Mike Vandeman & Ed Dolan
In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...
On Apr 17, 8:28=A0pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article =
Mike Vandeman says...
On Apr 15, 7:15=3DA0pm, Bruce Jensen wrote:
On Apr 15, 6:57=3DA0pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
Mr. Vandeman is a prophet and a seer. He knows more about the del=
effects of mountain biking on trails and hiking than any other ma=
Yea, he is Jesus Christ and all I am is his John the Baptist.
Good luck with that one, Ed.
I, p[ersonally, have shown Mike to be full of s---. on more than o=
Facts are that with all of the supposed damage he cites, trails ha=
on the ground for a very long time, and the "damage" is limited to=
small percentage of the trail system. Even IF Mike was correct tha=
of the trail system was an environmental wasteland, his efforts wo=
less than one half of one tenth of one percent of the environment.=
problems is, 100% of the trail system is nowhere near being classi=
an environmental wasteland, so his efforts will save considerably =
than one half of one tenth of one percent. Hardly a noble endeavor=
if one thinks that the environment needs an advocate.
Let me ask you a very direct question. Do you want to put up with mo=
bikers when you are hiking on a trail in the wilderness?
I will have to smooth his way. He is a genius and all the rest of=
He is not a genius, and YOU are an idiot.
Mr. Vandeman is extremely knowledgeable and is an expert in his fiel=
he is a crusader, but so what? We can't all be lazy slobs like you a=
Do you want a world paved over? No,
But Mike is not advocatint against paving over the world, he's onl=
advocating that mountain bikes remain on the pavement that already=
Mr. Vandeman is an extremist like all true prophets, but I expect yo=
allow him this. His heart is in the right place and yours seems not =
then you will have to attend to
the words of the prophet. Yea, he is extreme, but let not that di=
you. I will throw things into proper perspective because I am an =
just like you are.
We do not want mountain bikes on hiking trails.
Ironically, I agree with this point, I don't want bikes on hiking =
either. But Mike advocates that bikes not be allowed on ANY trails=
No, I disagree with him on this. Mountain bikes are perfectly accept=
ANY kind of road that is not part of a natural area or wilderness. B=
I like about Mr. Vandeman is that he does not want any more roads an=
Do we not already have enough ****ing roads?
Mike wants to cover the landscape with No Entry signs, he does not=
how one enters, he wants you to remain out. He believes in the dee=
part of his soul that Public Lands should be off limits to all.
Well, Public Lands should always be available to those who can hike =
out. But I also do not like any kind of motor vehicles being able to=
public lands. Jeff, think about it for a moment, there is not that m=
public land left. Our pioneer forefathers literally raped all there =
A wilderness is a priceless resource. It will renew your soul when a=
fails. It is our connection to Mother Earth and, indeed, to the univ=
sometimes wish there was no such thing as a motor vehicle.
The fact remains that Mr. Vandeman is on the side of the angels and =
why I will support him no matter what.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Just one philosophical thought - Mike has had, as his signature, the
suggestion that some places should not permit people, just because.
Period. =3DA0As though people are somehow not part of nature, or that
people somehow do not need nature.
I am all for limiting access where critically endangered species are
located or where habitat can be damaged - but really, is there a
reason to keep folks away from the places they love and depend on for
I seriously part ways with him on this one.
Bruce- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You seriously misunderstand what I said. I can only judge that to be
deliberate, unless yoiu will admit to being stupid or incapable of
reading. (1) Humans are native only to part of Africa, and everywhere
else are an invasive exotic.
Bison bison are native only to a part of North America,
and everywhere else are an invasive exotic. Is that correct?
If not, why not?
Where else do they exist? "The American Bison (Bison bison) is a North
American species of bison": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison.
Perhaps I didn't make my questions clear. You stated that "Humans are native
only to part of Africa, and everywhere else are an invasive exotic".
Apparently, you are asserting that even though humans evolved in Africa, the
only part of Africa in which they are "native", is the part in which they
Well, the American Bison evolved in North America; but, obviously in only a part
of it. So, by you're assertion, they are "native" only to that part of North
America in which they evolved; and in the rest of the half million to million
square miles of North American into which they radiated, they are an
Is that correct? If not, why not?
I am trying to understand your view as to what's a native species and what's an
invasive exotic sepecies in practical terms.
|All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.