Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth?

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:sHr7g.50940$k%3.10615@dukeread12...
>>>>No... I am defending bikes on singletrack in designated multi-use and
>>>>recreation areas. You have Wilderness areas and many National Forest
>>>>lands
>>>>that are off-limits to bikes. You can hike without bikes any time you
>>>>wish.
>>>>Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space is
>>>>transparaent because it is not happening. What is wrongheaded is to
>>>>portray
>>>>misinformation as truth.
>>>
>>> But it IS true! During the Clinton administration the National Parks
>>> were closed for a while. Five mountain bikers decided to use that time
>>> to bike in to the Grand Canyon. They were caught and jailed (the
>>> Sedona Five)! If you would be more concerned about telling the truth,
>>> you MIGHT get some respect. Otherwise, NOT.
>>
>> Wow! Five people! Dammit! The Clinton administration was corrupt, wasn't
>> it?
>> "District 6 Officers worked directed patrols on the trails at Starved
>> Rock State Park last weekend. The patrols focused on hiking off trails.
>> Recently there have been a number of falls and search and rescue missions
>> at the park. The falls have been from illegal hiking and climbing off
>> designated trails at the park. There were a number of warnings issued for
>> hiking/climbing off the trails."
>>
>> What do you propose can be extrapolated from this? Hikers are invading
>> space and endangering themselves and their surroundings so the activity
>> should be banned completely? A few people do bad things so everyone else
>> must be doing it too?
>>
>> Your logic of applying the actions of a few to convict everyone is
>> hysterical! Yet you claim science and authority? Patheticly transparent!
>
> Curtiss, there is something wrong with the way your brain works! You
> cannot compare five mountain bikers biking the trail into the Grand Canyon
> with hikers getting off the trails. All hikers like to wander off the
> trails to do a bit of exploring. I have done it myself many times. But
> that Grand Canyon thing that Vandeman presented is an absolutely
> outrageous example of violation of the regulations and the very spirit
> sprit of the National Parks. Why are you always comparing apples with
> oranges?

A few morons who act irresponsibly offers no grounds to indict every
individual who has ever ridden down a trail. It is Vandeman's implication
that the actions of 5 individuals condemn the larger majority of
individuals. I only point out the hypocrisy in his statements. He does not
get to condemn me on someone else's action. He does not get to state
off-road cycling be banned by claiming all cyclists widen trails, trample
vegetation, and kill animals but skip over the same actions of the group he
claims to be a member of. If you want to call yourself "elite" and "the
Great" and support hypocrisy and lies.... Have at it.
>
> I recently read a book about the history of the National Park's search and
> rescue attempts over their entire history. You would not believe how much
> trouble hikers can get into. The very worst event in the book was about
> this group that went hiking into one of those slot canyons in Utah and
> were wiped out by a flash flood. Most of the misadventures have to do with
> mountain climbers of course, but I do not really have much sympathy for
> them. After all, they are doing something inherently dangerous. But you do
> not normally think of hiking as being dangerous, yet very strange things
> can happen nonetheless.
>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 15:15:30 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>No... I am defending bikes on singletrack in designated multi-use and
>>>>recreation areas. You have Wilderness areas and many National Forest
>>>>lands
>>>>that are off-limits to bikes. You can hike without bikes any time you
>>>>wish.
>>>>Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space is
>>>>transparaent because it is not happening. What is wrongheaded is to
>>>>portray
>>>>misinformation as truth.
>>>
>>> But it IS true! During the Clinton administration the National Parks
>>> were closed for a while. Five mountain bikers decided to use that time
>>> to bike in to the Grand Canyon. They were caught and jailed (the
>>> Sedona Five)! If you would be more concerned about telling the truth,
>>> you MIGHT get some respect. Otherwise, NOT.
>>
>>Wow! Five people! Dammit! The Clinton administration was corrupt, wasn't
>>it?
>
> No, the mountain bikers are.
>
>>"District 6 Officers worked directed patrols on the trails at Starved Rock
>>State Park last weekend. The patrols focused on hiking off trails.
>>Recently
>>there have been a number of falls and search and rescue missions at the
>>park. The falls have been from illegal hiking and climbing off designated
>>trails at the park. There were a number of warnings issued for
>>hiking/climbing off the trails."
>>
>>What do you propose can be extrapolated from this? Hikers are invading
>>space
>>and endangering themselves and their surroundings so the activity should
>>be
>>banned completely? A few people do bad things so everyone else must be
>>doing
>>it too?
>>
>>Your logic of applying the actions of a few to convict everyone is
>>hysterical! Yet you claim science and authority? Patheticly transparent!
>
> BS. I simply pointed out your lie.

You bring in 6,7,8 year old story about 5 people riding illegaly (and
stupidly) in the Grand Canyon and expect anyone to believe you proven
anything about my statement...? Let's review:
"No... I am defending bikes on singletrack in designated multi-use and
recreation areas. You have Wilderness areas and many National Forest lands
that are off-limits to bikes. You can hike without bikes any time you wish.
Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space is
transparaent because it is not happening. What is wrongheaded is to portray
misinformation as truth."

Do you deny there are currently Wilderness areas that are off limits to
bicycles? Do you deny there are areas of National Forest that are off limits
to bicycles? Do you deny the Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Acreage
average of 5,240,000 acres. (1998 numbers. But you often quote studies as
old or older...) And Wilderness designations do not allow bikes, do they...?

So... By stating you point out a "lie" when there is not one... is a LIE.
Is it not, Michael J. Vandeman, PhD?

> ===

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:13:24 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 4 May 2006 12:57:38 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Actually, despite yours or Vandeman's insistance of opinion, hiking and
>>>>off-road cycling have similar impacts.
>>>
>>> He KNOWS that's a LIE. See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>We do not recognize your opinion backed up by pointing to your own website
>>as support for that opinion. In 12 years, you have yet to offer an
>>authority, another environmentalist or actual scientist to support your
>>extremist and biased opinions.
>
> OOPS, there you go LYING again. Actually, Yosemite National Park and
> many other parks agree with me and ban bikes off-road.
It has been established Yosemite and "many other parks" and forest areas are
unique, incredibly fragile or simply inaccessible and cary designations that
do not allow off-road cycling and many other types of recreation.
That is not to say that in areas where recreation and multi-use exist that
cycling and hiking are dissimilar in the impact. It only means that some
areas carry a more strict definition of access. Your determination that all
areas be off-limits to bicycles is the contention.
> The Wisdom et
> al study also provides scientific support, showing that mountain
> biking has greater impacts on wildlife than hiking. Of course, you
> already KNEW that, making your statement a conscious LIE, and
> demonstrating once again that all montain bikers lie.
>
Wrong again. You've already mentioned that once in this thread and abandoned
it:

From April 30 2006
>>> That is a bald-faced LIE. Wisdom et al came to the opposite
>>> conclusion, which you well know.
>>Nope. That study recommended a holistic approach to managing outdoor
>>recreation with regards to habitat involved. "Although these details are
>>not yet available, managers could begin to consider holistic management
>>strategies for all off-road activities based on our current findings. Some
>>watersheds might feature opportunities for ATV or mountain bike riding,
>>for example, while other watersheds might focus on opportunities for
>>horseback
>>riding or hiking."

>>Plus, the actual response data from that study showed little significant
>>differences between hiking and cycling and larger differences for
>>motorized
>>traffic.


> That is another bald-faced lie! There was no "motorized traffic" in
> the study! You are just one lie after another....



So, it is your contention that the vehicles referred to as ATVs in the study
you mention do not have "motors"...? Are you actually trying to say that the
All Terrain Vehicles (ATV) mentioned in the "Wisdom et all" study you
referenced are not powered by gasoline fueled internal combustion motors...?
So what makes these ATVs in the "Wisdom et al" study go...? Is it magic...?
Is it pomegranate juice...?
Did you sit down at your computer with your clown make-up on again...?

End quote of April 30, 2006

The Wisdom study is only useful if taken as a whole and in context. You only
pull little bits out of context and re-write the conclusions based on your
whims, desires, opinions or bias. That is obvious. It is documented time
again. (Google group search "vandeman" has it all)

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 14:45:41 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>
> BS. When you skid your bike tire (which is impossible to avoid), it
> can't possibly be good for nature.
When your foot slips and your heel digs into the trail, it can't possibly be
good for nature.
> ===

 

[Sorni]

S Curtiss wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 14:45:41 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>
>> BS. When you skid your bike tire (which is impossible to avoid), it
>> can't possibly be good for nature.
> When your foot slips and your heel digs into the trail, it can't
> possibly be good for nature.

If you've ever seen "real hikers", they plant, dig in, twist, and push off a
LOT. (Not to mention the ones short-cutting switchbacks, littering, walking
two-abreast, etc.)

Mike is a moronic maroon.

HTH, BS

 

