View Single Post
Old November 3rd 14, 01:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
external usenet poster
Posts: 214
Default 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 there for 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.

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand that simple

Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world it has to be the preferred option.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone care about you and your wants ?

disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist

disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what

doing -
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

at all
averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only


However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe

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

Walkers and
morons on wheels do not mix.

No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker

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

you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable


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 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.

The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.

You know something ? When everyone you're speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.

All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman.

I am the expert on what trails are for based on philosophical

I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I

mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I

engage in

You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to

this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is

share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and

you accept
that different people have different opinions and that, no, you

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

and the
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,

owned resource.

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.

There is just no way around the conflicts.

Yes, Ed, there is. The way around is for all users to acknowledge others' valid desires to use a public resource and to understand how their activity impacts on others. We can then, on a location by location basis, figure out the best solution.

As I have said, and provided locations to back it up, sharing works fine in a lot of places.

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!

I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed. However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should be.

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

scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and


Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are

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

hiking too.

No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about

wildlife than
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


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.

Nope, not true because of mechanical advantage, but I leave
the impact on trails to Mr. Vandeman who is the world expert on that

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel

here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is

I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who

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


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." -

Ed Dolan

You can say the same thing again ... woop de do. Doesn't make it
correct though.

And, even if it's minimal, it's still disturbing unnecessarily since you don't need to be there. You're just going for recreational purposes.

I call you an extremist because you are. You want

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

You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian.

grandfather would disown you!

If it were your church then you'd have a point ...

it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public

Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are

objecting because others want to use them for different


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

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.

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not relevant.

Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their agenda.

lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing sport of mountain biking.

The land managers are doing their best to manage for genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include satisfying one Ed Dolan !

If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own land. On public lands, you have to share.

are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.

I will take no lessons from you in terms of safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in solitude.

I find your references to children totally and utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't, because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone else.

I must admit I am sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.

Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no one is riding on your trails at all.

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home