Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go
your own purposes.
Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
of a brain, we are at an impasse.
I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is
because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ...
that's just your opinion.
I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can't be done on the same trails.
Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your opinion of difference is extreme.
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you
engaging in a sport - but on a different level.
I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of
So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not
averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only
However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the
trails network for your recreation only.
Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only
compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails.
morons on wheels do not mix.
No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or
biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.
You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.
You seem to be assuming, in your usual hubristic fashion, that your pronouncements carry some weight and that I need to negotiate with you ! I don't. I don't care what you think because you are unreasonable and have shown youself, over and over again, to be a selfish and massively hubristic. As such, I will negotiate, if I need to do so, with the land managers. You can do whatever you wish ... I don't care because you don't own the trails and have no power to determine how they're used.
All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.
I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think
mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do
You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand
this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required
share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until
that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are
axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.
I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am
stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport
other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.
So, they are different. I agree. So what
? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that they are
both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment, rather than
necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited, publicly
So What ? So they CONFLICT - you dumb *******! What is there
about conflict that you don't understand? I have already told you that not all
recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they cannot be done
together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
Again with the hubris. Given that a huge number of trails ARE shared I can dispose of your assertion in five seconds. In most locations it works fine. The conflict, for the most part, exists in your head ... a location I don't care about.
You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where
scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and
Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made
constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.
If you really cared about nature that much then you would
No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the
you or I do.
So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up
hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy it.
Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.
The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a tyre print. Same impact.
I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is
I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote
the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental
It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.
You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself !
"Hiking with its trails has the least impact on
nature of any of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints." -
You can say the same thing again ... woop de do. Doesn't make it correct though.
I call you an extremist because you are. You want to
have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ...
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.
I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails.
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your
grandfather would disown you!
If it were your church then you'd have a point ... but
it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public land.
Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are now
objecting because others want to use them for different activities.
I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to
walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for does not
fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other hikers. The
origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for hiking, the
most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a barbarian
not to understand this.
Ed, it's NOT your church to decide who to welcome and who to bar. We will never reach a solution on this because, as far as you're concerned, you own rights to public land which are not conferred on others. I assert no greater, or lesser, ownership than anyone else ... so I accept that what I want has to be a compromise with what others want. You think I'm a barbarian ? I don't care what you think. I think you're a selfish, hubristic and unreasonable sociopath.