CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   Social Issues (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=245287)

EdwardDolan September 4th 14 07:27 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/i...ticket_to_ride


Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
by George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including, Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He has personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.

I just got back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend, Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my mountain bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling without the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously logged forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or other special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain biking.

The key words here are “appropriate location.”

That is the same qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other “thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when driving in snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s appropriate to drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike can climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.

Although I can’t speak for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and the sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In other words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my cycling experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my biking experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary conflict between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.

This is not to say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to the beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to observe nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would agree. When careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail in front of us, not the natural world around us.

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe natural systems.

It is clear from a reading of the debate around the creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime rationale for wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational uses or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962, Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated clearly: “Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.” In an essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to establish among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to know the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.”

I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should not be permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that are strong candidates for wilderness designation.

Legal. The Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are deemed acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph, is “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of that growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike technology reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those walking or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.

Ecological. Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than a pack of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The cumulative effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in streams, and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more damage than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only increase impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild nature, not to preserve recreational opportunity.

Sociological. Any mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike – shrinks the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily surpassed by those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other users. On heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the experience for other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in the natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of the way of a bike.

Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The more advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our alienation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no different to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine Chapel or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many mountain bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one reason why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even disrespectful.

For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to protect self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological gadgets available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and self-restraint that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.


Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] September 4th 14 12:44 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of
nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!


You keep forgetting that I, too, am also a hiker and, perhaps surprisingly to you, I agree with quite a lot of what is written in the article. I have never advocated for universal access ... I've simply pointed out how ridiculous your ubiquitous assertions are. You don't want mountainbikers on ANY trails ... irrespective of wilderness designation.

And, since you take that view, you do exactly what I warned you about; you create extremism to counter it.

If you were prepared to concede that some of the trails where, clearly, you would prefer that there were no mountainbikers were open then, I suspect, the mountainbikers might be rather more open to accepting that other trails were off limits such as wilderness trails.

Of course, this all presupposes that people don't, as has been the case in the past, mis-use wilderness designation simply to try and get mountainbikers off historic trails. If all could agree a 10-year grandfathered rights clause I think that would resolve that one.

But, no, you take an absolutist position which means that even reasonable mountainbikers like me, who do enjoy hiking and do accept the 'cathedral of nature' proposition, find ourselves resolutely opposed to your selfish and irrational response to anything to do with mountainbikes.

If you want mountainbikers to act reasonably then you have to too. Fight us and, guess what, we fight back. Compromise and you will achieve far more of what you want.

EdwardDolan September 21st 14 10:49 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of
nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!


You keep forgetting that I, too, am also a hiker and, perhaps surprisingly to you, I agree with quite a lot of what is written in the article. I have never advocated for universal access ... I've simply pointed out how ridiculous your ubiquitous assertions are. You don't want mountainbikers on ANY trails ... irrespective of wilderness designation.


And, since you take that view, you do exactly what I warned you about; you create extremism to counter it.


If you were prepared to concede that some of the trails where, clearly, you would prefer that there were no mountainbikers were open then, I suspect, the mountainbikers might be rather more open to accepting that other trails were off limits such as wilderness trails.


Of course, this all presupposes that people don't, as has been the case in the past, mis-use wilderness designation simply to try and get mountainbikers off historic trails. If all could agree a 10-year grandfathered rights clause I think that would resolve that one.


But, no, you take an absolutist position which means that even reasonable mountainbikers like me, who do enjoy hiking and do accept the 'cathedral of nature' proposition, find ourselves resolutely opposed to your selfish and irrational response to anything to do with mountainbikes.


If you want mountainbikers to act reasonably then you have to too. Fight us and, guess what, we fight back. Compromise and you will achieve far more of what you want.


My position is that there is an inherent conflict between hikers and bikers on trails just as there would be between bikers and motorcyclists on trails. It really has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty of a trail (although the danger factor is a good argument to use to get bikers off of trails), but to WHY you are on the trail in the first plaice. Purpose is everything. Very strange that you can’t see it from this perspective.

Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am not opposed to bikers having their own trails. He is more right than I am of course, but that is the only compromise I am willing to make. Bikers use nature as a playground. With natural spaces becoming ever more rare, it is a desecration to use natural spaces for playgrounds for adults with toys.

The most precious resource in the world are natural spaces where what you can do and what you can’t do is closely regulated. Let everyone do whatever he wants and the resource is destroyed. Walking a trail is the least harm that can be done. I am far more right than you are. There is nothing extreme about my position on how we should use natural spaces. The only extremist here is you.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] September 23rd 14 11:10 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of

nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles

expressly

for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths

stated in

this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in

his head. It

also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have

ever shown to

lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!




You keep forgetting that I, too, am also a hiker and, perhaps

surprisingly to you, I agree with quite a lot of what is written in the
article. I have never advocated for universal access ... I've simply
pointed out how ridiculous your ubiquitous assertions are. You don't want
mountainbikers on ANY trails ... irrespective of wilderness designation.



And, since you take that view, you do exactly what I warned you

about; you create extremism to counter it.



If you were prepared to concede that some of the trails where,

clearly, you would prefer that there were no mountainbikers were open then, I
suspect, the mountainbikers might be rather more open to accepting that other
trails were off limits such as wilderness trails.



Of course, this all presupposes that people don't, as has been the

case in the past, mis-use wilderness designation simply to try and get
mountainbikers off historic trails. If all could agree a 10-year
grandfathered rights clause I think that would resolve that one.



But, no, you take an absolutist position which means that even

reasonable mountainbikers like me, who do enjoy hiking and do accept the
'cathedral of nature' proposition, find ourselves resolutely opposed to your
selfish and irrational response to anything to do with mountainbikes.



If you want mountainbikers to act reasonably then you have to

too. Fight us and, guess what, we fight back. Compromise and you
will achieve far more of what you want.



My position is that there is an inherent conflict between
hikers and bikers on trails just as there would be between bikers and
motorcyclists on trails. It really has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty
of a trail (although the danger factor is a good argument to use to get bikers
off of trails), but to WHY you are on the trail in the first plaice. Purpose is
everything. Very strange that you can't see it from this
perspective.


Your purpose is recreational ... just as mine is. You don't NEED to be there any more than I do. We both choose to be there because we enjoy it. You are presuming that your recreation is superior to mine ... but you have no logical basis for doing so. Hiking and biking have similar environmental impacts so there is no objective measure for preferring one over the other..

Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am not opposed to bikers having their
own trails. He is more right than I am of course, but that is the only
compromise I am willing to make. Bikers use nature as a playground. With natural
spaces becoming ever more rare, it is a desecration to use natural spaces for
playgrounds for adults with toys.


An hiking is what ? A job ? !!! Get off your high horse and accept that you, too, are pursuing a recreational pastime not doing anything that benefits nature ... hikers create similar levels of erosion.

The most precious resource in the world are natural spaces
where what you can do and what you can't do is closely regulated. Let everyone
do whatever he wants and the resource is destroyed. Walking a trail is the least
harm that can be done. I am far more right than you are. There is nothing
extreme about my position on how we should use natural spaces. The only
extremist here is you.


Ed, you froth at the mouth at the mere mention of mountainbikes and they cause you "mental torture". If that's not extreme I don't know what is.

EdwardDolan September 25th 14 05:31 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

My position is that there is an inherent conflict between
hikers and bikers on trails just as there would be between bikers and
motorcyclists on trails. It really has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty
of a trail (although the danger factor is a good argument to use to get bikers
off of trails), but to WHY you are on the trail in the first plaice. Purpose is
everything. Very strange that you can't see it from this
perspective.


Your purpose is recreational ... just as mine is. You don't NEED to be there any more than I do. We both choose to be there because we enjoy it. You are presuming that your recreation is superior to mine .... but you have no logical basis for doing so. Hiking and biking have similar environmental impacts so there is no objective measure for preferring one over the other.


We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature, which can only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don’t mix. You disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would disturb and destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are doing - engaging in a sport - but on a different level. All recreations are NOT equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the expert on what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.

Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am not opposed to bikers having their
own trails. He is more right than I am of course, but that is the only
compromise I am willing to make. Bikers use nature as a playground. With natural
spaces becoming ever more rare, it is a desecration to use natural spaces for
playgrounds for adults with toys.


An hiking is what ? A job ? !!! Get off your high horse and accept that you, too, are pursuing a recreational pastime not doing anything that benefits nature ... hikers create similar levels of erosion.


You can do what you do in a million different places. I can only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the natural scene has not been corrupted by mankind’s constructions and practical usages.

“All recreations are NOT equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the expert on what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.” – Ed Dolan

The most precious resource in the world are natural spaces
where what you can do and what you can't do is closely regulated. Let everyone
do whatever he wants and the resource is destroyed. Walking a trail is the least
harm that can be done. I am far more right than you are. There is nothing
extreme about my position on how we should use natural spaces. The only
extremist here is you.


Ed, you froth at the mouth at the mere mention of mountainbikes and they cause you "mental torture". If that's not extreme I don't know what is.


I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is you.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] September 25th 14 10:34 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
My position is that there is an inherent conflict between

hikers and bikers on trails just as there would be between bikers and



motorcyclists on trails. It really has nothing to do with the ease or

difficulty

of a trail (although the danger factor is a good argument to use to

get bikers

off of trails), but to WHY you are on the trail in the first plaice.

Purpose is

everything. Very strange that you can't see it from this


perspective.


Your purpose is recreational ... just as mine is. You don't

NEED to be there any more than I do. We both choose to be there because we
enjoy it. You are presuming that your recreation is superior to mine ...
but you have no logical basis for doing so. Hiking and biking have similar
environmental impacts so there is no objective measure for preferring one over
the other.

We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a
trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature, which can
only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't mix.


Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for your own purposes.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of conflict. So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not at all averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only trails. However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the entire trails network for your recreation only.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the expert on
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.


I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do engage in both.

You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand that this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required to share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until you accept that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are not axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.

Vandeman is an expert on internet trolling ... and nothing else.

Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am not opposed to bikers having their


own trails. He is more right than I am of course, but that is the only



compromise I am willing to make. Bikers use nature as a playground.

With natural

spaces becoming ever more rare, it is a desecration to use natural

spaces for

playgrounds for adults with toys.


And hiking is what ? A job ? !!! Get off your high

horse and accept that you, too, are pursuing a recreational pastime not doing
anything that benefits nature ... hikers create similar levels of erosion..

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and practical
usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of themselves, they are a corruption too.

If you really cared about nature that much then you would eschew hiking too..

The most precious resource in the world are natural spaces


where what you can do and what you can't do is closely regulated. Let

everyone

do whatever he wants and the resource is destroyed. Walking a trail is

the least

harm that can be done. I am far more right than you are. There is

nothing

extreme about my position on how we should use natural spaces. The

only

extremist here is you.




Ed, you froth at the mouth at the mere mention of mountainbikes

and they cause you "mental torture". If that's not extreme I don't know
what is.

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is you.


I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote that the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental Torture".

I call you an extremist because you are. You want to never have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ... because, unlike you, I'm not an extremist.

EdwardDolan October 26th 14 06:43 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a
trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature, which can
only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't mix.


Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for your own purposes.


Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog of a brain, we are at an impasse.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of conflict. So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not at all averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only trails. However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the entire trails network for your recreation only.


Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails. Walkers and morons on wheels do not mix.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the expert on
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.


I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do engage in both.


You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand that this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required to share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until you accept that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are not axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.


I don’t much care which is better – hiking or biking. But I am stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport and the other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.
[...]

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and practical
usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of themselves, they are a corruption too.


If you really cared about nature that much then you would eschew hiking too.


No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the wildlife than you or I do.
[...]

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is you.


I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote that the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental Torture".


It is “mental torture” and it would be for you too if you had a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.

I call you an extremist because you are. You want to never have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ... because, unlike you, I'm not an extremist.


I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails. You are trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your own grandfather would disown you!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Blackblade[_2_] October 28th 14 09:42 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a

trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature,

which can

only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't

mix.

Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and

until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for
your own purposes.

Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
of a brain, we are at an impasse.


I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ... that's just your opinion.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would

disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are

doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of conflict.

So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not at all
averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only trails.
However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the entire
trails network for your recreation only.

Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only
compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails. Walkers and
morons on wheels do not mix.


No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the

expert on
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.


I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think

mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do engage in
both.

You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand that

this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required to
share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until you accept
that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are not
axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.

I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am
stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport and the
other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.


So, they are different. I agree. So what ? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that they are both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment, rather than necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited, publicly owned resource.

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the

natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and practical
usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made

constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.

If you really cared about nature that much then you would eschew

hiking too.

No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the wildlife than
you or I do.


So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy it.

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is

you.

I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote that

the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental Torture".

It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.


You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself !

I call you an extremist because you are. You want to never

have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ... because,
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.

I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails. You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your own
grandfather would disown you!


If it were your church then you'd have a point ... but it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public land. Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are now objecting because others want to use them for different activities.


EdwardDolan October 29th 14 09:23 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a


trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature,

which can

only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't

mix.

Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and

until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for
your own purposes.

Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
of a brain, we are at an impasse.


I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't .... that's just your opinion.


I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact that they can‘t be done on the same trails.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would

disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are

doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of conflict.

So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not at all
averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only trails.
However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the entire
trails network for your recreation only.

Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only
compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails. Walkers and
morons on wheels do not mix.


No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.


You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a matter of opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior to yours and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness. Checkmate!

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the

expert on
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.


I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think

mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do engage in
both.

You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand that

this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required to
share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until you accept
that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are not
axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.

I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am
stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport and the
other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.


So, they are different. I agree. So what ? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that they are both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment, rather than necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited, publicly owned resource.


So What ? So they CONFLICT – you dumb *******! What is there about conflict that you don’t understand? I have already told you that not all recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they cannot be done together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear Watson!

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the

natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and practical
usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made

constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.

If you really cared about nature that much then you would eschew

hiking too.

No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the wildlife than
you or I do.


So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy it.


Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any of man’s activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is

you.

I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote that

the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental Torture".

It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.


You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself !


“Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any of man’s activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.” – Ed Dolan

I call you an extremist because you are. You want to never

have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ... because,
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.

I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails. You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your own
grandfather would disown you!


If it were your church then you'd have a point ... but it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public land. Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are now objecting because others want to use them for different activities.


I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for does not fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other hikers. The origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for hiking, the most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a barbarian not to understand this.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] October 29th 14 11:39 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go

there for
your own purposes.


Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog


of a brain, we are at an impasse.


I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is

because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ...
that's just your opinion.

I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can't be done on the same trails.


Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your opinion of difference is extreme.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would

disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you

are
doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of

conflict.

So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not

at all

averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only

trails.

However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the

entire

trails network for your recreation only.




Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only


compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails.

Walkers and

morons on wheels do not mix.


No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or

biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.

You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.
Checkmate!


You seem to be assuming, in your usual hubristic fashion, that your pronouncements carry some weight and that I need to negotiate with you ! I don't. I don't care what you think because you are unreasonable and have shown youself, over and over again, to be a selfish and massively hubristic. As such, I will negotiate, if I need to do so, with the land managers. You can do whatever you wish ... I don't care because you don't own the trails and have no power to determine how they're used.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am

the
expert on
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.




I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think



mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do

engage in

both.




You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand

that

this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required

to

share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until

you accept

that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are

not

axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.




I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am


stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport

and the

other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.


So, they are different. I agree. So what

? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that they are
both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment, rather than
necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited, publicly
owned resource.

So What ? So they CONFLICT - you dumb *******! What is there
about conflict that you don't understand? I have already told you that not all
recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they cannot be done
together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
Watson!


Again with the hubris. Given that a huge number of trails ARE shared I can dispose of your assertion in five seconds. In most locations it works fine. The conflict, for the most part, exists in your head ... a location I don't care about.

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where

the
natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and

practical

usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made

constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.


If you really cared about nature that much then you would

eschew

hiking too.


No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the

wildlife than
you or I do.


So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up

hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy it.

Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.


The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a tyre print. Same impact.

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is

you.


I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote

that
the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental

Torture".

It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.


You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself !


"Hiking with its trails has the least impact on
nature of any of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints." -
Ed Dolan


You can say the same thing again ... woop de do. Doesn't make it correct though.

I call you an extremist because you are. You want to

never
have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ...

because,
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.


I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails.

You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your

own
grandfather would disown you!


If it were your church then you'd have a point ... but

it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public land.
Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are now
objecting because others want to use them for different activities.

I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to
walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for does not
fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other hikers. The
origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for hiking, the
most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a barbarian
not to understand this.


Ed, it's NOT your church to decide who to welcome and who to bar. We will never reach a solution on this because, as far as you're concerned, you own rights to public land which are not conferred on others. I assert no greater, or lesser, ownership than anyone else ... so I accept that what I want has to be a compromise with what others want. You think I'm a barbarian ? I don't care what you think. I think you're a selfish, hubristic and unreasonable sociopath.


EdwardDolan October 30th 14 09:00 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and

until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go

there for
your own purposes.


Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog


of a brain, we are at an impasse.


I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is

because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ....
that's just your opinion.

I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can't be done on the same trails.


Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your opinion of difference is extreme.


It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same trail. If you weren’t such a moron, you would understand that simple fact.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would

disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you

are
doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of

conflict.

So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not

at all

averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only

trails.

However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the

entire

trails network for your recreation only.




Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only


compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails.

Walkers and

morons on wheels do not mix.


No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or

biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.

You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.
Checkmate!


You seem to be assuming, in your usual hubristic fashion, that your pronouncements carry some weight and that I need to negotiate with you ! I don't. I don't care what you think because you are unreasonable and have shown youself, over and over again, to be a selfish and massively hubristic. As such, I will negotiate, if I need to do so, with the land managers. You can do whatever you wish ... I don't care because you don't own the trails and have no power to determine how they're used.


The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment, they are almost as dumb as you are.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am

the
expert on
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.




I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think



mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do

engage in

both.




You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand

that

this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required

to

share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until

you accept

that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are

not

axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.




I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am


stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport

and the

other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.


So, they are different. I agree. So what

? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that they are
both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment, rather than
necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited, publicly
owned resource.

So What ? So they CONFLICT - you dumb *******! What is there
about conflict that you don't understand? I have already told you that not all
recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they cannot be done
together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
Watson!


Again with the hubris. Given that a huge number of trails ARE shared I can dispose of your assertion in five seconds. In most locations it works fine. The conflict, for the most part, exists in your head ... a location I don't care about.


There is just no way around the conflicts. Just as there is no way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails --- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to bikes. Too bad you can’t grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you might as well be whistling Dixie!

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where

the
natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and

practical

usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made

constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.


If you really cared about nature that much then you would

eschew

hiking too.


No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the

wildlife than
you or I do.


So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up

hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy it.

Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.


The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a tyre print. Same impact.


Nope, not true because of mechanical advantage, but I leave the impact on trails to Mr. Vandeman who is the world expert on that issue.

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is

you.


I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote

that
the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental

Torture".

It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.


You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself !


"Hiking with its trails has the least impact on
nature of any of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints." -
Ed Dolan


You can say the same thing again ... woop de do. Doesn't make it correct though.

I call you an extremist because you are. You want to

never
have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ...

because,
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.


I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails.

You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your

own
grandfather would disown you!


If it were your church then you'd have a point ... but

it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public land.
Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are now
objecting because others want to use them for different activities.

I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to
walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for does not
fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other hikers. The
origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for hiking, the
most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a barbarian
not to understand this.


Ed, it's NOT your church to decide who to welcome and who to bar. We will never reach a solution on this because, as far as you're concerned, you own rights to public land which are not conferred on others. I assert no greater, or lesser, ownership than anyone else ... so I accept that what I want has to be a compromise with what others want. You think I'm a barbarian ? I don't care what you think. I think you're a selfish, hubristic and unreasonable sociopath.


For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not relevant. Public lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport of mountain biking. You are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up sport. You will rue that if and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.

I must admit I am sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on trails I would **** on their graves.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



John B. Slocomb October 31st 14 12:17 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:08:47 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Blackblade considered Wed, 29 Oct 2014
04:39:22 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go
there for
your own purposes.

Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog

of a brain, we are at an impasse.

I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is
because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ...
that's just your opinion.

I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can't be done on the same trails.


Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your opinion of difference is extreme.

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would
disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you
are
doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.

I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of
conflict.

So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not
at all

averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only
trails.

However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the
entire

trails network for your recreation only.



Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only

compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails.
Walkers and

morons on wheels do not mix.

No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or
biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.

You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.
Checkmate!


As drooling (along with his false idol vandal man) has shown himself
repeatedly to be neither sane or reasonable, it is indeed checkmate.
He's lost.

On the other hand, his fantasy has resulted in him having someone
(Blackblade) to talk with. Without his constant bemoaning the use of
"trails" by multiple types of users he would be totally alone.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Blackblade[_2_] November 3rd 14 01:36 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS !
Unless and until you can show that you NEED to be there this is
axiomatically the case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for your own purposes.


Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog of a brain, we are at an impasse.


I have never said they are all equal. The

impasse is because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It
isn't ... that's just your opinion.

I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can't be done on the same trails.


Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never

proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails
which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not
working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your
opinion of difference is extreme.

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world it has to be the preferred option.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone care about you and your wants ?

You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist

would
disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what

you
are
doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.


I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of

conflict.


So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm

not
at all
averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only

trails.


However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe

the
entire
trails network for your recreation only.


Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only
compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of

trails.
Walkers and
morons on wheels do not mix.


No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker

or
biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what

compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing

because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable

people.

You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a

matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior

to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.


Checkmate!


You seem to be assuming, in your usual hubristic

fashion, that your pronouncements carry some weight and that I need to negotiate
with you ! I don't. I don't care what you think because you are
unreasonable and have shown youself, over and over again, to be selfish and
massively hubristic. As such, I will negotiate, if I need to do so, with
the land managers. You can do whatever you wish ... I don't care because
you don't own the trails and have no power to determine how they're used.

The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman.

I am the expert on what trails are for based on philosophical
considerations.

I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I

think
mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I

do
engage in
both.


You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to

understand
that
this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is

required
to
share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and

until
you accept
that different people have different opinions and that, no, you

are
not
axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.


I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am
stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a

sport
and the
other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.


So, they are different. I agree. So what


? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that

they are
both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment,

rather than
necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited,

publicly
owned resource.


So What ? So they CONFLICT - you dumb *******! What is there
about conflict that you don't understand? I have already told you that

not all
recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they

cannot be done
together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
Watson!


Again with the hubris. Given that a huge number

of trails ARE shared I can dispose of your assertion in five seconds. In
most locations it works fine. The conflict, for the most part, exists in
your head ... a location I don't care about.

There is just no way around the conflicts.


Yes, Ed, there is. The way around is for all users to acknowledge others' valid desires to use a public resource and to understand how their activity impacts on others. We can then, on a location by location basis, figure out the best solution.

As I have said, and provided locations to back it up, sharing works fine in a lot of places.

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed. However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should be.

You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth

where
the
natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and

practical
usages.


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are

man-made
constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in

and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.
If you really cared about nature that much then you

would
eschew
hiking too.


No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about

the
wildlife than
you or I do.


So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up

hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy

it.

Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.


The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking

have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ....
one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint
or a tyre print. Same impact.

Nope, not true because of mechanical advantage, but I leave
the impact on trails to Mr. Vandeman who is the world expert on that
issue.

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel

roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is
you.


I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who

wrote
that
the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental

Torture".


It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by

mankind.

You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself

!

"Hiking with its trails has the least impact on
nature of any of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only

footprints." -

Ed Dolan


You can say the same thing again ... woop de do. Doesn't make it
correct though.


And, even if it's minimal, it's still disturbing unnecessarily since you don't need to be there. You're just going for recreational purposes.

I call you an extremist because you are. You want

to
never
have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though

...
because,
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.


I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of

trails.
You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian.

Your
own
grandfather would disown you!


If it were your church then you'd have a point ...

but
it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public

land.
Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are

now
objecting because others want to use them for different

activities.

I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to
walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for

does not
fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other

hikers. The
origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for

hiking, the
most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a

barbarian
not to understand this.


Ed, it's NOT your church to decide who to welcome and

who to bar. We will never reach a solution on this because, as far as
you're concerned, you own rights to public land which are not conferred on
others. I assert no greater, or lesser, ownership than anyone else ... so
I accept that what I want has to be a compromise with what others want.
You think I'm a barbarian ? I don't care what you think. I think
you're a selfish, hubristic and unreasonable sociopath.

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not relevant.


Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their agenda.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport of mountain biking.


The land managers are doing their best to manage for genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include satisfying one Ed Dolan !

If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own land. On public lands, you have to share.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.


I will take no lessons from you in terms of safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in solitude.

I find your references to children totally and utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't, because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone else.

I must admit I am sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no one is riding on your trails at all.

EdwardDolan November 7th 14 06:15 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.


But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In other words, your opinion ain’t worth ****!

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world it has to be the preferred option.


The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off of ALL trails used by hikers.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone care about you and your wants ?


The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere, most especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a ****ing Dumb Asshole you are!
[...]

The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.


The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but they are also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power to bear despite whatever their original mission might have been. It is why even our National Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools like you.
[...]

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed. However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should be.


Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for walkers.
[...]

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not relevant.


Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their agenda.


The public lands are being managed by governmental agencies which have very specific missions which are written into law. National Parks and Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than National Forests and BLM areas because of their different missions. The only idiot here, as usual, is yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding their lawful missions.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport of mountain biking.


The land managers are doing their best to manage for genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include satisfying one Ed Dolan !


If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own land. On public lands, you have to share.


If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the very first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails used by hikers. You can’t share what can’t be shared.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.


I will take no lessons from you in terms of safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in solitude.


Some roads are dangerous, others aren’t. Young people who ride bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads regardless of your nutty ideas.

I find your references to children totally and utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't, because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone else.


The only pathology being presented here is yours. You don’t even care enough about the safety of your own children to prevent them from riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever happens.

Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to contemplate:

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/ne...oors_accident/

12-year-old boy airlifted to hospital with spinal injuries after
Darwen Moors accident

The teenage boy was flown to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital in
the air ambulance
share on Facebook

First published Thursday 30 October 2014 in News
Last updated 07:23 Thursday 30 October 2014 by Lawrence Dunhill,
Health Reporter

MOUNTAIN bikers have been urged to take care on slippery gravel track
on Darwen Moors after a 12-year-old boy was airlifted to hospital.

The boy was knocked unconscious and suffered suspected head, spinal
and pelvic injuries after falling in an area known as 'Lyon's Den' on
Tuesday afternoon.

It comes after a similar accident on the track earlier this month, in
which a 34-year-old man suffered an open fracture to his elbow.

MORE TOP STORIES:

Bolton Mountain Rescue Team attended Tuesday's incident at about 3pm,
where they stretchered the boy to an air ambulance, before he was
flown to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital.

The boy, from Darwen, had been out riding with his dad and younger brother.

There was a torrential downpour as the emergency crews arrived, so
they deployed a casualty shelter at the scene whilst treatment was
given by the air ambulance staff.

Steve Fletcher, a member of the rescue team, said: "We've had quite a
few mountain biking incidents in that area around Tockholes.

"I'm a mountain biker myself and that bit of track is quite stony and
loose and can get very greasy.

"I would urge people to take extra care there, especially when it's wet."

There have now been nine mountain biking accidents attended by Bolton
Mountain Rescue Team so far this year, compared to 10 during 2013.

A spokesman for the North West Air Ambulance was unable to give
further details of the boy's condition.

However, he was thought to have regained consciousness.

I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no one is riding on your trails at all.


Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours for doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers, not to Asshole mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world knew that – even your sainted grandfather!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan November 7th 14 06:37 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.


The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a tyre print. Same impact.


What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the tires of bikes on trails is much more damaging then any hiker’s boots.

Everything I've seen in the way of research actually shows that if

suitable tyres are used, the damage caused by cyclists is less than
that caused by hikers.
Rolling does less damage than stomping, and hiking boots are
particularly damaging.

You obviously have not seen how bikers ride their bikes on trails. Speed is everything and they regard a trail as nothing but an obstacle course for their ****ing sport. Try to get real if that is even remotely possible.
[...]

Particularly when the footprints are deeper than the tyre prints.

I've never seen cyclists kick steps out of slopes to make them easier
to climb, but hikers seem to regard it as normal and reasonable
behaviour to hack holes in the environment.

Hikers are not interested in improving trails, only in navigating them without falling. Bikers on the other hand are not only into “improving” trails, but of making entirely separate trails strictly for their own use against park policy. They are notorious for that. It is why I call them criminals. You must be living in some kind of crazy fantasyland.
[...]

Heck, he can't even agree with himself, never mind anyone else.

So the constituency he represents is only himself (and maybe the
convicted criminal vandal man).

Try to post only content. You will not win any name calling contest with me.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan November 7th 14 06:44 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message ...
[...]

On the other hand, his fantasy has resulted in him having someone

(Blackblade) to talk with. Without his constant bemoaning the use of
"trails" by multiple types of users he would be totally alone.

I have never known a hiker who will admit to liking bikers on trails. I am far from alone. I simply say what all other hikers are thinking but are too polite to voice. Hikers are gentlemen; bikers are thugs and criminals ... besides being the scum of the earth of course.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] November 10th 14 03:12 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the
same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand

that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for

one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.

But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
other words, your opinion ain't worth ****!


Or, to phrase it differently, you can't tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that approach /sarcasm.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open

more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing
creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world
it has to be the preferred option.

The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off of ALL
trails used by hikers.


I'm sure it is your preferred option ... and that's why I don't care one iota what you want anymore. With every utterance you show yourself as the entitled, hubristic, selfish and ignorant individual you are.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't

possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you
should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given
that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone
care about you and your wants ?

The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere, most
especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a ****ing Dumb Asshole
you are!


Works fine in Swinley Forest, Porridge Pot, Minley Manor, Forest of Dean, Exmoor, Scotland .. and many other places I'm aware of.

The land managers will have to be educated. For the

moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're

speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong
and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a
redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner
who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.

The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but they are
also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power to bear despite
whatever their original mission might have been. It is why even our National
Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools like you.


But I thought you claimed that hikers were massively in the majority Ed ? I think you said that there were between 10,000 and 1,000,000 hikers for every biker. As such, surely you would have more power to bring to bear ?

Or are you spouting nonsense again ?

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be

permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose

which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary

rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing

certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed.
However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should
be.

Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as motorcycles
and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for walkers.


No, Ed, trails are for people.

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not

relevant.

Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own

something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am
not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous
minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their
agenda.

The public lands are being managed by governmental agencies
which have very specific missions which are written into law. National Parks and
Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than National Forests and BLM
areas because of their different missions. The only idiot here, as usual, is
yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding their lawful
missions.


The National Parks Service mission statement says "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

I don't read, in there, anything about preserving the chosen recreation of one Mr E Dolan. So, no, the land managers are staying true to their actual mission rather than the one you would like them to adopt.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use.

Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church

because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport

of mountain biking.

The land managers are doing their best to manage for

genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks
service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include
satisfying one Ed Dolan !

If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own

land. On public lands, you have to share.

If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the very
first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails used by hikers. You can't
share what can't be shared.


You can't share ... that's the fundamental issue. The land managers are doing their jobs just fine and most people can share without any major issues.. Only arrogant and sociopathic individuals think they can have everything they want and damn everyone else.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up

sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have

warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a

warning.

I will take no lessons from you in terms of

safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still
displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in
solitude.

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads regardless of your nutty
ideas.


Mine don't ... they ride exclusively on trails. No roads.

I find your references to children totally and

utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or
serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity
preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't,
because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone
else.

The only pathology being presented here is yours. You don't
even care enough about the safety of your own children to prevent them from
riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever happens.


So, how is it uncaring to allow them to cycle in a SAFER location ? Not safe, I know that, but far far safer than on the road.

Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
contemplate:


Shall I reciprocate with 3 reports of hiker problems for you to contemplate ? They do, after all, outnumber the biking ones by a factor of roughly 3.

Or would you prefer to read about road bike deaths ?

What a sick puppy you are.

I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to mountain

bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead

and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers

who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land

I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are
they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no
one is riding on your trails at all.

Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours for
doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers, not to Asshole
mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world knew that - even your
sainted grandfather!


No, Ed, the trails do not belong to hikers. They belong to people ... and you can state the converse as many times as you like ... but it's still untrue.

Blackblade[_2_] November 10th 14 03:17 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 

Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only

footprints.

The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have

similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one
human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a
tyre print. Same impact.

What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the tires of bikes
on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.


It would be all the real science that vandeman tries, and fails, to discredit in this article http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?


EdwardDolan November 14th 14 04:41 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the

same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand

that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for

one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.

But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
other words, your opinion ain't worth ****!


Or, to phrase it differently, you can't tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that approach /sarcasm.


When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open

more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing
creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world
it has to be the preferred option.

The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off of ALL
trails used by hikers.


I'm sure it is your preferred option ... and that's why I don't care one iota what you want anymore. With every utterance you show yourself as the entitled, hubristic, selfish and ignorant individual you are.


“When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.” – Ed Dolan

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't

possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you
should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given
that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone
care about you and your wants ?

The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere, most
especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a ****ing Dumb Asshole
you are!


Works fine in Swinley Forest, Porridge Pot, Minley Manor, Forest of Dean, Exmoor, Scotland .. and many other places I'm aware of.


It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this, they hate your guts!

The land managers will have to be educated. For the

moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're

speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong
and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a
redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner
who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.

The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but they are
also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power to bear despite
whatever their original mission might have been. It is why even our National
Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools like you.


But I thought you claimed that hikers were massively in the majority Ed ? I think you said that there were between 10,000 and 1,000,000 hikers for every biker. As such, surely you would have more power to bring to bear ?


As with everything under the sun organization is the key. There are of course many times more hikers than bikers and those numbers will tell in the end.

Or are you spouting nonsense again ?


Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be

permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose

which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary

rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing

certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed.
However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should
be.

Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as motorcycles
and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for walkers.


No, Ed, trails are for people.


“Or are you spouting nonsense again ?” – your own words!

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not

relevant.

Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own

something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am
not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous
minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their
agenda.

The public lands are being managed by governmental agencies
which have very specific missions which are written into law. National Parks and
Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than National Forests and BLM
areas because of their different missions. The only idiot here, as usual, is
yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding their lawful
missions.


The National Parks Service mission statement says "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."


I don't read, in there, anything about preserving the chosen recreation of one Mr E Dolan. So, no, the land managers are staying true to their actual mission rather than the one you would like them to adopt.


The key phrase is “in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired”. I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area ethic compared to the National Park one.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use.

Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church

because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport

of mountain biking.

The land managers are doing their best to manage for

genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks
service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include
satisfying one Ed Dolan !

If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own

land. On public lands, you have to share.

If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the very
first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails used by hikers. You can't
share what can't be shared.


You can't share ... that's the fundamental issue. The land managers are doing their jobs just fine and most people can share without any major issues. Only arrogant and sociopathic individuals think they can have everything they want and damn everyone else.


The reports of conflicts are pouring in by the thousands. Note the latest wrinkle:

From: "Janet Peterson"
Subject: Eagles at Lake Folsom
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:45:18 -0800

ParkWatchReport is a web-based service that can now be accessed from any smartphone, laptop, desktop computer, tablet or iPad. It serves the needs of land managers who operate on small budgets and limited staff by collecting reports from the public electronically (including photos and GPS locations) of incidents like speeding bikes, fallen trees, untidy bathrooms, leaky water fountains, injured wildlife, fire hazards, and safety concerns.

Until now a comprehensive data base of such reports has never been developed and as a result problems like trail conflict have never truly been addressed. Without hard facts land managers have a difficult time 1) finding/identifying offenders 2) justifying additional law enforcement support, 3) getting greater restrictions placed on offensive/dangerous types trail users, 4)boosting fines to an effective point, etc.

ParkWatchReport gives the public the ability to deliver an accurate, first-hand account of what life is like on our public trails. They are dangerous and people who are justifiably concerned about injuries like equestrians, senior citizens, mom’s with youngsters, dog walkers, etc no longer enjoy using the trails. This is sad. To bring civility and enjoyment back the public can file a report in under three minutes from their smartphone and a permanent record of their report is 1) retained by the land manager with jurisdiction and 2) by ParkWatchReport, LLC. The offense is now on record and a land manger is informed and therefore accountable.

The goal of ParkWatchReport is to see rules, restrictions, penalties and trail designations revised to reflect what is in the best interest of the majority of trails users by providing land managers with the irrefutable and unbiased data they need substantiate the needed changes.

This is the short version of the answer to your question “how does it work?” For a longer answer, I’ve attached an Overview, a draft sent to Trail Blazer Magazine, and a flier for potential sponsors for the Mt Tam Site. In addition to the parkwatchreport.com site you might also like to check out the Eldorado.parkwatchreport.com site which was launched Nov 1 by the El Dorado Parks and Rec dept.

Thanks for your interest.

Janet Peterson
ParkWatchReport
(530) 878-4750


As a side note, Mt Tamalpais will be subscribing to the newest version of ParkWatchReport in order to collect data on the dangerous and illegal activities on the trails and the park in general. This should prove to be very helpful to both the rangers and the hikers/equestrians that have been run off the Mt Tam trails by mt bikers.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up

sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have

warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a

warning.

I will take no lessons from you in terms of

safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still
displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in
solitude.

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads regardless of your nutty
ideas.


Mine don't ... they ride exclusively on trails. No roads.


Your kids will soon relate more to their peer group than a nut like you.

I find your references to children totally and

utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or
serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity
preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't,
because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone
else.

The only pathology being presented here is yours. You don't
even care enough about the safety of your own children to prevent them from
riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever happens.


So, how is it uncaring to allow them to cycle in a SAFER location ? Not safe, I know that, but far far safer than on the road.


Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.

Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
contemplate:


Shall I reciprocate with 3 reports of hiker problems for you to contemplate ? They do, after all, outnumber the biking ones by a factor of roughly 3.


Or would you prefer to read about road bike deaths ?


What a sick puppy you are.


I will enjoy reading some day that you have managed to kill yourself by doing something stupid – like riding your bike on a hiking trail.

I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to mountain

bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead

and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers

who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land

I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are
they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no
one is riding on your trails at all.

Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours for
doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers, not to Asshole
mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world knew that - even your
sainted grandfather!


No, Ed, the trails do not belong to hikers. They belong to people .... and you can state the converse as many times as you like ... but it's still untrue.


People ... doing what! You make no sense whatever.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan November 14th 14 05:27 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the tires of bikes
on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.


It would be all the real science that vandeman tries, and fails, to discredit in this article http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm


Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?


What “real research” would that be?

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] November 14th 14 02:04 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on
the
same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would

understand
that simple
fact.


Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which

I, for
one, don't share and I doubt too many others do

either.

But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
other words, your opinion ain't worth ****!


Or, to phrase it differently, you can't

tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice
going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that
approach /sarcasm.

When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever
going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.


This conversation is never going to move on Ed because you are impervious to reason. You think you're right and all the facts and logic in the world won't sway you.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we

open
more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we

share. Sharing
creates some issues but unless we want to use up even

more of the natural world
it has to be the preferred option.


The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off

of ALL
trails used by hikers.


I'm sure it is your preferred option ... and

that's why I don't care one iota what you want anymore. With every
utterance you show yourself as the entitled, hubristic, selfish and ignorant
individual you are.

"When you endlessly repeat yourself that is
all you are ever going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along." - Ed
Dolan


Learn some humility. You are not great, you are no saint and you need to at least try and understand that there is no option but to compromise.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing

isn't
possible. Since it works quite well in most

locations I guess what you
should have written is that sharing isn't possible ...

for you. And, given
that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why

the **** should anyone
care about you and your wants ?


The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere,

most
especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a

****ing Dumb Asshole
you are!


Works fine in Swinley Forest, Porridge Pot,

Minley Manor, Forest of Dean, Exmoor, Scotland .. and many other places I'm
aware of.

It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
they hate your guts!


I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.

The land managers will have to be educated. For the

moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.


You know something ? When everyone you're

speaking with, in a position of some authority, is

telling you that you're wrong
and that you need to share ... they just might be

right. You're not a
redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed,

you're a selfish loner
who just wants what you want and b****r everyone

else.

The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but

they are
also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power

to bear despite
whatever their original mission might have been. It is

why even our National
Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools

like you.

But I thought you claimed that hikers were

massively in the majority Ed ? I think you said that there were between
10,000 and 1,000,000 hikers for every biker. As such, surely you would
have more power to bring to bear ?

As with everything under the sun organization is
the key. There are of course many times more hikers than bikers and those
numbers will tell in the end.


Ah, more flip flopping. Do at least try to be consistent for more than two posts.

Or are you spouting nonsense again

?

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be

permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and

purpose
which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary

rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!


I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing

certain spaces because of the huge difference in power,

weight and speed.

However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and

should
be.


Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as

motorcycles
and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for

walkers.

No, Ed, trails are for people.


"Or are you spouting nonsense again ?" - your own
words!


No. Just sense that you don't want to hear.

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not

relevant.


Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I

own
something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have

certain rights. I am
not going to accept that I have to pay for something

which a self-righteous
minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't

happen to suit their
agenda.


The public lands are being managed by governmental

agencies
which have very specific missions which are written into

law. National Parks and
Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than

National Forests and BLM
areas because of their different missions. The only idiot

here, as usual, is
yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding

their lawful
missions.


The National Parks Service mission statement

says "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal
areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means
and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments
and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of
the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations."

I don't read, in there, anything about

preserving the chosen recreation of one Mr E Dolan. So, no, the land
managers are staying true to their actual mission rather than the one you would
like them to adopt.

The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area ethic
compared to the National Park one.


I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that there is nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking. So your statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their mission statement.


I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use.

Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church

because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing

sport
of mountain biking.


The land managers are doing their best to manage

for
genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated

objectives of the parks
service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't

specifically include
satisfying one Ed Dolan !


If you want to have a 'church' then do it on

your own
land. On public lands, you have to

share.

If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the

very
first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails

used by hikers. You can't
share what can't be shared.


You can't share ... that's the fundamental

issue. The land managers are doing their jobs just fine and most people
can share without any major issues. Only arrogant and sociopathic
individuals think they can have everything they want and damn everyone
else.

The reports of conflicts are pouring in by the thousands. Note
the latest wrinkle:


Noted. And, let's see what happens. I await, with some anticipation, the realisation that there are minimal reports from a small number of exercised individuals as happened when a similar approach was taken in Australia.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up

sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I

have
warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a

warning.


I will take no lessons from you in terms of

safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more

dangerous but would still
displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want

to enjoy the trails in
solitude.


Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who

ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads

regardless of your nutty
ideas.


I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been, in the last five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There has been 1 off road .... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.

Mine don't ... they ride exclusively on

trails. No roads.

Your kids will soon relate more to their peer group than a nut
like you.


Probably ... but that's an age thing. At least they can relate; unlike you..

I find your references to children totally and

utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it

appropriate to wish death or
serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow

recreational activity
preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but

of course you won't,
because you genuinely don't understand, much less care,

about anyone
else.


The only pathology being presented here is yours. You

don't
even care enough about the safety of your own children to

prevent them from
riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever

happens.

So, how is it uncaring to allow them to cycle

in a SAFER location ? Not safe, I know that, but far far safer than on the
road.

Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.


More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe". What total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is being lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/drive...s-6753301.html

You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you ?

Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
contemplate:


Shall I reciprocate with 3 reports of hiker

problems for you to contemplate ? They do, after all, outnumber the biking
ones by a factor of roughly 3.
Or would you prefer to read about road bike

deaths ?

What a sick puppy you are.


I will enjoy reading some day that you have managed to kill
yourself by doing something stupid - like riding your bike on a hiking trail.


You'll be waiting a long time.

I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to

mountain
bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be

dead
and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain

bikers
who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.


Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my

land
I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these

AREN'T your trails are
they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land !

So, you can relax ... no
one is riding on your trails at all.


Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours

for
doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers,

not to Asshole
mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world

knew that - even your
sainted grandfather!


No, Ed, the trails do not belong to

hikers. They belong to people ... and you can state the converse as many
times as you like ... but it's still untrue.

People ... doing what! You make no sense
whatever.


You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use and ownership are not the same.


Blackblade[_2_] November 14th 14 02:06 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 

What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the

tires of bikes
on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.


It would be all the real science that vandeman tries, and

fails, to discredit in this article http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair

quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?

What "real research" would that be?


Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman who simply trawl the web and spout drivel.


EdwardDolan November 26th 14 02:53 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
they hate your guts!


I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.


I know full well what is going on. You are criminally trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you would be a dead man.
[...]

The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area ethic
compared to the National Park one.


I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that there is nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking. So your statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their mission statement.


I have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is sensible.

I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.


I don’t give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion. What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at issue here?
[...]

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who

ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads

regardless of your nutty
ideas.


I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been, in the last five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There has been 1 off road ... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.


I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport. Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.
[...]

Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.


More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe". What total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is being lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/drive...s-6753301.html


You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you ?


Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways, especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how bad the streets are in the UK.
[...]

People ... doing what! You make no sense
whatever.


You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use and ownership are not the same.


It never matters who “owns” anything. In the end it is the practitioners and the customers who “own”. Indeed, use and ownership are not the same thing.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan November 26th 14 03:13 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

What "real research" would that be?


Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman [Mr. Vandeman, Ph.D.] who simply trawl the web and spout drivel.


You are one of the most pitiful human beings in the entire universe. You believe in research! All research is driven by a point of view. I see it every day on my cable TV channels. You must be an idiot to trust to it.

Let’s face it, mountain bikers are the worst of the worst. I would not mind them if they would get their own god damn ****ing trails, but no, they want to horn in on hiking trails. Death is too good for them. I would like to see them drawn and quartered like in the good days of the Middle Ages How else would you ever get through to their addled brains. Yea, torture is the solution!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] November 27th 14 08:49 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
they hate your guts!


I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so

you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.

I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you
would be a dead man.


Ed, you are quite simply wrong. These are areas of which I have personal experience and you have none. You're simply projecting your own monomania and obsessions onto others who don't share them. Everyone in these areas understands that the land is a public resource and it has to be shared.

The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area

ethic
compared to the National Park one.


I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that there is

nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking. So your
statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their mission
statement.

I have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence
that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You
are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is
sensible.


Your premise was a little different this time though wasn't it ? You stated that the land managers were not upholding their 'lawful missions'. I've disproved that by reference to their actual lawful mission.

What you really want is for the land managers to go beyond their 'lawful missions' and prefer your activity over all others. You are not trying to get them to follow what they are legally tasked to do ... you want them to do something outside that to suit yourself.

I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which

therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.

I don't give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion.
What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a
pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at
issue here?


When are you going to get up to speed on the fact that your 'pilgrimage' has no special status above others sport and recreation ? You are still eroding and impacting the natural environment simply for the purposes of your recreation.

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who

ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads

regardless of your nutty
ideas.


I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of

mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been, in the last
five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There has been
1 off road ... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.

I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that
the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily
get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day
when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean
the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor
vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport.
Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But
cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.


Your last statement is not a consequence of anything that you wrote beforehand. Given that trail cycling is an order of magnitude safer than cycling on the road, which you concede is true, it is a perfectly valid answer to keeping ones children safer.

Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.


More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe". What

total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is being
lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/drive...s-6753301.html

You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you

?

Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways,
especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how
bad the streets are in the UK.


Ed Ed Ed. Take a moment BEFORE you spout more nonsense. If you consider the attached report you will note that high speed highways (we call them motorways in the UK) are actually the safest roads in the country. A moment's consideration would lead you to conclude this anyway; all traffic is moving in the same direction and at a similar speed and there is minimal interaction with other road users. (https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013)

You are, yet again, probably wrong in your assertion. When are you going to learn ???

People ... doing what! You make no sense
whatever.


You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the

trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use and
ownership are not the same.

It never matters who "owns" anything. In the end it is the
practitioners and the customers who "own". Indeed, use and ownership are not the
same thing.


Did you actually have a point to make ? You appear to be going in a circle and contradicting yourself.

Blackblade[_2_] November 27th 14 08:53 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
What "real research" would that be?

Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure

things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed
publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman [Mr. Vandeman, Ph.D.] who
simply trawl the web and spout drivel.

You are one of the most pitiful human beings in the entire
universe. You believe in research! All research is driven by a point of
view. I see it every day on my cable TV channels. You must be an idiot to trust
to it.


Ah, so you PREFER trawling the web and spouting nonsense. Well, at least we're clear as to the status of your claims.

Let's face it, mountain bikers are the worst of the worst. I
would not mind them if they would get their own god damn ****ing trails, but no,
they want to horn in on hiking trails. Death is too good for them. I would like
to see them drawn and quartered like in the good days of the Middle Ages
How else would you ever get through to their addled brains. Yea, torture is the
solution!


Go take your medication and lie down ... you're frothing again !


EdwardDolan December 4th 15 09:29 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
they hate your guts!


I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so

you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.

I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you
would be a dead man.


Ed, you are quite simply wrong. These are areas of which I have personal experience and you have none. You're simply projecting your own monomania and obsessions onto others who don't share them. Everyone in these areas understands that the land is a public resource and it has to be shared.


Nothing HAS to be shared except by common agreement (a political process) of how the public resource is to be used by particular groups or individuals. Regulation and its enforcement is the essence of a civilized society..

The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area

ethic
compared to the National Park one.


I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that there is

nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking. So your
statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their mission
statement.

I have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence
that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You
are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is
sensible.


Your premise was a little different this time though wasn't it ? You stated that the land managers were not upholding their 'lawful missions'. I've disproved that by reference to their actual lawful mission.


It is their mission that is being contested. It needs to be changed for the better. No bikes on hiking trails. A total no brainer!

What you really want is for the land managers to go beyond their 'lawful missions' and prefer your activity over all others. You are not trying to get them to follow what they are legally tasked to do ... you want them to do something outside that to suit yourself.


I want them to do what is common sense. They need to be educated just like you need to be educated. The way things are now, we have got morons in charge of the situation and morons like you doing what they should not be doing.

I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which

therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.

I don't give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion.
What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a
pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at
issue here?


When are you going to get up to speed on the fact that your 'pilgrimage' has no special status above others sport and recreation ? You are still eroding and impacting the natural environment simply for the purposes of your recreation.


My ‘pilgrimage’ is the purpose for which hiking trails were built and maintained in the entire past century. Hiking trails in fact do have a special status by virtue of their purpose. They were never meant to be lanes for an insane machine sport by morons like you. Get your own trails which will be special constructions designed with the bicycle in mind. Maybe if that were the case, not so many of you dodos would be injuring and killing yourselves.

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who

ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads

regardless of your nutty
ideas.


I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of

mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been, in the last
five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There has been
1 off road ... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.

I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that
the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily
get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day
when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean
the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor
vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport.
Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But
cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.


Your last statement is not a consequence of anything that you wrote beforehand. Given that trail cycling is an order of magnitude safer than cycling on the road, which you concede is true, it is a perfectly valid answer to keeping ones children safer.


The only advantage to biking on a hiking trail is that you are not going to get hit by a motor vehicle. Other than that, it remains extremely dangerous and not something that any child should be doing. The best place for children to ride a bike is on a bicycle path. They most definitely should not be riding in the street.

Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.


More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe". What

total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is being
lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/drive...s-6753301.html

You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you

?

Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways,
especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how
bad the streets are in the UK.


Ed Ed Ed. Take a moment BEFORE you spout more nonsense. If you consider the attached report you will note that high speed highways (we call them motorways in the UK) are actually the safest roads in the country. A moment's consideration would lead you to conclude this anyway; all traffic is moving in the same direction and at a similar speed and there is minimal interaction with other road users. (https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013)


It doesn't matter in the slightest what direction traffic is moving if you are on a bicycle. If it is moving fast and it hits you, you are dead as a mackerel. Residential streets are orders of magnitude safer than high speed highways when it comes to cycling.

You are, yet again, probably wrong in your assertion. When are you going to learn ???


One thing is for sure, you are never going to learn much of anything because you lack common sense. High speed highways safer for cyclists than residential streets? Give me a break!

People ... doing what! You make no sense
whatever.


You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the

trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use and
ownership are not the same.

It never matters who "owns" anything. In the end it is the
practitioners and the customers who "own". Indeed, use and ownership are not the
same thing.


Did you actually have a point to make ? You appear to be going in a circle and contradicting yourself.


It doesn't matter who owns what if it is to serve a public purpose. What matters is what the governing authority has decided how it is to be used.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great
Minnesota – Land of 10,000 Taxes



[email protected] June 6th 16 09:52 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 11:27:16 PM UTC-7, Edward Dolan wrote:
Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of
nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!

*http://www.earthisland.org/journal/i...ticket_to_ride


Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness


by George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist
and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He has
personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.

I just got
back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my mountain
bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling without
the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously logged
forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or other
special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain biking.


The key words here are “appropriate location.”

That is the same
qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
“thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when driving in
snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s appropriate to
drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike can
climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.

Although I can’t speak
for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and the
sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In other
words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my cycling
experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my biking
experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary conflict
between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.

This is not to
say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to the
beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to observe
nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would agree. When
careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail in
front of us, not the natural world around us.

Our wildlands are not
outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness
designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe
natural systems.

It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime rationale for
wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational uses
or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated clearly:
“Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.” In an
essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to establish
among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to know
the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to
sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
responsibility.”

I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should not be
permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that are
strong candidates for wilderness designation.

Legal. The
Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are deemed
acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph, is
“to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement
and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the
United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation
and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of that
growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike technology
reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those walking
or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.

Ecological.
Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than a pack
of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The cumulative
effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in streams,
and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more damage
than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only increase
impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild nature, not
to preserve recreational opportunity.

Sociological. Any
mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike – shrinks
the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily surpassed by
those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other users. On
heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the experience for
other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in the
natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of the way
of a bike.

Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence..” The more
advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our alienation
from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in quiet
contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no different
to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine Chapel
or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many mountain
bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one reason
why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
disrespectful.

For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to protect
self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological gadgets
available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and self-restraint
that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.

*

*

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by
hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like
everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when
they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to
mountain biking!

*

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”

~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),

from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

*

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

*

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

*

Ed Dolan the Great

aka

Saint Edward the Great


Sorry but in that manner equestrians are riding "thrillcraft" There is NO DAMAGE that is done to national Wilderness areas greater than the hiker/camper.

Just because you've found someone that agrees with your twisted viewpoint doesn't mean that it is any better focused than yours.

[email protected] June 6th 16 09:57 PM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
"Bog of a brain"???

I really suggest you NEVER make the slightest attempt to purposely impede my progress on any public trail or you will in quite short order learn who has a bog of a brain. Where I come from people do not try to boss others around. At least not more than once.

EdwardDolan June 7th 16 12:50 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
wrote in message ...

"Bog of a brain"???


When the hell are you going to learn how to post to this group? Who said what when? Why isn’t your moniker somewhere on this post instead of a lot of idiot numbers? Get a brain why don’t you!

I really suggest you NEVER make the slightest attempt to purposely impede my progress on any public trail or you will in quite short order learn who has a bog of a brain. Where I come from people do not try to boss others around. At least not more than once.


Hikers always have the right of way on any trail. Equestrians come first of course, and mountain bikers last. If there are equestrians and hikers on the trail, you will indeed be impeded. Get your own god damn trails why don’t you?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

EdwardDolan June 7th 16 01:18 AM

Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
 
wrote in message ...
[...]

Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness


by George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist
and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He has
personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.

I just got
back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my mountain
bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling without
the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously logged
forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or other
special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain biking.


Are these the sort of lands that hikers would find attractive? If not, who cares about bikes being ridden there.


The key words here are “appropriate location.”

That is the same
qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
“thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when driving in
snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s appropriate to
drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike can
climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.


Four-wheel drive vehicles are an even greater menace to nature than mountain bikes, but as long as driven on roads however primitive, who cares!

Although I can’t speak
for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and the
sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In other
words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my cycling
experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my biking
experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary conflict
between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.

This is not to
say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to the
beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to observe
nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would agree. When
careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail in
front of us, not the natural world around us.


Mountain biking on single track trails is a sport, not any kind of communion with nature. It is why bikers and hikers cannot share trails.


Our wildlands are not
outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness
designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe
natural systems.

It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime rationale for
wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational uses
or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated clearly:
“Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.” In an
essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to establish
among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to know
the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to
sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
responsibility.”

I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should not be
permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that are
strong candidates for wilderness designation.

Legal. The
Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are deemed
acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph, is
“to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement
and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the
United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation
and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of that
growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike technology
reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those walking
or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.

Ecological.
Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than a pack
of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The cumulative
effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in streams,
and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more damage
than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only increase
impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild nature, not
to preserve recreational opportunity.

Sociological. Any
mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike – shrinks
the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily surpassed by
those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other users. On
heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the experience for
other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in the
natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of the way
of a bike.

Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The more
advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our alienation
from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in quiet
contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no different
to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine Chapel
or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many mountain
bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one reason
why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
disrespectful.

For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to protect
self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological gadgets
available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and self-restraint
that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.

[...]

Sorry but in that manner equestrians are riding "thrillcraft" There is NO DAMAGE that is done to national Wilderness areas greater than the hiker/camper.


Sorry, but you are an idiot! Hiking has the least impact of any human activity. Camping does have to be regulated as it can damage the natural resource.

Just because you've found someone that agrees with your twisted viewpoint doesn't mean that it is any better focused than yours.


There are thousands of great writers and thinkers who have come to the same conclusion. It is the reason for wilderness areas being set aside to begin with. You and your g.d. mechanical contrivances are despoilers of wilderness. Short of executing you for your sacrilege, I would put you in prison for 20 years. That would keep you out of mischief.

I suggest you read the above article a few hundred times until it sinks into your thick skull.

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36 PM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com