[S Curtiss]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:vZr7g.50941$k%3.17385@dukeread12...
>>
>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 4 May 2006 13:01:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Are we stating an opinion based on our assumptions made from an
>>>>anti-cycling
>>>>viewpoint? Camping and hiking as a means of commuting with nature and
>>>>God...? Possibly, your motives (or anyone else's) for hiking or camping
>>>>are
>>>>fine with me. However, what makes it possible for you to make any
>>>>statement
>>>>on my reasons or motives for cycling? Do you envy my ability to control
>>>>a
>>>>bike and admire (commune, if you will) nature at the same time?
>>>
>>> NO ONE has that ability. If you don't pay attention to controlling the
>>> bike, it will CRASH! But we already know that you are an iincorrigible
>>> LIAR.
>>
>> What I find amazing is you find it so easy to make it seem so difficult
>> for someone else to do something. Can you paint like Michelangelo? Can
>> you sing like Pavarati?
>>
>> No...? Then what makes it so hard for you to grasp that anyone else can
>> do something you can not. A cyclist in the city avoids traffic and any
>> number of distractions all in motion at different speeds with curbs,
>> potholes and lights and you make it seem impossible for me to ride by a
>> group of stationary trees on a trail and simply look at them at the same
>> time?
>> You are the liar because you simply can not state with any fact or
>> honesty that "NO ONE has that ability." It is demonstrated by cyclists
>> every day, both on the road and on the trails. Your inability, or lack of
>> desire to explore the ability, is hardly a qualifier in determining fact,
>> or in this case, truth.
> [...]
>
> Vandeman is right and Curtiss is wrong. It is not possible to ride your
> bike off-road without paying strict attention to the surface of the trail
> to the exclusion of everything else. The only time you will look around
> you is when you have stopped riding your bike.
So you skip over the direct inquisition and comparison of people doing
things that others may not be able to do or choose to do. Since I can do
what you say can not be done apparently puts us at an impasse of opinion.
>
> A bike is made for the road and the bipedal motion of a human walking is
> made for trails. You can never compare one with the other.
>
A bicycle is merely a tool. Hiking boots are tools. A backpack is a tool. A
tent is a tool. A tool may be used wherever it presents an advantage or
result.
Human walking seems to work well in the mall and between subway trains, but
that does not mean it is the only acceptable place to do it.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:56:32 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> NO ONE has that ability. If you don't pay attention to controlling the
>>>> bike, it will CRASH! But we already know that you are an iincorrigible
>>>> LIAR.
>>>
>>> What I find amazing is you find it so easy to make it seem so difficult
>>> for someone else to do something. Can you paint like Michelangelo? Can
>>> you
>>> sing like Pavarati?
>>>
>>> No...? Then what makes it so hard for you to grasp that anyone else can
>>> do something you can not. A cyclist in the city avoids traffic and any
>>> number of distractions all in motion at different speeds with curbs,
>>> potholes and lights and you make it seem impossible for me to ride by a
>>> group of stationary trees on a trail and simply look at them at the same
>>> time?
>>> You are the liar because you simply can not state with any fact or
>>> honesty
>>> that "NO ONE has that ability." It is demonstrated by cyclists every
>>> day,
>>> both on the road and on the trails. Your inability, or lack of desire to
>>> explore the ability, is hardly a qualifier in determining fact, or in
>>> this
>>> case, truth.
>>[...]
>>
>>Vandeman is right and Curtiss is wrong. It is not possible to ride your
>>bike
>>off-road without paying strict attention to the surface of the trail to
>>the
>>exclusion of everything else.
>
> Here's proof: try riding a bike without being able to see the trail,
> and see how far you can go (how many inches) without crashing.

Fine. Go hiking without seeing the trail.
Same comparison. Try walking without paying attention the trail. Is that a
root? Or a rock? Is the trail going left or right? How steep is it?
Your statements are misleading. You also have to give attention to the
surface you walk on or you will trip, fall into a hole, walk off the trail
and into a tree or step on a snake, a bird nest or whatever.
Riding a bike is similar in that I can look around, glance ahead, adjust my
course and continue to observe the surroundings. Just like hiking, I can
also stop and observe more closely. Your insistence it is impossible when it
is done every day by thousands of cyclists is.... ridiculous.
>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 15:34:47 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 4 May 2006 13:01:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Are we stating an opinion based on our assumptions made from an
>>>>anti-cycling
>>>>viewpoint? Camping and hiking as a means of commuting with nature and
>>>>God...? Possibly, your motives (or anyone else's) for hiking or camping
>>>>are
>>>>fine with me. However, what makes it possible for you to make any
>>>>statement
>>>>on my reasons or motives for cycling? Do you envy my ability to control
>>>>a
>>>>bike and admire (commune, if you will) nature at the same time?
>>>
>>> NO ONE has that ability. If you don't pay attention to controlling the
>>> bike, it will CRASH! But we already know that you are an iincorrigible
>>> LIAR.
>>
>>What I find amazing is you find it so easy to make it seem so difficult
>>for
>>someone else to do something. Can you paint like Michelangelo? Can you
>>sing
>>like Pavarati?
>>
>>No...? Then what makes it so hard for you to grasp that anyone else can
>>do
>>something you can not.
>
> BS. NO ONE can do that.
No one else can paint...? No one else can sing...? There are many talented
artists of all types. The fact you may not be one does not alter that.
>
> A cyclist in the city avoids traffic and any number
>>of distractions all in motion at different speeds with curbs, potholes and
>>lights and you make it seem impossible for me to ride by a group of
>>stationary trees on a trail and simply look at them at the same time?
>
> Yes. Anyone who claims he can enjoy watching nature whild mountain
> biking is LYING. The same goes for other kinds of drivers. It is
> physically impossible. On the other hand, a hiker can gaze at a tree
> as long as he likes. There's no comparison.
Since I and others can do it, and we can demonstrate that we can do it, your
accusation of "LYING" is unfounded and based on nothing but your wish that
it be so.
A hiker has to stop to "gaze at a tree as long as he likes" or he will trip,
fall or walk off the trail and into possible danger. A cyclist can stop and
do the same thing.
>
>>You are the liar because you simply can not state with any fact or honesty
>>that "NO ONE has that ability." It is demonstrated by cyclists every day,
>>both on the road and on the trails. Your inability, or lack of desire to
>>explore the ability, is hardly a qualifier in determining fact, or in this
>>case, truth.
>>Your LIES are obvious and they make every statement, every claim, every
>>reference you make suspect.

Funny how you choose to comment above and claim me to be "LYING" yet you do
not comment here following the full context of my statement and the direct
challenge to your honesty in the claim "NO ONE has that ability"
>>>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:42:38 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nope, I know whenever I have ridden a bike on a trail (in my long lost
>>> misguided youth) it was a disaster. My mind was not focused on my
>>> surroundings, but rather on the confounded bike and how to move it along
>>> on the confounded trail. It was one of the worst experiences of my life!
>>
>>If you can ride a bicycle around traffic, which is moving at varying
>>speeds
>>and directions, with the distractions of lights and pedestrians and sudden
>>motion, then bicycling through stationary trees should be simple.
>
> It's no fun at all. It's exactly the same as negotiating an obstacle
> course -- something that might appeal to prepubescent boys, but no one
> else. Experiencing nature is infinitely more pleasurable.

I did not say "fun"... I said "simple". But I will accept "fun" because it
is that also. Your opinion of how fun or simple or difficult an activity is
that you do not engage in, profess to hate, and claim is harmful does not
have any bearing on anything.
I can say the "Rolling Stones" are better than "Brooks & Dunn" but it is
only my opinion. I don't like country music so the comparison has no real
value.
>
> The
>>pereception that it is more difficult may override the senses and set one
>>up
>>for disappointment. Whatever the case... Your experience is yours and
>>suitable for you. My experience is different and suitable for me. The two
>>do
>>not have to create conflict. The expansion of information and
>>understanding
>>of how individuals and activities interact has served to ease these
>>conflicts and further discussion and cooperation.
>>>
>>>> The FACT that hikers and cyclists all over are making shared-use trails
>>>> work is unimportant? Shared-use trails mean less intrusion and
>>>> disruption
>>>> of the natural environment. However, in places where dual trails become
>>>> the option, that is fine too.
>>>> I really don't see what you are on about. You have Wilderness. You have
>>>> the majority of National Forests. Cyclist access is small in
>>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> I love Wilderness Areas, the National Parks and the National Forests, in
>>> that order. The National Parks (as well as State Parks) are very
>>> sensible
>>> about where they allow cyclists, but I do not believe the National
>>> Forests
>>> have a similar policy. The National Forests have miles and miles of
>>> forestry roads that are ideal for cycling, but I also think they allow
>>> them on the trails, except in their wilderness areas. But I may be wrong
>>> about this.
>>
>>Many National Forests and Parks have areas accessible for cycling. Many do
>>not. It is the land managers and specifics of the area that set the
>>standards. By looking over the IMBA website (International Mountain
>>Bicycling Association), you can see that consistency of designation is
>>desirable. Of course IMBA wants more areas open for cycling.
>
> That's putting it mildly. They want every trail open to bikes.
>
> They also
>>support the designation of Wilderness (note caps). The consistency of
>>designation would fix a lot of the confusion over access, enforcement and
>>seperate user conflicts.
>
> Dreamer! Nothing can possible mitigate the danger and discomfort of
> having to watch out for speeding bikes when you want to experience
> nature.
Hike in "no bicycle" and limited recreation areas.
>
>>>>> We all of us only know what we see. If you are a responsible trail
>>>>> bike
>>>>> cyclist, then more power to you. However, I still do not want you on a
>>>>> footpath if you are on a bike, no matter what!
>>>>
>>>> Fine... as long as your "footpath" is in a Wilderness area, or
>>>> National
>>>> Forest with access guidelines. However, you will have to make
>>>> arrangemets
>>>> on trails designated multi-use or shared-access. Cyclists have been
>>>> removed from many areas. If you feel you have been removed from an
>>>> area... sorry. You can chalk it up to progress or the devil. Either
>>>> way,
>>>> it is still an opinion.
>>>
>>> I can always find trails where cyclists cannot go because of the nature
>>> of
>>> the trail itself. But our bias ought to be against bikes in the
>>> wilderness, allowing as you point out that there can be multiple use in
>>> some areas, generally designated as Recreation Areas.
>>
>>I have no desire to ride in Wilderness Areas.
>
> IMBA does.
Actually, if you read the information, IMBA does indeed want to open some
areas, but also agrees with the "wilderness" designation where suitable and
wants consistency of definition to determine access or lack of it from any
given area.
>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 15:38:02 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Exactly, which is why BIKES don't belong on traila. They can't share
>>> responsibility, nor anything else.
>>>
>>Opinion. No basis in actual fact. Represents a statement of
>>generalization.
>>Useless.
>
> That your name is "S Curtiss" is only your OPINION, not a fact. You
> can't prove it.
> ===
I have birth certificate, social security card and driver's liscense. I must
have proved to someone that actually has the authority to determine. You do
not and therefore do not matter. Just like always.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:46:49 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 5 May 2006 14:40:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>[...]
>>>>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!
>>>
>>> That is just senseless destruction of wildlife habitat. If they want
>>> to enjoy nature, they should WALK. (Of course, we both know that they
>>> are too LAZY to do that.)
>>
>>No, the bike trail was built on an old railroad bed and there was no
>>destruction of wildlife habitat that had not already taken place from the
>>early days.
>
> ALL natural areas are habitat, including overgrown railroad tracks.
> Also, the fact that it was messed up once doesn't make it okay to mess
> it up some more (e.g. by paving it). It makes more sense tp restore
> the habitat.

Nope, you and are going to part company here. I do believe in compromise. We
humans have pretty much wrecked the planet and there is no going back. Our
numbers are too great for that.

It is very important that we preserve what is left to preserve, but we
cannot really restore that which has been lost. The wild animals, whatever
is left of them, will perish along with their habitat and we humans will
also do ourselves in by our own reckless use of the planet. Unless and until
we control our numbers, we are as doomed as the wild animals - which is
essentially all that we are anyway.

> There are many natural areas that are not really suitable for
>>much walking as they tend to be rather dull and monotonous after awhile,
>>but
>>they can be quite good for a bike trail.
>
> That's just the result of habitat destruction. By your argument, any
> area we destroy becomes okay to destroy some more.

Yes, we can not really restore that which has been lost. The US now has a
population of about 300 million. When I was a kid the population was 150
million. Demography is destiny. Population 101.

>>There is no real wilderness left in the Black Hills of South Dakota, but
>>still there is much natural beauty.
>
> "Wilderness" is on a continuum. It isn't black and white.

Agreed. Which is why we have to manage what is left. Wilderness is the most
precious thing of all, but some other areas can be managed so as to minimize
human impact. But most areas of this country are lost forever to any kind of
management, other than zoning.

> It does not hurt to have a bike trail on
>>an old railroad bed so that others can enjoy the natural scenery. Hey, it
>>is
>>thousand times better than just having them drive through the area in a
>>car.
>
> But not as good as restoring the habitat. Roads & trails fragment
> habitat (prevent wildlife from crossing them -- act as a kind of
> barrier, even if it is physically possible for them to cross it.

You are way too much a purist on this issue. The average American does not
give a damn about wildlife and their habitat other than a few hunters and
fisherman who only want to kill them for sport. If you would know the future
of humanity on this earth and it's wildlife, you need to go to China or
India. Outside of extremely mountainous areas in those two nations, the only
wildlife left are humans. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LBM7g.51009$k%3.30084@dukeread12...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:56:32 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> NO ONE has that ability. If you don't pay attention to controlling the
>>>>> bike, it will CRASH! But we already know that you are an iincorrigible
>>>>> LIAR.
>>>>
>>>> What I find amazing is you find it so easy to make it seem so difficult
>>>> for someone else to do something. Can you paint like Michelangelo? Can
>>>> you
>>>> sing like Pavarati?
>>>>
>>>> No...? Then what makes it so hard for you to grasp that anyone else
>>>> can
>>>> do something you can not. A cyclist in the city avoids traffic and any
>>>> number of distractions all in motion at different speeds with curbs,
>>>> potholes and lights and you make it seem impossible for me to ride by a
>>>> group of stationary trees on a trail and simply look at them at the
>>>> same
>>>> time?
>>>> You are the liar because you simply can not state with any fact or
>>>> honesty
>>>> that "NO ONE has that ability." It is demonstrated by cyclists every
>>>> day,
>>>> both on the road and on the trails. Your inability, or lack of desire
>>>> to
>>>> explore the ability, is hardly a qualifier in determining fact, or in
>>>> this
>>>> case, truth.
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>Vandeman is right and Curtiss is wrong. It is not possible to ride your
>>>bike
>>>off-road without paying strict attention to the surface of the trail to
>>>the
>>>exclusion of everything else.
>>
>> Here's proof: try riding a bike without being able to see the trail,
>> and see how far you can go (how many inches) without crashing.
>
> Fine. Go hiking without seeing the trail.
> Same comparison. Try walking without paying attention the trail. Is that a
> root? Or a rock? Is the trail going left or right? How steep is it?
> Your statements are misleading. You also have to give attention to the
> surface you walk on or you will trip, fall into a hole, walk off the trail
> and into a tree or step on a snake, a bird nest or whatever.
> Riding a bike is similar in that I can look around, glance ahead, adjust
> my course and continue to observe the surroundings. Just like hiking, I
> can also stop and observe more closely. Your insistence it is impossible
> when it is done every day by thousands of cyclists is.... ridiculous.

Nope, as always you are comparing apples with oranges. There is simply no
comparison between walking a trail and riding a trail. Really strange that
you are so blind to what we humans are adapted to do by our evolution and
what we are not adapted to do by our evolution. Biology 101 - anyone? Let's
throw in a little physical anthropology 101 too while we are at it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2uM7g.51008$k%3.4107@dukeread12...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[...]
>> A bike is made for the road and the bipedal motion of a human walking is
>> made for trails. You can never compare one with the other.
>>
> A bicycle is merely a tool. Hiking boots are tools. A backpack is a tool.
> A tent is a tool. A tool may be used wherever it presents an advantage or
> result.

When I go off wandering in the wilderness I do not necessarily wear hiking
boots nor do I use a backpack or carry a tent. But in any event, there is a
world of difference between the so-called tools that hikers carry and the
kind of tool that a biker carries, i.e., a piece of machinery, one not at
all well suited for the terrain. But most importantly a bicycle in the
wilderness violates the very spirit of the wilderness. It is anathema and an
abomination.

> Human walking seems to work well in the mall and between subway trains,
> but that does not mean it is the only acceptable place to do it.

Human walking is the one thing that we were evolved to do above all else.
Our primate ancestors came down out of the trees and began to earn their
living walking on the savanna. If a human does not walk, he will rot away
and become diseased. He will not live long. It is walk or die!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5IM7g.51011$k%3.29835@dukeread12...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[...]
>> Yes. Anyone who claims he can enjoy watching nature whild mountain
>> biking is LYING. The same goes for other kinds of drivers. It is
>> physically impossible. On the other hand, a hiker can gaze at a tree
>> as long as he likes. There's no comparison.
>
> Since I and others can do it, and we can demonstrate that we can do it,
> your accusation of "LYING" is unfounded and based on nothing but your wish
> that it be so.

Nope, both Vandeman and I know that you cannot do what you claim you can. It
is IMPOSSIBLE!

> A hiker has to stop to "gaze at a tree as long as he likes" or he will
> trip, fall or walk off the trail and into possible danger. A cyclist can
> stop and do the same thing.

A hiker can easily do as much gazing as he wants to do as he is moving very
slowly.

Cyclists have no interest in stopping. The mentality they carry with them is
opposed to any appreciation of nature. They all belong in a velodrome, not
in my sacred precincts.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jVL7g.51002$k%3.27840@dukeread12...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:sHr7g.50940$k%3.10615@dukeread12...
>>>>>No... I am defending bikes on singletrack in designated multi-use and
>>>>>recreation areas. You have Wilderness areas and many National Forest
>>>>>lands
>>>>>that are off-limits to bikes. You can hike without bikes any time you
>>>>>wish.
>>>>>Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space is
>>>>>transparaent because it is not happening. What is wrongheaded is to
>>>>>portray
>>>>>misinformation as truth.
>>>>
>>>> But it IS true! During the Clinton administration the National Parks
>>>> were closed for a while. Five mountain bikers decided to use that time
>>>> to bike in to the Grand Canyon. They were caught and jailed (the
>>>> Sedona Five)! If you would be more concerned about telling the truth,
>>>> you MIGHT get some respect. Otherwise, NOT.
>>>
>>> Wow! Five people! Dammit! The Clinton administration was corrupt, wasn't
>>> it?
>>> "District 6 Officers worked directed patrols on the trails at Starved
>>> Rock State Park last weekend. The patrols focused on hiking off trails.
>>> Recently there have been a number of falls and search and rescue
>>> missions at the park. The falls have been from illegal hiking and
>>> climbing off designated trails at the park. There were a number of
>>> warnings issued for hiking/climbing off the trails."
>>>
>>> What do you propose can be extrapolated from this? Hikers are invading
>>> space and endangering themselves and their surroundings so the activity
>>> should be banned completely? A few people do bad things so everyone else
>>> must be doing it too?
>>>
>>> Your logic of applying the actions of a few to convict everyone is
>>> hysterical! Yet you claim science and authority? Patheticly transparent!
>>
>> Curtiss, there is something wrong with the way your brain works! You
>> cannot compare five mountain bikers biking the trail into the Grand
>> Canyon with hikers getting off the trails. All hikers like to wander off
>> the trails to do a bit of exploring. I have done it myself many times.
>> But that Grand Canyon thing that Vandeman presented is an absolutely
>> outrageous example of violation of the regulations and the very spirit
>> sprit of the National Parks. Why are you always comparing apples with
>> oranges?
>
> A few morons who act irresponsibly offers no grounds to indict every
> individual who has ever ridden down a trail. It is Vandeman's implication
> that the actions of 5 individuals condemn the larger majority of
> individuals. I only point out the hypocrisy in his statements. He does not
> get to condemn me on someone else's action. He does not get to state
> off-road cycling be banned by claiming all cyclists widen trails, trample
> vegetation, and kill animals but skip over the same actions of the group
> he claims to be a member of. If you want to call yourself "elite" and
> "the Great" and support hypocrisy and lies.... Have at it.

Point taken, but your example of hikers getting off the trails was
ridiculous. Hells Bells, I would never even go hiking at all if I could not
do a bit of exploring off the trail.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



>> I recently read a book about the history of the National Park's search
>> and rescue attempts over their entire history. You would not believe how
>> much trouble hikers can get into. The very worst event in the book was
>> about this group that went hiking into one of those slot canyons in Utah
>> and were wiped out by a flash flood. Most of the misadventures have to do
>> with mountain climbers of course, but I do not really have much sympathy
>> for them. After all, they are doing something inherently dangerous. But
>> you do not normally think of hiking as being dangerous, yet very strange
>> things can happen nonetheless.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:04:30 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:04:58 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not hard-hearted about this. I want you to enjoy the out-of-doors
>>>>>as
>>>>>I
>>>>>have in the past. Those areas that have already been developed for
>>>>>multiple
>>>>>use can stay as they are. But the one thing we need to be adding to our
>>>>>nation's inventory of natural resources are more wilderness areas, not
>>>>>more
>>>>>recreation areas.
>>>And preventing natural areas (with or without trail designations) from
>>>being
>>>developed. The natural footprint is getting smaller. Cooperation among all
>>>interested should be the focus to keep the natural areas from being
>>>destroyed.
>>
>> Then you should support bike bans, because mountain biking destroys
>> habitat.
>
>You have yet to show anywhere that off-road cycling destroys habitat.

If you ever ride off trail, even accidentally, you have destroyed
habitat. If you ever run over a plant, you have destroyed habitat. If
your presence ever drives an animal away from resources it wants, you
have destroyed habitat. If you have ever built a trail or done tral
maintenance, you have destroyed habitat. Believe me, you HAVE
destroyed habitat. EVERY mountain biker has. It is impossible NOT to.

You
>have show a few examples of poor behavior and assigned that to every
>off-road cyclist. You have presented selected bits from others' writings and
>attempted to place your conclusions as more valid than those who conducted
>the studies you reference. You have attempted to place yourself as an
>authority on the subject of off-road cycling without any authoritative
>support

I AM the authority. Hardly anyone else will tell the truth about
mountain biking.

or reference and then point back upon your own opinions as support
>for your... opinions. How stupid is that? You say "mountain biking is bad"
>and than point at your own website with your own opinions to support
>yourself saying "mountain biking is bad".

We all know it is. Even mountain bikers admit it on rare occasions.
>> More space means more resource for everyone, recreation, contemplation and
>> wildlife.
>>>>>
>
===
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:15:39 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>>
>> "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:sHr7g.50940$k%3.10615@dukeread12...
>>>>>No... I am defending bikes on singletrack in designated multi-use and
>>>>>recreation areas. You have Wilderness areas and many National Forest
>>>>>lands
>>>>>that are off-limits to bikes. You can hike without bikes any time you
>>>>>wish.
>>>>>Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space is
>>>>>transparaent because it is not happening. What is wrongheaded is to
>>>>>portray
>>>>>misinformation as truth.
>>>>
>>>> But it IS true! During the Clinton administration the National Parks
>>>> were closed for a while. Five mountain bikers decided to use that time
>>>> to bike in to the Grand Canyon. They were caught and jailed (the
>>>> Sedona Five)! If you would be more concerned about telling the truth,
>>>> you MIGHT get some respect. Otherwise, NOT.
>>>
>>> Wow! Five people! Dammit! The Clinton administration was corrupt, wasn't
>>> it?
>>> "District 6 Officers worked directed patrols on the trails at Starved
>>> Rock State Park last weekend. The patrols focused on hiking off trails.
>>> Recently there have been a number of falls and search and rescue missions
>>> at the park. The falls have been from illegal hiking and climbing off
>>> designated trails at the park. There were a number of warnings issued for
>>> hiking/climbing off the trails."
>>>
>>> What do you propose can be extrapolated from this? Hikers are invading
>>> space and endangering themselves and their surroundings so the activity
>>> should be banned completely? A few people do bad things so everyone else
>>> must be doing it too?
>>>
>>> Your logic of applying the actions of a few to convict everyone is
>>> hysterical! Yet you claim science and authority? Patheticly transparent!
>>
>> Curtiss, there is something wrong with the way your brain works! You
>> cannot compare five mountain bikers biking the trail into the Grand Canyon
>> with hikers getting off the trails. All hikers like to wander off the
>> trails to do a bit of exploring. I have done it myself many times. But
>> that Grand Canyon thing that Vandeman presented is an absolutely
>> outrageous example of violation of the regulations and the very spirit
>> sprit of the National Parks. Why are you always comparing apples with
>> oranges?
>
>A few morons who act irresponsibly offers no grounds to indict every
>individual who has ever ridden down a trail. It is Vandeman's implication
>that the actions of 5 individuals condemn the larger majority of
>individuals. I only point out the hypocrisy in his statements. He does not
>get to condemn me on someone else's action. He does not get to state
>off-road cycling be banned by claiming all cyclists widen trails, trample
>vegetation, and kill animals but skip over the same actions of the group he
>claims to be a member of.

BS. Hikers occasionally step on a plant or animal, but there's no way
they can do it as much as a mountain biker. I have seen mountain
biking trips advertised of 112 miles in a day. There's no way a hiker
can walk that far in a day and kill that many animals and plants.

If you want to call yourself "elite" and "the
>Great" and support hypocrisy and lies.... Have at it.
>>
>> I recently read a book about the history of the National Park's search and
>> rescue attempts over their entire history. You would not believe how much
>> trouble hikers can get into. The very worst event in the book was about
>> this group that went hiking into one of those slot canyons in Utah and
>> were wiped out by a flash flood. Most of the misadventures have to do with
>> mountain climbers of course, but I do not really have much sympathy for
>> them. After all, they are doing something inherently dangerous. But you do
>> not normally think of hiking as being dangerous, yet very strange things
>> can happen nonetheless.
>>
===
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:32:27 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 15:15:30 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>No... I am defending bikes on singletrack in designated multi-use and
>>>>>recreation areas. You have Wilderness areas and many National Forest
>>>>>lands
>>>>>that are off-limits to bikes. You can hike without bikes any time you
>>>>>wish.
>>>>>Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space is
>>>>>transparaent because it is not happening. What is wrongheaded is to
>>>>>portray
>>>>>misinformation as truth.
>>>>
>>>> But it IS true! During the Clinton administration the National Parks
>>>> were closed for a while. Five mountain bikers decided to use that time
>>>> to bike in to the Grand Canyon. They were caught and jailed (the
>>>> Sedona Five)! If you would be more concerned about telling the truth,
>>>> you MIGHT get some respect. Otherwise, NOT.
>>>
>>>Wow! Five people! Dammit! The Clinton administration was corrupt, wasn't
>>>it?
>>
>> No, the mountain bikers are.
>>
>>>"District 6 Officers worked directed patrols on the trails at Starved Rock
>>>State Park last weekend. The patrols focused on hiking off trails.
>>>Recently
>>>there have been a number of falls and search and rescue missions at the
>>>park. The falls have been from illegal hiking and climbing off designated
>>>trails at the park. There were a number of warnings issued for
>>>hiking/climbing off the trails."
>>>
>>>What do you propose can be extrapolated from this? Hikers are invading
>>>space
>>>and endangering themselves and their surroundings so the activity should
>>>be
>>>banned completely? A few people do bad things so everyone else must be
>>>doing
>>>it too?
>>>
>>>Your logic of applying the actions of a few to convict everyone is
>>>hysterical! Yet you claim science and authority? Patheticly transparent!
>>
>> BS. I simply pointed out your lie.
>
>You bring in 6,7,8 year old story about 5 people riding illegaly (and
>stupidly) in the Grand Canyon and expect anyone to believe you proven
>anything about my statement...? Let's review:
>"No... I am defending bikes on singletrack in designated multi-use and
>recreation areas. You have Wilderness areas and many National Forest lands
>that are off-limits to bikes. You can hike without bikes any time you wish.
>Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space is
>transparaent because it is not happening. What is wrongheaded is to portray
>misinformation as truth."
>
>Do you deny there are currently Wilderness areas that are off limits to
>bicycles? Do you deny there are areas of National Forest that are off limits
>to bicycles? Do you deny the Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Acreage
>average of 5,240,000 acres. (1998 numbers. But you often quote studies as
>old or older...) And Wilderness designations do not allow bikes, do they...?
>
>So... By stating you point out a "lie" when there is not one... is a LIE.
>Is it not, Michael J. Vandeman, PhD?

Just to refresh your memory, here is your lie again (see above),
misspellings and all: "Your attempt to state that cyclists are
invading your every space is transparaent because it is not
happening."

Au contraire, Stevie, it IS happening, and continues to happen.
===
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:46:40 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 13:13:24 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 4 May 2006 12:57:38 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Actually, despite yours or Vandeman's insistance of opinion, hiking and
>>>>>off-road cycling have similar impacts.
>>>>
>>>> He KNOWS that's a LIE. See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>>We do not recognize your opinion backed up by pointing to your own website
>>>as support for that opinion. In 12 years, you have yet to offer an
>>>authority, another environmentalist or actual scientist to support your
>>>extremist and biased opinions.
>>
>> OOPS, there you go LYING again. Actually, Yosemite National Park and
>> many other parks agree with me and ban bikes off-road.
>It has been established Yosemite and "many other parks" and forest areas are
>unique, incredibly fragile or simply inaccessible and cary designations that
>do not allow off-road cycling and many other types of recreation.
>That is not to say that in areas where recreation and multi-use exist that
>cycling and hiking are dissimilar in the impact. It only means that some
>areas carry a more strict definition of access. Your determination that all
>areas be off-limits to bicycles is the contention.

And in Yosemite, my recommendation has been followed to the letter.
They support my "extremist and biased opinions", proving that they are
NOT extremist and biased.
===
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:48:15 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 14:45:41 -0400, "S Curtiss"
>>
>> BS. When you skid your bike tire (which is impossible to avoid), it
>> can't possibly be good for nature.
>When your foot slips and your heel digs into the trail, it can't possibly be
>good for nature.

I never said it is. But you claim that mountain biking is harmless.
===
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