"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:hSZgg.19924$B42.8297@dukeread05...
"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.
The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and
equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less
right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us
being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based on
who was there first.
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.
Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares about
the mountain biker's point of view.
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?
I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things.
[...]
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota