| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
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. The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and reread the above until it sinks into their thick heads. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: 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 doesnt mean I feel its appropriate to drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike can climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesnt mean I think its appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it. Although I cant 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 Acts 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 its 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 ones 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. The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and reread the above until it sinks into their thick heads. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota Utter bull**** and even the writer didn't agree with that in reality. "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." You prance around there in your special hiking boots, with your water proof coat and you even have your carbon fiber Trekking Pole, which apparently you aren't even capable of selecting as I came across a site offering "expert advice" in selecting a trekking pole. So there you stand in your special "trekking gear" rabbeting on about "primeval character". If you were really intent in truly enjoying the "primeval character" then why all the fancy clothes? Whouldn't you be out there in your jock strap? After all "primeval" actually means "having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state". You say "quiet contemplation" but in fact you are making so much noise that every thing actually native to your "wilderness" has fled in terror of the big, noisy, bad smelling, creature. And, what about all those man made shelters and those so called hiking trails that you are so jealous of? They aren't "primeval". Shouldn't you be sleeping on the ground? In short, you are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them. Dolan - Great? Nope, Dolan the kindergarten kid. -- Alvin D. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and reread the above until it sinks into their thick heads. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota Utter bull**** and even the writer didn't agree with that in reality. Obviously you don’t know how to read. "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." You prance around there in your special hiking boots, with your water proof coat and you even have your carbon fiber Trekking Pole, which apparently you aren't even capable of selecting as I came across a site offering "expert advice" in selecting a trekking pole. So you don’t like hikers. What else is new in the biker world? So there you stand in your special "trekking gear" rabbeting on about "primeval character". If you were really intent in truly enjoying the "primeval character" then why all the fancy clothes? Whouldn't you be out there in your jock strap? After all "primeval" actually means "having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state". I can clearly see that you don’t have a brain either. Apparently the world “primeval” was just too much for you. You say "quiet contemplation" but in fact you are making so much noise that every thing actually native to your "wilderness" has fled in terror of the big, noisy, bad smelling, creature. “So you don’t like hikers. What else is new in the biker world?” – Ed Dolan And, what about all those man made shelters and those so called hiking trails that you are so jealous of? They aren't "primeval". Shouldn't you be sleeping on the ground? I can see that the word “primeval” has thrown you for a loop. In short, you are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them. In short, it is not much of a pleasure for me to dispose of an idiot like you. Dolan - Great? Nope, Dolan the kindergarten kid. The only kid here is yourself. Try to post something sensible with some substance the next time around and maybe I will give you the time of day. Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
Alvin D. wrote:
In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them. Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too! Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all descriptions waiting for you. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: Alvin D. wrote: In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them. Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness and for free too! Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest primeval" as you term it? After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers" won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so scared. I see articles like "Appalachian Trail Shelter" telling the intrepid "trekker" that "shelters sometimes have a sloping ceiling inside and it's very easy to bang your head against one of the shelter cross beams unless you are careful", or "11 things I wished I'd known before hiking the Appalachian Trail". Really great advice like, "A popular tradition of Appalachian Trail culture is to give thoughtful nicknames to your co-hikers, such as MonkeyButt, Golden Shower, or DangerPants. If you point your headlamp down while you pee in the dark, you'll be called "flash". Or Diaper cream will save your ass. This is really great advice, "Chafing is less of a problem for people with slender builds, but for most people, and especially for women, it's a common problem in hiking. You can laugh now, but when you feel the forgiving kiss of Destiny on that burning monkey butt" Jesus H. Christ, you "trekkers" are so fat that your legs rub together and you get "chafed". Oh you poooor dears. So dainty. Back in the '50's there was a beer brewed by the "Griesedieck Bros Beer Company" and aptly called Griesedieck Beer, and now we have the greasy dick hikers. It appears that rather than the Intrepid Trekker (visions of Lewis and Clark) you are actually fat slothful people, with your arse liberally anointed with Vaseline, who can't find your way across the room without a "trail marker", and who worry about bumping your head because the ceiling is so low. It is hard to admit that the country has sunk so low. Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all descriptions waiting for you. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. Whats the matter? Cant walk? Trails are, apparently, for people with grease on their arse. Ed Dolan the Great Minnesota More likely, "Lard arse Boy Dolan with the greasy butt" -- Alvin D. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on trail It isn't Wilderness if it has trails. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16
wrote: On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on trail It isn't Wilderness if it has trails. No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes and other blood sucking critters, and not much else. -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: Alvin D. wrote: In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them. Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too! Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest primeval" as you term it? They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson! After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers" won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so scared. It is primeval enough by the standards of today. Anyone who is walking in a wilderness setting is roughing it no matter how many conveniences he is carrying. In any event, such a walker is in no way impacting the wilderness except in the most minor ways. I see articles like "Appalachian Trail Shelter" telling the intrepid "trekker" that "shelters sometimes have a sloping ceiling inside and it's very easy to bang your head against one of the shelter cross beams unless you are careful", or "11 things I wished I'd known before hiking the Appalachian Trail". Really great advice like, "A popular tradition of Appalachian Trail culture is to give thoughtful nicknames to your co-hikers, such as MonkeyButt, Golden Shower, or DangerPants. If you point your headlamp down while you pee in the dark, you'll be called "flash". Or Diaper cream will save your ass. This is really great advice, "Chafing is less of a problem for people with slender builds, but for most people, and especially for women, it's a common problem in hiking. You can laugh now, but when you feel the forgiving kiss of Destiny on that burning monkey butt" Any point you may be trying to make escapes me. What does it matter to you how some hikers see themselves? Jesus H. Christ, you "trekkers" are so fat that your legs rub together and you get "chafed". Oh you poooor dears. So dainty. Back in the '50's there was a beer brewed by the "Griesedieck Bros Beer Company" and aptly called Griesedieck Beer, and now we have the greasy dick hikers. It appears that rather than the Intrepid Trekker (visions of Lewis and Clark) you are actually fat slothful people, with your arse liberally anointed with Vaseline, who can't find your way across the room without a "trail marker", and who worry about bumping your head because the ceiling is so low. It is hard to admit that the country has sunk so low. “Any point you may be trying to make escapes me. What does it matter to you how some hikers see themselves?” – Ed Dolan Trails are, apparently, for people with grease on their arse. What an Asshole you are! Everything you've applied to hikers can be applied to bikers in spades, in fact to just about anyone. Your remarks are as pointless as you are. Either make a relevant point or get lost! Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all descriptions waiting for you. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"news16" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a] trail [are *******s pure and simple.] It isn't Wilderness if it has trails. Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region. But read the Wilderness Act. There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking, not for slobs on bikes like you trying to ride a course. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16 wrote: [...] It isn't Wilderness if it has trails. No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes and other blood sucking critters, and not much else. My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you. By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike outs. Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: Alvin D. wrote: In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them. Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness and for free too! Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest primeval" as you term it? They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson! After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers" won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so scared. It is primeval enough by the standards of today. Anyone who is walking in a wilderness setting is roughing it no matter how many conveniences he is carrying. In any event, such a walker is in no way impacting the wilderness except in the most minor ways. I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had ever existed there. When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite obviously, you know nothing about. But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound logical and important. What an Asshole you are! Everything you've applied to hikers can be applied to bikers in spades, in fact to just about anyone. Your remarks are as pointless as you are. Either make a relevant point or get lost! Of course. When one talks with a fool one must use foolish language else how will he understand you. But, as I mentioned previously the valid point is that you are attempting to hug government built and maintained areas intended for the entire population to your skinny little chest in order to prevent others from using them In short a small and insignificant individual trying to clasp all the toys in the toy box to his pathetic little chest and shouting, "They are Mine! All Mine! You can't play with them!" Has the U.S. actually sunk so low that a greedy little fellow like you is now its spokesman? Pathetic. -- Alvin D. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16 wrote: [...] It isn't Wilderness if it has trails. No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes and other blood sucking critters, and not much else. My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you. Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias where it seemed that no one have ever been before. But I agree with you about conveniences being acceptable. Like a mountain bike, or two. By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike outs. Not really, I would better say, allied in opposition of a greedy little boy who wants to keep all the toys for himself. As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let you." Over and over and over again. Dolan the greedy not Dolan the great. -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson! Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor vehicles, so a bicycle allows my to get beyond those people. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:59:21 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
"news16" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a] trail [are *******s pure and simple.] It isn't Wilderness if it has trails. Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region. Many of which don't have headroom over 2' do much crawling out there. But read the Wilderness Act. Lol, US law doesn't apply. There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking, Nope. It doesn't say that at all. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
wrote in message ...
[...] I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had ever existed there. When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite obviously, you know nothing about. But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound logical and important. I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything “primeval”. I am only interest in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse. [...] But, as I mentioned previously the valid point is that you are attempting to hug government built and maintained areas intended for the entire population to your skinny little chest in order to prevent others from using them. Areas set aside as wilderness were intended to be used by the entire population in only a few ways - either by horse back or by walking. You are supremely ignorant of why wilderness was set aside Either get educated or get lost! In short a small and insignificant individual trying to clasp all the toys in the toy box to his pathetic little chest and shouting, "They are Mine! All Mine! You can't play with them!" Has the U.S. actually sunk so low that a greedy little fellow like you is now its spokesman? The only “little fellow” in this mostly asinine discussion is yourself. But like all mountain bikers, you remain as ignorant about what wilderness is for as a new born babe. But unlike the new born babe, your ignorance is culpable. I would punish you for your transgressions against good sense and common decency by a horse whipping to your backside and a kick in your dumb ass to boot. Trying to reason with a fool like you about anything is futile because your ignorance is unconquerable. Pathetic. Who gives a good god damn about your “primeval” crap. You must be crazy. Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"news16" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson! Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people. That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers. Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way to get at them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable penalties would soon bring your transgressions to an end. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you. Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias where it seemed that no one have ever been before. There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible. But I agree with you about conveniences being acceptable. Like a mountain bike, or two. Even a single mountain bike is unacceptable. You obviously do not have a clue about what wilderness is for. By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike outs. Not really, I would better say, allied in opposition of a greedy little boy who wants to keep all the toys for himself. I have the justification for my position. What do you have on your side except criminal mountain bikers who want to do what they want to do – just because! **** the lot of you! As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let you." Over and over and over again. There are a thousand posts of mine on this newsgroup which will explain to you what are the reasons for hikers only on trails. But of course, like all your kind, you are too lazy to ever do any reading of others. Dolan the greedy not Dolan the great. **** you too – Asshole! ****ing Regards, Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"news16" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:59:21 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a] trail [are *******s pure and simple.] It isn't Wilderness if it has trails. Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region. Many of which don't have headroom over 2' do much crawling out there. A trail is a trail is a trail ... But read the Wilderness Act. Lol, US law doesn't apply. Why the hell not? There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking, Nope. It doesn't say that at all. But you are too god damn ****ing stupid to tell us what it does say - aren't you? ****ing Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message
... [...] As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let you." Over and over and over again. Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be limited to walkers. Here it is again for your mindless brain. Maybe you could post a similar essay as to why mountain biking is appropriate for wilderness instead of carrying on like a cry baby. 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. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
"news16" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson! Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people. That would not have been true 30 or 40 years Totally true as that was when I started bush biking. ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. LKol, you admit that you have no idea. Armchair ****** award for you. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers. Lol, you admit that trails are not only for walkers. Thank you. Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way to get at them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable penalties would soon bring your transgressions to an end. Ask yourself why do smart police forces everywhere have bicycle teams. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:35:11 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "news16" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:59:21 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a] trail [are *******s pure and simple.] It isn't Wilderness if it has trails. Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region. Many of which don't have headroom over 2' do much crawling out there. A trail is a trail is a trail ... But read the Wilderness Act. Lol, US law doesn't apply. Why the hell not? There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking, Nope. It doesn't say that at all. But you are too god damn ****ing stupid to tell us what it does say - aren't you? ****ing Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota But Dol, if I remember correctly, it was you, the abominable Dolan, that originated discussion of the Wilderness Act, and now you are asking "what it does say"? Good Lord Man! You seemed so intent on proving your point by shouting "Wilderness Act, Wilderness Act" and now we discover that you need someone to tell you what it means? Dolan the unlettered -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:57:50 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: wrote in message ... [...] I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had ever existed there. When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite obviously, you know nothing about. But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound logical and important. I have never used the word primeval in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything primeval. I am only interest in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse. [...] WEll, I should hope not. After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state". But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then. And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign posts to tell you where you are. It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it. But Dolie, the word "wilderness" actually means "a wild and uninhabited area left in its natural condition", not a place with all the amenities , and some trees. -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "news16" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson! Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people. That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers. But Dolie, you previously talked about "trails made by animals". Were those "intended for use only by equestrians and hikers"? I'll bet that they weren't as I suspect that those animals could care less about any equestrians and I'm sure that they would have run if a "hiker" had appeared on the scene. Dolan the ambiguous -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:27:51 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you. Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias where it seemed that no one have ever been before. There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible. Sorry Dolie, but what was called "Iran Jaya" and is now referred to as "West Papua" has been claimed as a part of Indonesia since 1945. With an area of 420,540 square kilometers and an estimated population of 877,437 and it is the least populous province of Indonesia except for the newly created province of North Kalimantan. West Papua has a population density of some 3.1 per square mile. Compared to 66.6/sq. mile in your home state. So, once again, the detestable Dolan exhibits his ignorance for all to see. -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:58:15 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message .. . [...] As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let you." Over and over and over again. Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be limited to walkers. But Dolly, when your "very good arguments" are analyzed they appear to be, basically, "Dolan knows everything". And in some indescribable manner, "Dolan is the appointed spokesman." Tell us Dolly, how did you get to be the spokesman for government owned areas of the U.S.? Was there an election? I mean, while I don't watch Washington going on's with an eagle eye, I never saw any announcement of your appointment. Or you some self anointed spokesman. Elected by a majority of one, to dictate what should and should not be done on the approximately 635,600,000 acres of Federal Property? What is next? The bent cross arm bands and "sieg heil, sieg heil" with the arm in the air? Do we address you as "Great Leader"? Are the camps being built even now? Dolan, face reality, you are mentally just a tiny, little, boy guarding your toy box and loudly proclaiming "You can't play with my toys!" And to make matters even more ridiculous, they aren't your toys. -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"news16" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: [...] Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way to get at them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable penalties would soon bring your transgressions to an end. Ask yourself why do smart police forces everywhere have bicycle teams. Some few police forces do have bicycle teams, but they do not ride on trails for hikers. They ride on city streets. You seem not to be able to stay focused on what is being discussed, but rather your mind wonders like a child’s mind. I will cut you when you get off the subject since I am an expert editor. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:57:50 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything “primeval”. I am only interested in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse. [...] WEll, I should hope not. After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state". No one cares about that. But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then. It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding. And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign posts to tell you where you are. God Damn! So you can read! It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it. Nope, it is “minimally modified by man”. God Damn! You can’t read after all! But Dolie, the word "wilderness" actually means "a wild and uninhabited area left in its natural condition", not a place with all the amenities , and some trees. It doesn't mean that at all. I just means “minimally modified by man”. God Damn! I wish you could read! Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: "news16" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote: They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson! Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people. That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers. But Dolie, you previously talked about "trails made by animals". Were those "intended for use only by equestrians and hikers"? The Asshole previous to you was saying that a wildness has no trails, but every patch of land on earth has trails, except maybe Antarctica. Trails for equestrians and hikers are mostly man made, but such trails are there for the purpose of allowing humans access to wilderness. It is why wilderness areas were created in the first place. I'll bet that they weren't as I suspect that those animals could care less about any equestrians and I'm sure that they would have run if a "hiker" had appeared on the scene. Who knows what animals think? Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:27:51 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you. Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias where it seemed that no one have ever been before. There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible. Sorry Dolie, but what was called "Iran Jaya" and is now referred to as "West Papua" has been claimed as a part of Indonesia since 1945. With an area of 420,540 square kilometers and an estimated population of 877,437 and it is the least populous province of Indonesia except for the newly created province of North Kalimantan. West Papua has a population density of some 3.1 per square mile. Compared to 66.6/sq. mile in your home state. So what! There is no patch of land anywhere in Indonesia which has not been visited by man. How did someone as stupid as you ever get posted to Indonesia? Next you will telling me that that there are areas of Australia which have never seen the footprints of man! So, once again, the detestable Dolan exhibits his ignorance for all to see. The only ignorant Asshole here is yourself. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:58:15 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: "John B." wrote in message .. . [...] As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let you." Over and over and over again. Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be limited to walkers. But Dolly, when your "very good arguments" are analyzed they appear to be, basically, "Dolan knows everything". And in some indescribable manner, "Dolan is the appointed spokesman." What does the above comment have to do with my arguments of trails for hikers only. There was nothing repetitive about the arguments presented in the article enclosed nor is there in my thousands of comments on this newsgroup. God Damn! Do you know anything at all about addressing an issue? Tell us Dolly, how did you get to be the spokesman for government owned areas of the U.S.? Was there an election? I mean, while I don't watch Washington going on's with an eagle eye, I never saw any announcement of your appointment. Irrelevant! Or you some self anointed spokesman. Elected by a majority of one, to dictate what should and should not be done on the approximately 635,600,000 acres of Federal Property? Irrelevant! What is next? The bent cross arm bands and "sieg heil, sieg heil" with the arm in the air? Do we address you as "Great Leader"? Are the camps being built even now? Irrelevant! Dolan, face reality, you are mentally just a tiny, little, boy guarding your toy box and loudly proclaiming "You can't play with my toys!" Irrelevant! And to make matters even more ridiculous, they aren't your toys. Irrelevant! I have not so far detected any argument for why bikes should be permitted on hiking trails. Instead of going on and on with irrelevancies, try to make a case for your side. I have more than made the case for my side. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
[...] But Dol, if I remember correctly, it was you, the abominable Dolan, that originated discussion of the Wilderness Act, and now you are asking "what it does say"? I know what it says, but I never spend time reinventing the wheel. If you want to know what it says, then read it – and then shut the **** up! Good Lord Man! You seemed so intent on proving your point by shouting "Wilderness Act, Wilderness Act" and now we discover that you need someone to tell you what it means? One thing for sure, I take pride in being the laziest man in the world and I will never do any one else’s research. If you want to know what it says, then read it – and then shut the **** up! Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 22:47:00 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:57:50 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] I have never used the word primeval in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything primeval. I am only interested in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse. [...] WEll, I should hope not. After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state". No one cares about that. I see. I guess I didn't know that. But if you don't care about whether a place is "primeval" why are you jabbering about "the woods, the woods", why not just go down to the park and read a newspaper. But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then. It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding. And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign posts to tell you where you are. God Damn! So you can read! It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it. Nope, it is minimally modified by man. God Damn! You cant read after all! Ha! "Minimally". That is the word. You mean all the man made trails with the steps so you can climb the hills and the bridges so you don't have to get your itty bitty feet wet and the sign posts so you won't loose your way and the running water and the cute little cabins (watch out you might bump your head). What is next air conditioning? When I first came across your posts I though that when you talked about "trekking" you were talking about wrapping your gear in a tarpaulin and throwing it up on your shoulders and hiking out through the forest, but that isn't what you now say at all. Now, it appears the truth is emerging and what you want is someone to build the trails and the stairs and the bridges and survey and place markers and sign posts so you won't get lost and build those dear little Adirondack shelters so you won't have to sleep out in the Great Outdoors (that you love so much). God Lord, what is next" WiFi? You are a fake Dolan. You don't want to go out in the outdoors, you want some sort of pseudo wilderness with all the amenities installed so you can make believe that you are a real he man, out there with Lewis and Clark, blazing the way west. But with running water, flush toilets and a warm place to sleep. And than after the government builds it you want every one else to stay out. What a phony. Dolan the Great indeed. -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:19:36 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:58:15 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: "John B." wrote in message . .. [...] As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let you." Over and over and over again. Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be limited to walkers. But Dolly, when your "very good arguments" are analyzed they appear to be, basically, "Dolan knows everything". And in some indescribable manner, "Dolan is the appointed spokesman." What does the above comment have to do with my arguments of trails for hikers only. There was nothing repetitive about the arguments presented in the article enclosed nor is there in my thousands of comments on this newsgroup. God Damn! Do you know anything at all about addressing an issue? Tell us Dolly, how did you get to be the spokesman for government owned areas of the U.S.? Was there an election? I mean, while I don't watch Washington going on's with an eagle eye, I never saw any announcement of your appointment. Irrelevant! Or you some self anointed spokesman. Elected by a majority of one, to dictate what should and should not be done on the approximately 635,600,000 acres of Federal Property? Irrelevant! What is next? The bent cross arm bands and "sieg heil, sieg heil" with the arm in the air? Do we address you as "Great Leader"? Are the camps being built even now? Irrelevant! Dolan, face reality, you are mentally just a tiny, little, boy guarding your toy box and loudly proclaiming "You can't play with my toys!" Irrelevant! And to make matters even more ridiculous, they aren't your toys. Irrelevant! I have not so far detected any argument for why bikes should be permitted on hiking trails. Instead of going on and on with irrelevancies, try to make a case for your side. I have more than made the case for my side. There doesn't have to be any argument for bicycles on Federal Property, there does, however have to be an argument to ban them To date, we seem to have Dolan, not providing an argument or any reason except "I don't want them here", which is insufficient justification. So effectually, for all your ranting you have yet to provide any concrete argument, nor any real reason except, "I don't Want them Here!" Which, I hate to say, is insufficient evidence. -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
[...] After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state". Edward Dolan wrote: No one cares about that. I see. I guess I didn't know that. But if you don't care about whether a place is "primeval" why are you jabbering about "the woods, the woods", why not just go down to the park and read a newspaper. Wilderness need not be primeval. They are different words. Instead of quibbling about a word that doesn’t matter, why don’t you go **** yourself! But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then. It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding. And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign posts to tell you where you are. God Damn! So you can read! It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it. Nope, it is “minimally modified by man”. God Damn! You can’t read after all! Ha! "Minimally". That is the word. You mean all the man made trails with the steps so you can climb the hills and the bridges so you don't have to get your itty bitty feet wet and the sign posts so you won't loose your way and the running water and the cute little cabins (watch out you might bump your head). What is next air conditioning? Gold Damn! Maybe you can read after all! When I first came across your posts I though that when you talked about "trekking" you were talking about wrapping your gear in a tarpaulin and throwing it up on your shoulders and hiking out through the forest, but that isn't what you now say at all. Trekking is just a fancy word for a walk in a natural landscape on a trail where there are only going to be other walkers. It could be in Central Park or in Appalachia or in the Himalayas as far as that goes. Instead of quibbling about a word that doesn’t matter, why don’t you go **** yourself! Now, it appears the truth is emerging and what you want is someone to build the trails and the stairs and the bridges and survey and place markers and sign posts so you won't get lost and build those dear little Adirondack shelters so you won't have to sleep out in the Great Outdoors (that you love so much). God Lord, what is next" WiFi? A trail is a trail is a trail ... Instead of quibbling about a word that doesn’t matter, why don’t you go **** yourself! You are a fake Dolan. You don't want to go out in the outdoors, you want some sort of pseudo wilderness with all the amenities installed so you can make believe that you are a real he man, out there with Lewis and Clark, blazing the way west. But with running water, flush toilets and a warm place to sleep. I guess you must be talking about yourself since I don’t recognize any hikers that would give a damn about what you are talking about, And than [then] after the government builds it you want every one else to stay out. Everyone can use what the government has built, provided they walk like everyone else. Bikers need to get their own trails. What a phony. The B. in your last name must stand for Bull****ter, because that is the sum total of what you are. By the way sophistry won’t work with me. I can spot it from a mile off. Now go **** yourself like the bad little boy that you are. Dolan the Great indeed. You needed to stay in West Papua where you could have consorted with your fellow aborigines until the end of time. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:19:36 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] When the hell are you going to learn how to edit a post? I have not so far detected any argument for why bikes should be permitted on hiking trails. Instead of going on and on with irrelevancies, try to make a case for your side. I have more than made the case for my side. There doesn't have to be any argument for bicycles on Federal Property, there does, however have to be an argument to ban them. Nonsense. Everything needs to be justified by argument. How else is anyone to know anything. To date, we seem to have Dolan, not providing an argument or any reason except "I don't want them here", which is insufficient justification. Now you are bull****ting again. Plenty of reasons have been given as to why trails should be for walkers only – and for why bikes should be banned. It is not my fault if you don’t know how to read. Moreover, I am not going to endlessly repeat myself on these threads on this newsgroup just for the purpose of educating a slob like you. So effectually, for all your ranting you have yet to provide any concrete argument, nor any real reason except, "I don't Want them Here!" It is all here on this newsgroup. Don’t be so lazy. Read, read, read! Which, I hate to say, is insufficient evidence. Only for those who refuse to know the truth. You must be a Democrat and are probably going to vote for Hillary, the most notorious fraud and phony ever to run for president. Frauds and phonies are just naturally attracted to one another. She lies about everything too, just like you do. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:41:48 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... [...] After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state". Edward Dolan wrote: No one cares about that. I see. I guess I didn't know that. But if you don't care about whether a place is "primeval" why are you jabbering about "the woods, the woods", why not just go down to the park and read a newspaper. Wilderness need not be primeval. They are different words. Instead of quibbling about a word that doesnt matter, why dont you go **** yourself! By gorry, one must be listen closely to a well reasoned argument. Fortunately that means that we can ignore Dolan's fevered muttering. But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then. It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding. And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign posts to tell you where you are. God Damn! So you can read! What was it someone said? Oh yes, "Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly. Do we call him "Dolan of the Feeble Brain" Or maybe "Dummy Dolan" for short? -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:04:03 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:19:36 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] When the hell are you going to learn how to edit a post? I have not so far detected any argument for why bikes should be permitted on hiking trails. Instead of going on and on with irrelevancies, try to make a case for your side. I have more than made the case for my side. There doesn't have to be any argument for bicycles on Federal Property, there does, however have to be an argument to ban them. Nonsense. Everything needs to be justified by argument. How else is anyone to know anything. To date, we seem to have Dolan, not providing an argument or any reason except "I don't want them here", which is insufficient justification. Now you are bull****ting again. Plenty of reasons have been given as to why trails should be for walkers only and for why bikes should be banned. It is not my fault if you dont know how to read. Moreover, I am not going to endlessly repeat myself on these threads on this newsgroup just for the purpose of educating a slob like you. So effectually, for all your ranting you have yet to provide any concrete argument, nor any real reason except, "I don't Want them Here!" It is all here on this newsgroup. Dont be so lazy. Read, read, read! Which, I hate to say, is insufficient evidence. Only for those who refuse to know the truth. You must be a Democrat and are probably going to vote for Hillary, the most notorious fraud and phony ever to run for president. Frauds and phonies are just naturally attracted to one another. She lies about everything too, just like you do. Ah, I was surprised to learn that hiking is a politically oriented, but Dolan seems to be saying that it is. Does that mean that only Republicans can enjoy the Forest Primeval with Dolan? And that the new Battle Cry is "Democrats and Bicycles Keep Out". But what about Independent voters? Can they creep in? Or maybe allowed only on Saturdays? Yet another logical and well though out argument from the (self appointed) spokesman of the entire hiking fraternity. The Great Dolan (from Minnesota) -- cheers, John B. |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:41:48 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] God Damn! So you can read! What was it someone said? Oh yes, "Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly. The problem is that you really can’t read. As for any profanity, I have only begun on you. Until you get on subject with reasonable argument I will treat you as you deserve to be treated. Any sophistry on your part will be especially severely repulsed. I have now got the measure of you and I will treat you like the scum that you are. Do we call him "Dolan of the Feeble Brain" Or maybe "Dummy Dolan" for short? The only dummy here is yourself. You have not made a single good argument about anything. All you have done is engaged in sissified name calling. You must be some kind of effeminate transgender freak. Now go **** yourself since I am sure that is the one thing you know how to do. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? ****ing Regards, Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:04:03 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] Only for those who refuse to know the truth. You must be a Democrat and are probably going to vote for Hillary, the most notorious fraud and phony ever to run for president. Frauds and phonies are just naturally attracted to one another. She lies about everything too, just like you do. Ah, I was surprised to learn that hiking is a politically oriented, but Dolan seems to be saying that it is. What I am saying is that you are a god damn ****ing jerk, just like Hillary is a jerk ... and just as are all mountain bikers. Does that mean that only Republicans can enjoy the Forest Primeval with Dolan? And that the new Battle Cry is "Democrats and Bicycles Keep Out". It means that you should keep out by all means. But what about Independent voters? Can they creep in? Or maybe allowed only on Saturdays? The only question here is what to do about ****heads like you? Yet another logical and well though out argument from the (self appointed) spokesman of the entire hiking fraternity. The Great Dolan (from Minnesota) This is what passes for wit from John Bull****! Now go vote for Hillary ... and **** yourself while you are at it. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? ****ing Regards, Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota |
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:03:02 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:41:48 -0500, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] God Damn! So you can read! What was it someone said? Oh yes, "Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly. The problem is that you really cant read. As for any profanity, I have only begun on you. Until you get on subject with reasonable argument I will treat you as you deserve to be treated. Any sophistry on your part will be especially severely repulsed. I have now got the measure of you and I will treat you like the scum that you are. Do we call him "Dolan of the Feeble Brain" Or maybe "Dummy Dolan" for short? The only dummy here is yourself. You have not made a single good argument about anything. All you have done is engaged in sissified name calling. You must be some kind of effeminate transgender freak. Now go **** yourself since I am sure that is the one thing you know how to do. Lovely! While it is always refreshing to talk to an educated and logical person, unfortunately that description doesn't seem to fit Dol Boy very well. He seems to be more into the curses and demands to "Stay out of my forests" as his main forte. Rather reminiscent of a little boy defiantly defending his toy box, "Keep away! They are mine! You can't play with them! Mine! Mine! Mine!". Is this really the best that Minnesota can produce? Pitiful. Dolan the Pitiful ( from Minnesota) -- cheers, John B. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com