"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Your problem is that you do not know the difference between a
road and a trail, most especially their different purposes. That being the case,
your point is pointless!

Edward Dolan wrote:

Their purposes are myriad; most were not developed for an appreciation of nature but to get somewhere.

It doesn’t matter what they were devoped for, it only matters what they are going to be used for now. Trails today have only a single purpose – an appreciation of nature.

You are arguing a fine point which borders on being just plain
stupid.

No, I'm refuting your proposition with a fact.

A fact which is pointless. But since you do not include what has transpired previously, your entire post becomes only more and more pointless.

Contemplation and appreciation of nature is the ONLY valid
recreational use of a trail. There are other venues for other recreational
uses.

I disagree completely. It is not for you, or anyone else, to arbitrarily decide, purely based on your own prejudices, what is a valid use of a trail which is a PUBLIC asset.

I am stating the general consensus. What the hell do you think park, recreational and wilderness trails are for? You do not have a clue what trails are for. One thing they are not for is getting from point A to point B rapidly.That is what roads are for. Duh!

You are unable to read between the lines or make any sensible
deductions on your own. I am not used to arguing with a childish literally
minded mentality. I raised the motorcycle issue not as an example of damage to
the trails, but as an example of a totally inappropriate use because it is a
mechanical contrivance which goes fast (speed differential) and makes one hell
of a lot of noise into the bargain. Bicycles fall into the same category and are
only slightly less noisy. Until we agree on what trails are for, there can never
be an agreement on anything else.

No, you raised the motorcycle issue because you were trying to conflate motorcycles and mountainbikes. They are completely different beasts with very little in common beyond two wheels as I demonstrated by showing their vastly different weight and power.

What a laugh the above is! Bicycles and motorcycles do indeed have wheels in common and fast speeds also. They are both mechanical contrivances. Neither one of them have anything in common with a person walking. Your weight and power aspects do not have anything to do with my concerns although that is what causes more damage to the trails, a major issue with Mr. Vandeman.

Your argument would only make some sense if there was a
shortage of roads. Plenty of fire roads and forestry roads for cyclists to
ride.

What ! If that's your view then you've not understood the point. Mountainbikers don't want to ride roads ... and why should we ? There is no valid reason to ban them from most (not all) trails.

Wheels belong on roads.Even idiots know that much!

Most folks who have mountain bikes do not ride them on single
track trails. It is only a minority of cretins who do that. And when we hikers
object to seeing them on our trails, then they act like the thugs that they are.
All hikers should be packing a concealed firearm for their own safety.

So, to paraphrase, when you aggressively challenge riders for using a resource to which they are as entitled as you, but which you don't happen to like, you are surprised that they are somewhat belligerent ? There is no need for any aggression; courtesy on both sides is what is required. Mountainbikers are no more thugs (on average) than any other large population group ... axiomatically so.

Go back to the beginning of this thread and review what I had to say about conflicting uses which can never be reconciled. Also look up the word ‘never’ in your dictionary.

Who knows why Europeans do the things they do? All I know is
that it is an issue here in the States that is never going to go away until
mountain bikers are severely limited as to where they can commit their
desecrations.

No, it's an issue that will go away when mountainbiking becomes perfectly normal for most trails and the reactionaries quieten down.

“Also look up the word ‘never’ in your dictionary.” – Ed Dolan

You want to ’share’ what you have no right to in the first
instance. Get your own trails. