"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jun 2006 20:06:12 -0700, "Marz" wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 13 Jun 2006 05:18:38 -0700, "Marz" wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:
No, I have never said that, liar. Learn to read. I said that horses
have a right to be in North America, where the horse evolved. I know,
it's over your head.

North America, where the horse became extinct around 11000 years ago,
but was later reintroduced by Columbus in 1519.
http://www.saplonline.org/wild_horses_native.htm

And last time I checked the horse is a creature of the open plain or
grassy woodland and not known for its trail making habits in the deep
forest or high up in the mountains. I think you'll find it's us humans,
using the horse for transportation, who created these trails. So why is
it so strange that we now choose to ride bikes, and not expensive
horses, on these trails.

Not strange. DESTRUCTIVE.

But a bike and rider may be less destructive than a horse and rider.

Not according to the science. But it's irrelevant in any case. If it's
DESTRUCTIVE, there's no good reason to allow it. You can always find
something more harmful, but that proves nothing.


So you are saying hiking should be banned as well ? After all, hikers
require trails that destroy vegation and animal habitat, that is according
to you. And hiking boots tear up the ground as well, even if it less than
mountain bikes. After all, If it's DESTRUCTIVE, there's no good reason to
allow it. You can always find
something more harmful, but that proves nothing.



Laters,

Marz

Laters,

Marz
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande