Public parks are dedicated to public recreation ... that's their
purpose. The public pays for them and, quite rightly, expects to be
permitted reasonable access.

Public parks also stipulate who can do what where and under
what conditions. All kinds of rules and regulations govern public
parks.

Indeed. And the rules and regulations, quite correctly, permit mountainbiking in most locations.

I will respond in any way I think fit to your posts. If you
don't like it I think you can think of a suitable epithet to apply.

I will compare what you have posted in response to my
preceding post and you had better not be pulling single sentences out of my
paragraphs.

I reiterate, I reserve the right to respond in any way I deem fit.

All the great travel books have been written by lone travelers

(Paul Theroux). After all, they are traveling, not touring. Hells
Bells, you

can't even bike alone. Pathetic and pitiful!



What the hell does authoring books have to do with it !??



When I am recreating (hiking) I am usually a traveler far from
home. And I do it alone for the same reason that people who write travel books
also do their traveling alone. Having to travel or hike or bike with others is a
distraction from my purpose for doing what I am doing. If I want social
intercourse, there are other venues for that.

What is your point ? The fact that you like solitude is entirely immaterial as regards to what other people want to do !

Please, do tell me, WHY you think you are entitled to tell other
people how to enjoy themselves ? I'm not telling you what to do, but you
seem determined to dictate to everyone else how they use their public parks and
land.

Trails are there for walkers, not for bikers. Most developed
parks will have plenty of roads and bike paths for cycling. There is never any
reason why a bike should be on a hiking trail. If the park managers and
administrators had the brains they were born with, they would see to
it.

You didn't answer the question. WHY are you entitled to dictate how people should enjoy a public resource ?

The land mangers are not the experts on how the natural

environment and wilderness should be managed. I could give you a whole
list of

names of prominent wilderness conservationists who know best what the
natural

environment is for, but it would go right over your head.

Ed, you said let the experts decide and most of the land managers
have professional training and in some cases degrees pertinent to their
positions. So, clearly, they meet your requirements to have more expertise
than you or I.

You suggested an approach but, as ever, you simply can't
countenance others having differing views to you so now you want to pick the
experts. Laughable.

There is vast literature authored by men far wiser than you
and I who have devoted their lives to the preservation of wild places. Many of
these men were responsible for the original setting aside of these wild places.
They are the experts, not necessarily the administrators of such places. Of
course some administrators are better than others, but as a group they cannot be
relied upon to do what is best, either for the present or for future
generations. Even National Park administrators often want to develop the park
entrusted to their temporary care, never seeming to realize that their first
duty is simply preservation of what is already there. Most development is an
abomination. It is possible for man to even ruin something like the Grand Canyon
NP, impossible as that might seem. All you have to do is just keep chipping away
at it, like permitting mountain bikes on hiking trails.

Ed, again you are not addressing the point. The impartial managers who ARE managing the resources are simply not giving you exactly what you want. On that basis, and that basis alone, you think they should be replaced with others who you believe would agree with your position. The reality is that the reasonably objective managers currently in place are doing their best to share a limited resource fairly.

I claimed that accidents were inevitable, not necessarily

death. If you knew how to read, you would know that I am saying that
mountain

bikers are so god damn ****ing dumb that they do indeed manage to kill


themselves whereas if they weren't so god damn ****ing dumb they would
have to

work at it. But you do not know how to read.

I read what you actually write ... it appears you can't transcribe
what is in your head efficiently to text.

You wrote

"The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike
paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous." -
Ed Dolan

Memory going again Ed ?

Nope, but your ability to read has certainly gone. I am not
going to ever spell out everything for you. Either learn how to read or get
lost!

No, Ed, you DON'T get to redefine the English language to suit yourself. If you write something, I suggest you ensure that it's consistent with your position - it frequently isn't !

You're more than happy to throw out ridiculous assertions and, only when challenged, do you then say that wasn't what you meant. You wrote that mountainbikers would inevitably come to a bad end ... you then conceded that this wasn't the case and it was unlikely that they would die.

Your problem is that, when it comes to injuries and fatalities, that your fundamental premise ... that mountainbiking is extremely dangerous ... is provably false. It is safer than driving, rugby, skiing and many other activities. You can throw all the blather you wish at it but you can't change that fundamental truth.

If you care to rephrase as a coherent point then I'll respond ...
if you descend to playground name-calling I'm going to ignore you until you can
be civil.

Coherence is lost on someone like you who does not know how to
read. Anyone who would permit motorcycles on hiking trails is too god damn
stupid to even be acknowledged.

I reiterate .. make a coherent point, without profanity, and I'll respond ....

Oh, so you'd be happy to give up hiking would you Ed since
that

would preserve nature far better ?



We hikers take only pictures and leave only

footprints.

"A 1975 survey of land managers reported substantial erosion on
mountain trails during the previous decade that was attributed to dramatic
increases in horse and foot travel on trails not designed to accomodate higher
volumes of traffic" - Godin and Leonard, 1979

So, no, you're wrong ... you cause erosion and also, as your
idiotic pal vandeman is fond of pointing out, you disturb wildlife that doesn't
like human presence.

The erosion cause by walkers is minimal and does not interfere
with future walkers. The erosion caused by bikers can make trails unworkable for
walkers.

Not true. There are major erosion problems at many sites where there are a large number of hikers. See this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/890579.stm

An individual mountainbiker or hiker has minimal, roughly equivalent impact on the environment. Large numbers of either will cause erosion.

All activities have some deleterious effect on nature.

But minimal for hikers compared to bikers. But you are stupid
enough to even permit motorcycles on some trails. Stupid is as stupid
does.

Hikers and bikers are roughly equivalent in terms of trail erosion impact .... happy to refer you to all the research and literature if you wish. Motorbikes have a much higher impact of course. However, I do not believe that a blanket ban on motorbikes will work ... there must be some place for them too ... albeit more restricted than others.

I am concerned solely with the impact of bikes on hikers - period! We


don't want bikes on trails because what they are doing is a conflict
with what

we are doing.

Yawn ! So you've said a million times. Don't you get
tired of it ?

And, as I've said many times now too, I don't care what you and
vandeman want. You're not reasonable people so there is no compromise that
will satisfy you ... hence, I'm simply going to ignore you.

That is what everyone says who has lost to a superior argument
and a superior intelligence.

Lost, to you ? Now you really are being funny. You can't even put together a coherent, rational argument that doesn't rely, fundamentally, on your own personal preferences.

I am very pleased to be associated with someone
like Mr.Vandeman (a scholar and a gentleman) and I would be ashamed to be
associated with someone like you who would even permit motorcycles on some
hiking trails. You are truly beyond the pale ... just like all your ilk - louts,
scoundrels and thugs!

My group, this Saturday, included two CEOs, one IT Project Manager, one CFO, two doctors and an army Major. You're asserting that we're the louts, scoundrels and thugs ? None of us have criminal convictions,none of us have sought conflict and we simply enjoy our weekly rides together without inconveniencing anyone else. You, on the other hand, prefer to associate with a borderline sociopath and convicted criminal such as vandeman. Good luck with that.