"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"SMS" wrote in message
...

[newsgroups restored]

Chris Foster wrote:
SMS wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
:

http://www.americantrails.org/resour...ngImpacts.html

WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.


All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
real

Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to
tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than
hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't
pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.

The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
bikers will never understand.

Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others on
the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other
people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are
constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what we
are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude is
not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and
recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of hiking
in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there.

However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.

Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
period!

In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas
of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use
is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and
techniques are in place. And enforced.

I'd
like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and
reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They
only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's
impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on
odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists
during the week, and equestrians every February 30th.

DUH!

Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
don't you?
Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you...

I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a
reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact.
While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty
of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest
angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts
content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the
lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts.

Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that
concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain
bikers being on the trails without any right to be there.

If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in an
area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles. You do
have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are not
allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a trail
that you would not hike anyway, that is your call.

Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It
has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle.
Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain
bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only
converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher.
You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We have
shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or foundation in
"fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his opinions, that is
up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a major contradiction:
You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion then proclaiming yourself
to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it is also your statement that
your persistance on usenet has little to do with actual information.

I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels
and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil.
Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get picked
up by the Mother Ship?

By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups
being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for
Great Ones like Myself.

The gauntlet of wisdom thrown as like an angry monkey, again, from Conan the
Librarian .