Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth?

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, Apr 22, 2006.

  1. At 11:51 PM 4/14/2006, you wrote:
    >You may not be aware that China Camp was created with the idea of providing a refuge for mountain bikers from the innumerabe hiking trails throughout the Bay Area that are increasingly off limits to them.


    Why can't you guys ever tell the truth? There are NO trails in the Bay
    Area, or anywhere else, off-limits to mountain bikers. You are free to
    walk there, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! You have destroyed an entire
    park, making it worthless for everyone else. Most of the population go
    to parks to GET AWAY from bikes & other trappings of civilization. We
    want to see untouched nature, as she was meant to be. What's wrong
    with that?

    > Rather than complaining about one of the few remaining places that we have nearby to pursue our interest, why not hike on the many other trails available?


    I do. I have no interest in hiking around large, fast-moving pieces of
    machinery! But only a tiny proportion of trails are closed to bikes,
    e.g. in Briones or Pleasanton Ridge.

    > Also, I question whether erosion from singletrack is as big an issue as you make of it. I've heard that horseback riding is at least as big of an issue (though my sources may not be impartial). I would be interested in any studies you could send that show that biking causes ireparable damage to habitat (other than making trails surfaces slightly more uneven).


    Killing animals and plants is irreparable. So is driving wildlife out
    of the park due to too many humans being there.

    > Have some compassion and empathy for those who, in addition to hiking, enjoy riding a bicycle in nature from time to time.


    Nature is no place to have bikes. Or any other machinery. Don't
    destroy the last vestige of pristine nature. You are welcome to ride
    on paved roads. Just get rid of the cars (many of which are driven by
    mountain bikers to get to the trails)! I can't think of a single good
    reason to allow bikes on tralis. Nor can you.


    >Sincerely,


    Tor Unsworth
    ===
    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Dave Head

    Dave Head Guest

    On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.)


    What's so difficult about this that you have to "work" so much on it. It's
    blindingly easy:

    1) Buy said land.

    2) Put up a big fence around it.

    3) Shoot anybody that crosses the fence. (Well, really, just get 'em arrested
    for trespassing...)

    Problem solved.

    Hey, you're not trying to restrict people from land that _you_ don't own, are
    you? That would be basically wrong... I'd never help someone make it
    impossible for me to visit some land that I indirectly owned, such as public
    land that everyone owns by virtue of being taxpaying citizens...

    DPH
     
  3. Ed Pirrero

    Ed Pirrero Guest

    Dave Head wrote:
    > On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >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.)

    >
    > What's so difficult about this that you have to "work" so much on it. It's
    > blindingly easy:
    >
    > 1) Buy said land.
    >
    > 2) Put up a big fence around it.
    >
    > 3) Shoot anybody that crosses the fence. (Well, really, just get 'em arrested
    > for trespassing...)
    >
    > Problem solved.
    >
    > Hey, you're not trying to restrict people from land that _you_ don't own, are
    > you? That would be basically wrong... I'd never help someone make it
    > impossible for me to visit some land that I indirectly owned, such as public
    > land that everyone owns by virtue of being taxpaying citizens...


    Dude, this guy is a very persistent and brain-dead troll who rails on
    and on against mountain bikers. Oh, sorry - *mountain bikes*.

    Just do a little googling in alt.mountain-bike, and you'll have all the
    killfile info you'd ever want. This dillhole is just another in a long
    line of "do as I say and not as I do" idiots.

    Don't bother arguing - it hasn't made a dent in the ten or so years
    I've been observing...

    E.P.
     
  4. On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:53:34 GMT, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>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.)

    >
    >What's so difficult about this that you have to "work" so much on it. It's
    >blindingly easy:
    >
    >1) Buy said land.
    >
    >2) Put up a big fence around it.
    >
    >3) Shoot anybody that crosses the fence. (Well, really, just get 'em arrested
    >for trespassing...)
    >
    >Problem solved.
    >
    >Hey, you're not trying to restrict people from land that _you_ don't own, are
    >you? That would be basically wrong... I'd never help someone make it
    >impossible for me to visit some land that I indirectly owned, such as public
    >land that everyone owns by virtue of being taxpaying citizens...
    >
    >DPH


    That is just pure selfishness. You have no inherent right to visit
    public land. Land managers have the right (and DUTY) to manage the
    land for the wildlife, and exclude humans.
    ===
    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
     
  5. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>Hey, you're not trying to restrict people from land that _you_ don't own,
    >>are
    >>you? That would be basically wrong... I'd never help someone make it
    >>impossible for me to visit some land that I indirectly owned, such as
    >>public
    >>land that everyone owns by virtue of being taxpaying citizens...
    >>
    >>DPH

    >
    > That is just pure selfishness. You have no inherent right to visit
    > public land. Land managers have the right (and DUTY) to manage the
    > land for the wildlife, and exclude humans.
    > ===

    That is nothing but YOUR interpretation of what the mission statement should
    be. Land Managers actually have the duty to make determinations on human
    visiting, the methods of acceptable visitation within any particular area in
    concern of habitat and other visitors, and the longevity and preservation of
    any area for future generations of visitors. It is not the specific
    designation to manage the land for the wildlife and exclude human visitors.
    It is the human visitors that maintains the value of any habitat area.
    Because of this, some areas allow mountain biking, hiking, kayaking.. even
    ORVs. Some areas do not. A "land manager" in one area that allows off-road
    cycling is no less doing his assigned job than another "land manager" that
    may oversee an area with stricter rules of access. Your opinion of what
    should or should not be allowed on Public Lands is pointless as the rules
    are in place, the Bureau of Land Management has an action plan in place that
    accepts recreation (including off-road cycling) and your opinions have been
    shown to be only that... Your Opinions.
     
  6. Dave Head

    Dave Head Guest

    On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:32:18 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:53:34 GMT, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>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.)

    >>
    >>What's so difficult about this that you have to "work" so much on it. It's
    >>blindingly easy:
    >>
    >>1) Buy said land.
    >>
    >>2) Put up a big fence around it.
    >>
    >>3) Shoot anybody that crosses the fence. (Well, really, just get 'em arrested
    >>for trespassing...)
    >>
    >>Problem solved.
    >>
    >>Hey, you're not trying to restrict people from land that _you_ don't own, are
    >>you? That would be basically wrong... I'd never help someone make it
    >>impossible for me to visit some land that I indirectly owned, such as public
    >>land that everyone owns by virtue of being taxpaying citizens...
    >>
    >>DPH

    >
    >That is just pure selfishness. You have no inherent right to visit
    >public land.


    Sure I do. I'm payin' for it, so I get to visit it, or should...

    >Land managers have the right (and DUTY) to manage the
    >land for the wildlife, and exclude humans.


    The main reason to manage wildlife is to make the industry of hunting them work
    better.

    DPH
     
  7. On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:34:20 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>>
    >>>Hey, you're not trying to restrict people from land that _you_ don't own,
    >>>are
    >>>you? That would be basically wrong... I'd never help someone make it
    >>>impossible for me to visit some land that I indirectly owned, such as
    >>>public
    >>>land that everyone owns by virtue of being taxpaying citizens...
    >>>
    >>>DPH

    >>
    >> That is just pure selfishness. You have no inherent right to visit
    >> public land. Land managers have the right (and DUTY) to manage the
    >> land for the wildlife, and exclude humans.
    >> ===

    >That is nothing but YOUR interpretation of what the mission statement should
    >be. Land Managers actually have the duty to make determinations on human
    >visiting, the methods of acceptable visitation within any particular area in
    >concern of habitat and other visitors, and the longevity and preservation of
    >any area for future generations of visitors. It is not the specific
    >designation to manage the land for the wildlife and exclude human visitors.
    >It is the human visitors that maintains the value of any habitat area.
    >Because of this, some areas allow mountain biking, hiking, kayaking.. even
    >ORVs. Some areas do not. A "land manager" in one area that allows off-road
    >cycling is no less doing his assigned job than another "land manager" that
    >may oversee an area with stricter rules of access. Your opinion of what
    >should or should not be allowed on Public Lands is pointless as the rules
    >are in place, the Bureau of Land Management has an action plan in place that
    >accepts recreation (including off-road cycling) and your opinions have been
    >shown to be only that... Your Opinions.


    Did you say something?
    ===
    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
     
  8. On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 01:53:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:32:18 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:53:34 GMT, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>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.)
    >>>
    >>>What's so difficult about this that you have to "work" so much on it. It's
    >>>blindingly easy:
    >>>
    >>>1) Buy said land.
    >>>
    >>>2) Put up a big fence around it.
    >>>
    >>>3) Shoot anybody that crosses the fence. (Well, really, just get 'em arrested
    >>>for trespassing...)
    >>>
    >>>Problem solved.
    >>>
    >>>Hey, you're not trying to restrict people from land that _you_ don't own, are
    >>>you? That would be basically wrong... I'd never help someone make it
    >>>impossible for me to visit some land that I indirectly owned, such as public
    >>>land that everyone owns by virtue of being taxpaying citizens...
    >>>
    >>>DPH

    >>
    >>That is just pure selfishness. You have no inherent right to visit
    >>public land.

    >
    >Sure I do. I'm payin' for it, so I get to visit it, or should...


    Okay, you are paying for the Nevada nuclear test site. Now try to
    exercise your right to visit it. Idiot.

    >>Land managers have the right (and DUTY) to manage the
    >>land for the wildlife, and exclude humans.

    >
    >The main reason to manage wildlife is to make the industry of hunting them work
    >better.
    >
    >DPH

    ===
    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
     
  9. S Curtiss

    S Curtiss Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:34:20 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>>>
    >>>>Hey, you're not trying to restrict people from land that _you_ don't
    >>>>own,
    >>>>are
    >>>>you? That would be basically wrong... I'd never help someone make it
    >>>>impossible for me to visit some land that I indirectly owned, such as
    >>>>public
    >>>>land that everyone owns by virtue of being taxpaying citizens...
    >>>>
    >>>>DPH
    >>>
    >>> That is just pure selfishness. You have no inherent right to visit
    >>> public land. Land managers have the right (and DUTY) to manage the
    >>> land for the wildlife, and exclude humans.
    >>> ===

    >>That is nothing but YOUR interpretation of what the mission statement
    >>should
    >>be. Land Managers actually have the duty to make determinations on human
    >>visiting, the methods of acceptable visitation within any particular area
    >>in
    >>concern of habitat and other visitors, and the longevity and preservation
    >>of
    >>any area for future generations of visitors. It is not the specific
    >>designation to manage the land for the wildlife and exclude human
    >>visitors.
    >>It is the human visitors that maintains the value of any habitat area.
    >>Because of this, some areas allow mountain biking, hiking, kayaking..
    >>even
    >>ORVs. Some areas do not. A "land manager" in one area that allows off-road
    >>cycling is no less doing his assigned job than another "land manager" that
    >>may oversee an area with stricter rules of access. Your opinion of what
    >>should or should not be allowed on Public Lands is pointless as the rules
    >>are in place, the Bureau of Land Management has an action plan in place
    >>that
    >>accepts recreation (including off-road cycling) and your opinions have
    >>been
    >>shown to be only that... Your Opinions.

    >
    > Did you say something?

    Another beautifully written rebuttal showcasing the debating skills and
    subject knowledge of Michael J. Vandeman, PhD.
     
Loading...
Loading...