative, republican, Born-Again EPA haters who consider natural
>> resources as mere consumables as authorized by their Mighty One who
>> proclaimed that Man has dominion over Earth and animals.
>
> In California, they are actively opposing Wilderness designation. Those are
> NOT "environmentalists" or "allies".
>
>> Before spending a single calorie fighting the effects mountain bikers, I
>> would suggest careful scrutiny of the following examples as comparative
>> analysis and strategic planning. Might these, regarded in totality, be
>> examples of subjects more significant to the endeavor of environmental
>> protection than mountain bike mis-use:
>>
>> 1. Leaf blowers
>> 2. Yard-care products (usually carried to fresh water habitats by
>> storm-drain systems)
>> 3. Contraception-adverse Organized religions
>> 4. Politically significant groups that de-emphasize long-term environmental
>> priorities (Kyoto, EPA, etc.)
>> 5. An uninformed voting public
>> 6. Recycling and reuse
>> 7. National petroleum use and automotive efficiency standards
>> 8. Consumption based rewards programs
>> 9. Misappropriated anti-conservation federal subsidies (+6000lb SUV tax
>> loophole)
>> 10. Indigenous seed-stock modification (Monsanto)......and so on.
>>
>> I suggest that, relative to bigger environmental threats such as those
>> listed above, targeting mountain bikers
>
> I don't "target mountain bikers". I target mountain BIKING. Get it?
>
>> is time wasted on a comparatively
>> insignificant factor even if we assume worst-case behavior of 100% of the
>> mountain bike rider population.
>
> This isn't about special behavior, as much as you'd like to believe that.
> It's about mountain biking.
>
>> Why alienate the swing voters unless you care less about the bigger cause
>> than a personal rant.
>
> That's where you went off track. I don't "alienate" anyone. I just tell the
> truth.
>
>> Keep up the good work but sharpen the focus.
>> Focus, focus, focus.
>
> Nice try, but you don't make a good argument. I think "thou dost protest
> too much", if you get my drift. Why are mountain bikers so interested in
> shutting me up? That says a lot. The more you try to shut me up, the more I
> am convinced that I am on the right track. Look in the mirror. True
> environmentalists don't try to shut up other environmentalists.
>
>> Sincerely,
>> Karsen Chinook
>
> ===
> 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
>
===
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
