Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth?

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 18:38:34 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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!

And the fact that mountain biking causes impotence proves it! It is
survival of the fittest, which means HIKERS. Some of the fattest
people I have ever seen have been mountain bikers. Off their bikes,
they can barely walk....

>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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 15:03:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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.

No, because a hiker can stop and look at nature. Bikers rarely stop,
since it doesn't give them the necessary THRILL. For a hiker, stopping
and looking is one of the most thrilling parts of the trip.

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.

But you don't. Look at any mountain biking video. They go for long
periods without stopping (except when they crash), when they aren't
admiting nature.

Your insistence it is impossible when it
>is done every day by thousands of cyclists is.... ridiculous.
>>
>
===
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 15:09:49 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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.

They COULD, but they don't. I have observed that countless times. We
all have.

>>>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"
>>>>
>
===
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 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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.

I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.

>>>>>> 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.

ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They think
all ridable trails should be open to them.
===
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 18:13:48 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"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 whole organizations, conferences, and university departments
dedicated to habitat restoration. I accept their opinion before yours.
We can't do it as well as Mother Nature, but we don't have to accept
thye status quo. If you were in charge, I doubt that the California
Condor would be coming back.

A book called _National Parks of Northwest Mexico_ made the point that
human impacts have TWO components: human NUMBERS, and human BEHAVIOR.
We can have an effect in both areas. India is far more populous than
the U.S., but Indians individually have 1/7 th of our footprint.

>> 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.

I choose not to hold such a pessimistic viewpoint. It's no fun, for
one thing.

>> 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.

Even if true, I choose not to believe that. The Dali Lama says we must
retain hope. I agree. Not doing so is no fun. Pessimism actually
increases the incidence of heart disease and other diseases. A word to
the wise....

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
>
===
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

 

[Michael Halliwell]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:21:21 GMT, Michael Halliwell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 May 2006 05:42:55 GMT, Michael Halliwell
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:wBC6g.125701$7a.77288@pd7tw1no...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope, all you have to do is get off your g.d. bike and go walking and you
>>>>>>>can enjoy nature just like Vandeman and I do. One thing is for sure, you
>>>>>>>do not even know what nature is while you are on your g.d. bike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ummm, Ed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vandeman's stated purpose in other threads is to get *ALL* forms of
>>>>>>recreation out of the woods....hiking included. He's after you and your
>>>>>>camping and hiking as much as he's after mountain bikers....he's just the
>>>>>>most vocal with those of us who ride off of the pavement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Michael Halliwell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that is hard to believe! Walking a footpath is the least infringement
>>>>>that you can have on nature. There would be no Wilderness Areas and National
>>>>>Parks at all if that were disallowed. Yes, I am a bit of an elitist, but I
>>>>>am not crazy!
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>>>aka
>>>>>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do a google search for Mike Vandeman's past posts or note his
>>>>signature...he wants "pure habitat" (meaning no people at all) and has
>>>>stated such.
>>>>
>>>>Michael Halliwell
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael Halliwell, being the liar that he is, omits the fact that I
>>>have never advocated that ALL areas be off-limits to humans -- only
>>>SOME.
>>
>>Re-read my post for context....I didn't say you wanted all areas off
>>limits to humans, but rather that you are after getting all forms of
>>recreation out of the woods (meaning the creation of "pure habitat")
>
>
> And that's a LIE. I have NEVER advocated that. Once you start lying,
> you can't get off the train, & keep getting in deeper & deeper. Come
> clean.

Then how, dear Dr. Vandeman do you propose to "create pure habitat" as
your signature so boldly states... If it is presently pure habitat,
then you are not creating it but merely preserving it...if you intend to
create it, then all human activities in that area, including recreation,
must cease.

Michael Halliwell

 

[Sorni]

Michael Halliwell wrote:

> Then how, dear Dr. Vandeman do you propose to "create pure habitat" as
> your signature so boldly states... If it is presently pure habitat,
> then you are not creating it but merely preserving it...if you intend
> to create it, then all human activities in that area, including
> recreation, must cease.

Psst. Ask him how BIG his proposed "pristine habitat" will be? (Hint:
It's smaller than the average backyard deck! LOL)

Bill "I live on a protected canyon, so I've got bunches of 'em right out my
back door" S.

PS: It's TEN FEET BY TEN FEET! (I couldn't keep it in any longer.) (No
cracks about that expression.)

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 18:13:48 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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 whole organizations, conferences, and university departments
> dedicated to habitat restoration. I accept their opinion before yours.
> We can't do it as well as Mother Nature, but we don't have to accept
> thye status quo. If you were in charge, I doubt that the California
> Condor would be coming back.

Whatever wildlife is coming back is only temporary. It is all going the way
of the Dodo Bird and all your efforts will come to naught in the end.

> A book called _National Parks of Northwest Mexico_ made the point that
> human impacts have TWO components: human NUMBERS, and human BEHAVIOR.
> We can have an effect in both areas. India is far more populous than
> the U.S., but Indians individually have 1/7 th of our footprint.

That is the only thing that has saved otherwise very populous nations from
total environmental degradation, but that is all changing as they come up
more and more to Western industrial standards. They will never preserve or
conserve anything. Africa illustrates this to perfection. Their idea of a
National Park is that it is a good place to go hunting for large animals.
Elephants - anyone?

The truth is that the idea of preserving anything of the natural world is an
elitist idea and is extremely rare. Only a handful of societies have ever
been able to even grasp the idea, let alone implement it. The "tragedy of
the commons" is forever being played out everywhere in the world.

>>> 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.
>
> I choose not to hold such a pessimistic viewpoint. It's no fun, for
> one thing.

I used to have lots of hope when I was young that things would turn out
better than they have. Only the National Parks and Wilderness Areas have
ever come up to my expectations - and even those kind of set-asides continue
to be threatened. It is a losing battle.

>>> 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.
>
> Even if true, I choose not to believe that. The Dali Lama says we must
> retain hope. I agree. Not doing so is no fun. Pessimism actually
> increases the incidence of heart disease and other diseases. A word to
> the wise....

I am getting ready to die sooner rather than later anyway. So is everyone
else too, but they just don't realize it yet like I do.

> 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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 6 May 2006 00:04:13 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Anyone with any common sense knows that cycling causes much more damage
>>>> than any number of hikers.
>>
>>> Nope - Actual impact studies do not reflect this. The perception of other
>>> recreationist opinions to other users is much more a component. The
>>> irresponsible actions of a few cyclists should not condemn the entire
>>> group of participants just as the irresponsible actions of a few hikers
>>> should not condemn the entire group of participants. If that is your
>>> logic, stop hiking as it obvious you also leave trash, venture off trail,
>>> disturb and cause harm to wildlife.
>>
>> Yes, a lot of hikers are indeed slobs and cretins. That is why I never
>> refer to myself as a hiker. I am a walker. Like Thoreau, I simply like to
>> stroll about in a natural area and look at the butterflies.
>>
>> However, a critical difference between slob hikers and slob cyclists is
>> that hikers are few and far between whereas bikers are as common as mud.
>> Sheer numbers count after all.
>Supposition. Do you have a "user study"? What area? Time frame? Over what
>period? Over how many miles?

If you don't, you should shut up with the hypocrisy.

>>> But cycling causes more than just physical damage to
>>>> the trails. More importantly, it disturbs my peace of mind to encounter
>>>> a bunch of idiot cyclists out on the trail frolicking about when I am
>>>> trying to commune with nature.
>>>
>>> So it is your selfish desire to experience something your way and not
>>> allow someone else to experience it in their way. You believe yourself
>>> and your experience to be above anyone else? There are places off limits
>>> to bikes. Many of them. Have at it. There are places that allow bikes.
>>> There are places that allow both activities at the same time. Why should
>>> your experience that you can obtain from "no bike" areas cross over into
>>> other areas that are multi-use and recreational?
>>
>> Bikes need some kind of road, no matter how rough. Bikes do not belong on
>> a footpath with walkers. Elementary, my dear Watson!
>Elementary opinion. Shared access is a reality and a success in many areas.
>>
>>> In short, they are where they don't belong. Let them
>>>> find their own space among the crowds and the autos, not in the sacred
>>>> expanses of my beloved solitary wilderness.
>>>
>>> "sacred expanses of my beloved solitary wilderness..."? First of all, it
>>> is not "yours". Second, bicycles are not allowed in "wilderness areas".
>>> Third, I encourage you to go someplace to be "solitary". Perhaps you and
>>> Mikey can go off and be all "brokeback" while the rest of us carry on.
>>
>> I am glad that you agree with me that bikes do not belong in a Wilderness
>> Area. But they also do not belong on footpaths no matter where those
>> footpaths are located.
>Designated areas, multi-use, recreation areas. Many of these areas utilize
>shared trails with minimal conflict as users grow more accustomed to the
>encounters.

BS. You mean as hikers are driven off the trails, doe to conflicts
with mountain bikers.

>> One of the very main reasons for going to a wilderness or natural area is
>> to get away from people, especially slobs like you who want to push your
>> way into every space where you are not wanted. If you are on a bike, then
>> find yourself some kind of road somewhere. We do not want you on our
>> sacred footpaths. They are reserved for solitary walkers like me.
>>
>In Wilderness areas... yes. In most of the National Forest lands... yes.
>However, in some areas... bicyclists have shared use with other users.
>Cooperative efforts and real information over myth is making more of these
>areas sustainable. Either do not hike in areas where bikes are allowed, or
>get used to seeing them. We have to get used to slowing or stopping
>completely, dismounting at times and other accomodations for other trail
>users.
>You want to call me a "slob" for stressing cooperation and trail access in
>recreation areas... fine. Just proves even more your "the Great" sig is
>self-assigned and not earned.

You continue to miss the point. Maybe if you'd tell the truth, you
might get some respect, but not until then.
===
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, 08 May 2006 18:50:59 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.)

I've never seen that. That is a good way to get blisters, not a good
way to hike. You can tell by looking at the footprints.

>Mike is a moronic maroon.
>
>HTH, BS
>
===
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

 

[Sorni]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:50:59 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.)

> I've never seen that. That is a good way to get blisters, not a good
> way to hike. You can tell by looking at the footprints.

Unless you stick to multi-use /paths/ and not true /trails/, do(r)c, I find
that VERY hard to believe.

Real hikers are out there for an adventure and workout -- they move, they
sweat. It's a SPORT to them. They get along fine with other trail users,
all enjoying the challenge and beauty of nature.

Then there are nancies who just walk from A to B and back again. They're
slow. Weak. It's a selfinsh indlugence and they don't CARE about other
trail users. They avoid difficult terrain and will often attempt to
"sanitize" it by removing or plowing obstacles.

We all know in which camp you pitch your puptent, Nancy Do(r)c.

Have a nice easy stroll.

Bill S.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:04:30 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>
>>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.
Fine.. just as is the case with any hiker. And to say "EVERY mountain
biker has" in such a way that implies it is ONLY the mountain bikers is
misleading. Include YOUR activity of hiking as being destructive for the
exact same reasons or you have no credibility in your statement.


>
> 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.
>
You can claim to be Queen of England with the same authority. It is NOT
recognized by anyone of authority or position.


> 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.

Nobody is saying off-road cycling has an impact or that it is bad, good or
otherwise. What we are saying is, hiking and off-road cycling are more
similar in their impacts. Cycling is not more negative merely because you
say it is or claim it to be.
>>> More space means more resource for everyone, recreation, contemplation
>>> and
>>> wildlife.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:15:39 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>
>>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 the cyclists stay on the trail, there are no plants to run over. It is
highly unlikely they will kill any animals. You talk of distance like it is
some kind of Rosetta Stone to your statements. However, if the presence of
humans is always harmful, and a cyclist can travel (to use your numbers) 112
miles in a day and a hiker can only travel (lets say) 20 miles in a day,
then it can also be stated that the hiker is causing more harm as the
cyclist comes and goes past any given wildlife while the hiker remains to do
harm. Distance and time are interchangeable. However, apply them both as
seperate variables and the hiker potentially does even more damage as the
cyclist is often in and out while the hiker remains.
It is your supposition that cycling "kills" more than hiking. You have yet
to prove it beyond a statement of your opinion.
>

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:32:27 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>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.

So, you maintain I am lying merely because I challenge your assumptions?
Please... Please... Please show me in my statement (and shall I find
examples of poor spelling on your part?)

"Your attempt to state that cyclists are invading your every space is
transparaent because it is not happening" which part is a lie. Here is the
exchange where it first appeared and you stating "But it is true"

SC: "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."

MV: "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."

You post an example of 5 people in a restricted area as proof that mountain
bikers are in every space when you KNOW people, much less "mountain bikers"
are not in EVERY space. Then you call me a liar for pointing out your
outrageous and unfounded claims. You also completely disregard a DIRECT
inquiry to explain your statement in view of ACTUAL information I posted:

"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, again... You trying to turn your obvious false and generalized
statement around by attempting to discredit my statement is nothing but a
trick of words. It is blatantly obvious, by stating you point out a "lie"
when there is not one... is a LIE.
Is it not, Michael J. Vandeman, PhD?

If you can prove that bicyclists are riding in every area encompassing the
5,240,000 Wilderness acres, then you can state that I am lying. Off-road
cyclists simply are NOT invading every space.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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.
>
Oh Wow! You clipped your own reference to the "Wisdom et al" study...? You
clipped your own reference to your "Bible" of impact...?
Why...? Because I dared pull up a challenge you could not respond to...?
Here, lets put it back for all to see how you brought it up then clipped it
with no response to the follow-up:
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)

end of clipped quote

> 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.
> ===

Really...? These are YOUR recommendations in place at Yosemite...? I see NO
mention of "Michael J. Vandeman" on the Yosemite website. I see no statement
of "Thank You Mr. Vandeman" for providing us these "10 commandments" of
human access at Yosemite.. There mere fact that Yosemite has been designated
a "public trust" since the beginning of its discovery and the rulings of
interaction and visitation have evolved over time to the current point of
minimal impact has absolutely nothing to do with you. We have also already
exlpored the unique status of Yosemite and some other areas around the
country. The designations of unique and specific National Park areas and the
designations of Wilderness have NOTHING to do with allowing bicycles into
recreation areas and multi-use public land or the removal of bicycles from
ALL lands. Beyond any of that, you step practically one inch outside the
boundary of designated Yosemite National Park and there are multitudes of
recreational outdoor activities within the exact same ecosystems represented
inside Yosemite.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 14:48:15 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

Wrong again. I claim mountain biking and hiking are similar in impact. If
you are going to stand up and say "ban all bicycles (mountain biking)" then
you also have to say say "ban all hiking". If you insist some outdoor areas
are suitable for hiking (human entrance) then you also have to maintain some
outdoor areas would be suitable for off-road cycling.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:03:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> No, because a hiker can stop and look at nature. Bikers rarely stop,
> since it doesn't give them the necessary THRILL. For a hiker, stopping
> and looking is one of the most thrilling parts of the trip.

It is merely an assumption that off-road cyclists are after a THRILL. Some
are, some aren't. Some hikers are after an extreme experience by testing the
survival skills in adverse conditions. It is the SAME thing. And again, you
split context. Complete text below...
>
> 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.
>
> But you don't. Look at any mountain biking video. They go for long
> periods without stopping (except when they crash), when they aren't
> admiting nature.
A mountain bike video by nature of marketing and sales is going to show the
extreme, the dangerous and as much non-stop action as possible. There
probably are some instructional videos that fall outside your
classification, however, I do not know as I do not seek out mountain bike
videos.
>
> 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 Mon, 8 May 2006 18:38:34 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>> 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!
>
> And the fact that mountain biking causes impotence proves it! It is
> survival of the fittest, which means HIKERS. Some of the fattest
> people I have ever seen have been mountain bikers. Off their bikes,
> they can barely walk....
>
You are stretching. Don't hurt yourself.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 15:09:49 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>>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.

nothing...?
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> They COULD, but they don't. I have observed that countless times. We
> all have.

Anecdotal. I can just as easily say I have seen hikers do any number of
things.
>
>>>>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 Mon, 8 May 2006 15:17:44 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> I do. But mountain bikers go there anyway -- illegally.

Then you will have to call the ranger and report it. The lack of enforcement
is a seperate issue.
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> ALL wilderness is appropriate, but IMBA doesn't think so. They think
> all ridable trails should be open to them.


Just as you say all trails should be closed to them. Two extremes clashing
while reality exists in the middle.