E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sHr7g.50939$k%3.48584@dukeread12...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>>
>> You do not understand the attitudes of mind that our involved in these
>> two very different kinds of activities. Believe it or not, I like to bike
>> as much as I USED to like to hike. But the two activities are very
>> different.
>
> Of course they are different. For the person involved in the activity.
> However, what is not as eveident is the impact of the activty in the
> aftermath. The similarities and differences will vary from individual to
> individual. However, the impacts of the two activities are more similar
> than different.
I am not as concerned about the impacts as I am about other considerations.
We need to preserve areas for the solitary hiker regardless of impacts.
>>> What comes across loud and clear is your desire to force your chosen
>>> method of outdoor experience as the only one possible and "appropriate".
>>> Where have I stated I want to open Wilderness to bicycle access?! The
>>> areas designated multi-use and recreational are where I ride.
>>
>> Yes, it is OK to do that! I have admitted as much. But there are already
>> enough areas so designated. All future set-asides, if unspoiled and
>> roadless, ought to be reserved as Wilderness Areas and for walkers only.
> Fine... as long as consistency of designation is employed to avoid
> confusion, ease enforcement, and benefit preservation.
>>
>>> If you want to show even a micron of "the Great" you claim, show me
>>> where I have said bikes belong everywhere. Show me where I have stated
>>> Wilderness should be open for recreation, cycling or anything beyond
>>> hiking? There are trails suitable for bikes and that is where we go and
>>> where we argue to maintain access. Your opinion of our asses is
>>> meaningless.
>>
>> "Yes, it is OK to do that! I have admitted as much. But there are already
>> enough areas so designated. All future set-asides, if unspoiled and
>> roadless, ought to be reserved as Wilderness Areas and for walkers
>> only." - Ed Dolan
>
> Fine... as long as consistency of designation is employed to avoid
> confusion, ease enforcement, and benefit preservation.
Fine with me too!
[...]
>>> Again... why do you insist on placing your viewpoint into my experience
>>> of nature? From a bike or otherwise? "Eternal verities"...? Why should
>>> your contemplation be any more pure or true than mine? My experience on
>>> a bike is in no way less fundamentally real or true than your
>>> experience. Your insistence that it is only proves your ignorance and
>>> mental enclosure.
>>
>> Trust me on this, the experience you have of nature on a bike in no way
>> compares to the experience you have of nature on foot. I have done both
>> extensively and speak from personal knowledge. To know what I am talking
>> about you would have to undertake a week long trek into the wilderness
>> with nothing but a pack on your back. Preferably, you should go alone to
>> get the full impact of the encounter. At the end of it, you will come to
>> have a view of your adventure as essentially spiritual in nature.
>
> However... I can also say after a week of development on a bike on
> trails, you would come away with an appreciation of the experience of
> cycling you would swear did not exist. My saying it and your accomplishing
> it are far from reality of experience.
> I have not undertaken a week long trek into the wilderness. I have spent
> time hiking and camping. I find the areas to be beautiful and I find the
> variation of life to be astounding.
> However... I absolutely abhor sleeping in a tent. I have been in small
> and large tents. I have been in expensive and not-so-expensive tents. I
> hate sleeping in a bag also. I continue to do so on occasion as it is
> sometimes the nature of the trip I find myself engaged in.
> That being said... some people absolutely love it. I know some that live
> only to get out and into a setting that requires a bag and a tent. I say
> have at it. You can not make a statement that comes down to "try it -
> you'll like it". Your experience with nature is "spiritual"... OK. If you
> say so. My experience with nature is more observance and recording
> (photos). I appreciate it. I can grasp the experience on an emotional
> level. I can even equate God and the Spirit of Nature and Creation.
> However, to state that afer a specified time and specified realm of
> experience I will have a "spiritual" revelation is a bit much. Some people
> don't like bananas... No matter how many times they try them.
You need to do a considerable amount of suffering before you come to the
spiritual realm. Hardship and struggle is of the essence. When you are
hiking for days on end with a pack on your back you are like a pilgrim
seeking the eternal verities. Read some travel books of true travelers to
know what I am talking about. Tourism is one thing, travel is quite another.
True travel is difficult and arduous and alters one view of things forever.
It this is not your aim, then it is better to just stay at home and look at
TV.
Mountain biking is all about fun and games. It is anathema to the spirit of
true travel and spirituality. It will never transform you like walking
(trekking) will.
[...]
>> What is really funny is that once I tried to do both, hike and bike. It
>> was a catastrophe! You have to do one or the other, They do not mix at
>> all. The mind sets are just two different. Besides I was so exhausted
>> from cycling that when it came time to hike all I wanted to do was rest.
>> Superman I never was!
>>> Your opinion of the universal value of "walking on footpaths" is
>>> meaningless. It may be important to you. It does not mean it has to
>>> hold the same value to me. That is a basic reality.
>>
>> Once you have done it yourself, you will know what is is worth.
> Like I stated above... "Try it - You'll like it" is not a universal
> truth.
>>
>>>> What is shrinking are the pristine areas
>>>>> Vandeman (and you) are so hot about. Nobody is saying (find where I
>>>>> have...) to open every square inch of habitat to recreation (cycling).
>>>>> I have actually made several statements to the extent that "recreation
>>>>> areas" are natural buffers to more prisitine, or "pure habitat" areas
>>>>> that Vandeman is keen on.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you would no doubt like every area around a wilderness or National
>>>> Park to be a regular Coney Island.
>>>
>>> The "Coney Island" reference is yours, not mine. Your supposition of my
>>> desires is meaningless.
>>
>> We have all seen "recreation areas" springing up around National Parks.
>> What an abomination they are. It's like here is the Park for the
>> connoisseurs and here is the Recreation Area for the slobs.
>
> A somewhat elitist and "over the top" statement of the situation, but
> essentially true. Your opinion of the growth of recreation attraction
> around more pristine areas is yours and valid in that respect. When the
> time is presented for public comment (it should be but not always is) then
> by all means express yourself to the decision makers. However, as I am
> sure you know... the economic viability of any natural area compared to
> having it developed with shops and roads and malls requires the
> exploitation by other means. In many cases (more desireable than outright
> destruction) is the utilization of recreational activity. It could be
> hiking, mountain climbing, kayaking, cycling or any combination.
All of the above activities (except hiking) are far inferior forms of
recreation. Hiking in the wilderness is a sacred activity and the others
that you mention are profane. They must be kept entirely separate at all
times.
> It takes, unfortunately sometimes, extraordinary means to get land
> designated as off-limits for construction and limited access. Keeping that
> designation also can be a struggle. That is why Vandeman has been such an
> enigma. He has rallied agains bikes on a few trails while the areas that
> encompass the trails are threatened by the larger danger of total
> destruction. More areas appreciated by different groups and utilized in
> common where possible only creates more voices to halt useless spread of
> civilization.
Well, I am pretty sure that Vandeman does not like any development any more
than I do. You are a compromiser and Vandeman is not. He is purist. However,
I am a realist and so I will make compromises in the end too, just like you
do. But my bias is more correct then your bias.
Neither Vandeman nor I are the enemy you imagine us to be. Those who would
develop every square inch of earth are the real enemies. All you and I want
to do is to preserve some areas of natural and scenic beauty. We are both on
the side of the angels.
>>>> You condemn recreationists for "playing" yet it is these
>>>>> "playgrounds" that lend economic support and human appreciation for
>>>>> natural areas.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of OTHER areas for the activity of playing, but not so
>>>> many areas left for the contemplation of the eternal verities. This
>>>> nation is filling up with people and may someday be as heavily
>>>> populated as China. There is nothing more precious than preserving
>>>> wilderness and ALL natural areas. There are plenty of roads of every
>>>> description available for cycling. We do not want bikes on footpaths.
>>>
>>> The natural areas are shrinking because people would rather have a
>>> Wal-Mart than trees. You get more people involved in appreciating the
>>> benefits of experiencing the outdoors, then the value of these areas
>>> increases as natural and not developed. Bikes on singletrack are a
>>> reality in some areas. In others (Wilderness, National Forests...) bikes
>>> are not allowed. In areas where bikes are allowed, shared trails are
>>> inevitable. It is certainly more useful to create cooperation and
>>> reduced friction in these circumstances. There are plenty of roads and
>>> there are also plenty of trails suitable for cycling. The do not take
>>> away from trails in "no bike" wilderness. You say you don't want bikes
>>> on footpaths... Sorry. The reality is... You have some bikes on some
>>> trails. You also have trails available that do not allow bikes. So...
>>> what the f***?
>>
>> As long as there are plenty of trails that do not allow bikes, I can live
>> with that.
>>
>>>> The realization of maintaining wilderness comes from an appreciation
>>>>> of it. It is unfortunate that human nature requires a tangible
>>>>> presence to realize an appreciation for something. But that is
>>>>> reality. The more activity there is in recreational areas, the easier
>>>>> it is to rally these "recreationists" into a mindset of appreciation
>>>>> and preservation for wilderness areas.
>>>>
>>>> The above is ever the excuse for those who woudo like to exploit a
>>>> precious resource. It is based on nothing but self-interest and
>>>> personal greed. If you cannot get out and walk in nature, then you can
>>>> read about it by others who are able to do it. I myself am getting to
>>>> the age where I can no longer do what I did 40 years ago, but so what!
>>>> I do not want those who manage our natural resources to bend over
>>>> backwards just for me. That is because I am not selfish and greedy like
>>>> you. In short, I am not a slob!
>>>
>>> So let cyclists have the access in multi-use areas and recreation areas.
>>> You have hiking only trails in Wilderness and National Forests. You say
>>> you do not want anyone bending over backwards just for you. OK... As
>>> far as I can see... We're done. You go hike in a Wilderness area. I'll
>>> go ride in an area where bikes are allowed. If we cross paths in a
>>> multi-use area, I'll slow down and you can, perhaps, walk a little
>>> faster.
>>
>> I believe very many National Forests do allow bikes on their trails. It
>> is only in the wilderness areas of the forest that bikes are not
>> permitted. However, I could be wrong about this as it has been awhile
>> since I last visited a National Forest.
> It depends on the locality, land manager and the unique quality of the
> area concerned. That is why consistency of designation is so important. It
> eases enforcement and rules of access and eases conflict between all
> concerned.
>>
>>>> The elitist environmentalist attitude of making demands
>>>>> based on the "we're smarter and we say so" mindset is over. The ease
>>>>> of access of information and the speed of communication have made
>>>>> people (some of them anyway) much smarter. The loss of habitat for
>>>>> construction and sprawl is the threat to natural areas, not a few
>>>>> bikes in a few areas shared with other recreationists.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of other areas for cyclists to enjoy without
>>>> infringing on our precious footpaths.
>>> There are also many areas where bikes are not allowed. Shared
>>> singletrack in a few areas is not the end of the world.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, I am very much in favor of bike trails constructed to go
>>>> through natural areas. There is one in the Black Hills that is a
>>>> miracle. It is about 100 miles in length and it is interesting and
>>>> scenic all the way. What more could any cyclist ask for!
>>>
>>> Fine... Where is the problem. Some shared singletrack...? In a few
>>> areas that are not Wilderness...? So, again, where is the problem?
>>
>> A trail specially built to accomodate bikes is ideal. Singletrack is NOT
>> ideal for bikes, but it is ideal for hikers.
>
> On this, we may have to agree to differ. Many areas offer shared use and
> it works well. It could depend on several factors from amount of traffic
> to levels of enforcement to the quality of beer at the closest pub.
I have never been able to figure out why it is so expensive to construct a
humble bike trail. We have a bike bridge here in my home town which goes
over the local dam and it cost $40,000.! I am convinced the world is rife
with thieves, especially in the construction trades.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
news:sHr7g.50939$k%3.48584@dukeread12...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>>
>> You do not understand the attitudes of mind that our involved in these
>> two very different kinds of activities. Believe it or not, I like to bike
>> as much as I USED to like to hike. But the two activities are very
>> different.
>
> Of course they are different. For the person involved in the activity.
> However, what is not as eveident is the impact of the activty in the
> aftermath. The similarities and differences will vary from individual to
> individual. However, the impacts of the two activities are more similar
> than different.
I am not as concerned about the impacts as I am about other considerations.
We need to preserve areas for the solitary hiker regardless of impacts.
>>> What comes across loud and clear is your desire to force your chosen
>>> method of outdoor experience as the only one possible and "appropriate".
>>> Where have I stated I want to open Wilderness to bicycle access?! The
>>> areas designated multi-use and recreational are where I ride.
>>
>> Yes, it is OK to do that! I have admitted as much. But there are already
>> enough areas so designated. All future set-asides, if unspoiled and
>> roadless, ought to be reserved as Wilderness Areas and for walkers only.
> Fine... as long as consistency of designation is employed to avoid
> confusion, ease enforcement, and benefit preservation.
>>
>>> If you want to show even a micron of "the Great" you claim, show me
>>> where I have said bikes belong everywhere. Show me where I have stated
>>> Wilderness should be open for recreation, cycling or anything beyond
>>> hiking? There are trails suitable for bikes and that is where we go and
>>> where we argue to maintain access. Your opinion of our asses is
>>> meaningless.
>>
>> "Yes, it is OK to do that! I have admitted as much. But there are already
>> enough areas so designated. All future set-asides, if unspoiled and
>> roadless, ought to be reserved as Wilderness Areas and for walkers
>> only." - Ed Dolan
>
> Fine... as long as consistency of designation is employed to avoid
> confusion, ease enforcement, and benefit preservation.
Fine with me too!
[...]
>>> Again... why do you insist on placing your viewpoint into my experience
>>> of nature? From a bike or otherwise? "Eternal verities"...? Why should
>>> your contemplation be any more pure or true than mine? My experience on
>>> a bike is in no way less fundamentally real or true than your
>>> experience. Your insistence that it is only proves your ignorance and
>>> mental enclosure.
>>
>> Trust me on this, the experience you have of nature on a bike in no way
>> compares to the experience you have of nature on foot. I have done both
>> extensively and speak from personal knowledge. To know what I am talking
>> about you would have to undertake a week long trek into the wilderness
>> with nothing but a pack on your back. Preferably, you should go alone to
>> get the full impact of the encounter. At the end of it, you will come to
>> have a view of your adventure as essentially spiritual in nature.
>
> However... I can also say after a week of development on a bike on
> trails, you would come away with an appreciation of the experience of
> cycling you would swear did not exist. My saying it and your accomplishing
> it are far from reality of experience.
> I have not undertaken a week long trek into the wilderness. I have spent
> time hiking and camping. I find the areas to be beautiful and I find the
> variation of life to be astounding.
> However... I absolutely abhor sleeping in a tent. I have been in small
> and large tents. I have been in expensive and not-so-expensive tents. I
> hate sleeping in a bag also. I continue to do so on occasion as it is
> sometimes the nature of the trip I find myself engaged in.
> That being said... some people absolutely love it. I know some that live
> only to get out and into a setting that requires a bag and a tent. I say
> have at it. You can not make a statement that comes down to "try it -
> you'll like it". Your experience with nature is "spiritual"... OK. If you
> say so. My experience with nature is more observance and recording
> (photos). I appreciate it. I can grasp the experience on an emotional
> level. I can even equate God and the Spirit of Nature and Creation.
> However, to state that afer a specified time and specified realm of
> experience I will have a "spiritual" revelation is a bit much. Some people
> don't like bananas... No matter how many times they try them.
You need to do a considerable amount of suffering before you come to the
spiritual realm. Hardship and struggle is of the essence. When you are
hiking for days on end with a pack on your back you are like a pilgrim
seeking the eternal verities. Read some travel books of true travelers to
know what I am talking about. Tourism is one thing, travel is quite another.
True travel is difficult and arduous and alters one view of things forever.
It this is not your aim, then it is better to just stay at home and look at
TV.
Mountain biking is all about fun and games. It is anathema to the spirit of
true travel and spirituality. It will never transform you like walking
(trekking) will.
[...]
>> What is really funny is that once I tried to do both, hike and bike. It
>> was a catastrophe! You have to do one or the other, They do not mix at
>> all. The mind sets are just two different. Besides I was so exhausted
>> from cycling that when it came time to hike all I wanted to do was rest.
>> Superman I never was!
>>> Your opinion of the universal value of "walking on footpaths" is
>>> meaningless. It may be important to you. It does not mean it has to
>>> hold the same value to me. That is a basic reality.
>>
>> Once you have done it yourself, you will know what is is worth.
> Like I stated above... "Try it - You'll like it" is not a universal
> truth.
>>
>>>> What is shrinking are the pristine areas
>>>>> Vandeman (and you) are so hot about. Nobody is saying (find where I
>>>>> have...) to open every square inch of habitat to recreation (cycling).
>>>>> I have actually made several statements to the extent that "recreation
>>>>> areas" are natural buffers to more prisitine, or "pure habitat" areas
>>>>> that Vandeman is keen on.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you would no doubt like every area around a wilderness or National
>>>> Park to be a regular Coney Island.
>>>
>>> The "Coney Island" reference is yours, not mine. Your supposition of my
>>> desires is meaningless.
>>
>> We have all seen "recreation areas" springing up around National Parks.
>> What an abomination they are. It's like here is the Park for the
>> connoisseurs and here is the Recreation Area for the slobs.
>
> A somewhat elitist and "over the top" statement of the situation, but
> essentially true. Your opinion of the growth of recreation attraction
> around more pristine areas is yours and valid in that respect. When the
> time is presented for public comment (it should be but not always is) then
> by all means express yourself to the decision makers. However, as I am
> sure you know... the economic viability of any natural area compared to
> having it developed with shops and roads and malls requires the
> exploitation by other means. In many cases (more desireable than outright
> destruction) is the utilization of recreational activity. It could be
> hiking, mountain climbing, kayaking, cycling or any combination.
All of the above activities (except hiking) are far inferior forms of
recreation. Hiking in the wilderness is a sacred activity and the others
that you mention are profane. They must be kept entirely separate at all
times.
> It takes, unfortunately sometimes, extraordinary means to get land
> designated as off-limits for construction and limited access. Keeping that
> designation also can be a struggle. That is why Vandeman has been such an
> enigma. He has rallied agains bikes on a few trails while the areas that
> encompass the trails are threatened by the larger danger of total
> destruction. More areas appreciated by different groups and utilized in
> common where possible only creates more voices to halt useless spread of
> civilization.
Well, I am pretty sure that Vandeman does not like any development any more
than I do. You are a compromiser and Vandeman is not. He is purist. However,
I am a realist and so I will make compromises in the end too, just like you
do. But my bias is more correct then your bias.
Neither Vandeman nor I are the enemy you imagine us to be. Those who would
develop every square inch of earth are the real enemies. All you and I want
to do is to preserve some areas of natural and scenic beauty. We are both on
the side of the angels.
>>>> You condemn recreationists for "playing" yet it is these
>>>>> "playgrounds" that lend economic support and human appreciation for
>>>>> natural areas.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of OTHER areas for the activity of playing, but not so
>>>> many areas left for the contemplation of the eternal verities. This
>>>> nation is filling up with people and may someday be as heavily
>>>> populated as China. There is nothing more precious than preserving
>>>> wilderness and ALL natural areas. There are plenty of roads of every
>>>> description available for cycling. We do not want bikes on footpaths.
>>>
>>> The natural areas are shrinking because people would rather have a
>>> Wal-Mart than trees. You get more people involved in appreciating the
>>> benefits of experiencing the outdoors, then the value of these areas
>>> increases as natural and not developed. Bikes on singletrack are a
>>> reality in some areas. In others (Wilderness, National Forests...) bikes
>>> are not allowed. In areas where bikes are allowed, shared trails are
>>> inevitable. It is certainly more useful to create cooperation and
>>> reduced friction in these circumstances. There are plenty of roads and
>>> there are also plenty of trails suitable for cycling. The do not take
>>> away from trails in "no bike" wilderness. You say you don't want bikes
>>> on footpaths... Sorry. The reality is... You have some bikes on some
>>> trails. You also have trails available that do not allow bikes. So...
>>> what the f***?
>>
>> As long as there are plenty of trails that do not allow bikes, I can live
>> with that.
>>
>>>> The realization of maintaining wilderness comes from an appreciation
>>>>> of it. It is unfortunate that human nature requires a tangible
>>>>> presence to realize an appreciation for something. But that is
>>>>> reality. The more activity there is in recreational areas, the easier
>>>>> it is to rally these "recreationists" into a mindset of appreciation
>>>>> and preservation for wilderness areas.
>>>>
>>>> The above is ever the excuse for those who woudo like to exploit a
>>>> precious resource. It is based on nothing but self-interest and
>>>> personal greed. If you cannot get out and walk in nature, then you can
>>>> read about it by others who are able to do it. I myself am getting to
>>>> the age where I can no longer do what I did 40 years ago, but so what!
>>>> I do not want those who manage our natural resources to bend over
>>>> backwards just for me. That is because I am not selfish and greedy like
>>>> you. In short, I am not a slob!
>>>
>>> So let cyclists have the access in multi-use areas and recreation areas.
>>> You have hiking only trails in Wilderness and National Forests. You say
>>> you do not want anyone bending over backwards just for you. OK... As
>>> far as I can see... We're done. You go hike in a Wilderness area. I'll
>>> go ride in an area where bikes are allowed. If we cross paths in a
>>> multi-use area, I'll slow down and you can, perhaps, walk a little
>>> faster.
>>
>> I believe very many National Forests do allow bikes on their trails. It
>> is only in the wilderness areas of the forest that bikes are not
>> permitted. However, I could be wrong about this as it has been awhile
>> since I last visited a National Forest.
> It depends on the locality, land manager and the unique quality of the
> area concerned. That is why consistency of designation is so important. It
> eases enforcement and rules of access and eases conflict between all
> concerned.
>>
>>>> The elitist environmentalist attitude of making demands
>>>>> based on the "we're smarter and we say so" mindset is over. The ease
>>>>> of access of information and the speed of communication have made
>>>>> people (some of them anyway) much smarter. The loss of habitat for
>>>>> construction and sprawl is the threat to natural areas, not a few
>>>>> bikes in a few areas shared with other recreationists.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of other areas for cyclists to enjoy without
>>>> infringing on our precious footpaths.
>>> There are also many areas where bikes are not allowed. Shared
>>> singletrack in a few areas is not the end of the world.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, I am very much in favor of bike trails constructed to go
>>>> through natural areas. There is one in the Black Hills that is a
>>>> miracle. It is about 100 miles in length and it is interesting and
>>>> scenic all the way. What more could any cyclist ask for!
>>>
>>> Fine... Where is the problem. Some shared singletrack...? In a few
>>> areas that are not Wilderness...? So, again, where is the problem?
>>
>> A trail specially built to accomodate bikes is ideal. Singletrack is NOT
>> ideal for bikes, but it is ideal for hikers.
>
> On this, we may have to agree to differ. Many areas offer shared use and
> it works well. It could depend on several factors from amount of traffic
> to levels of enforcement to the quality of beer at the closest pub.
I have never been able to figure out why it is so expensive to construct a
humble bike trail. We have a bike bridge here in my home town which goes
over the local dam and it cost $40,000.! I am convinced the world is rife
with thieves, especially in the construction trades.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
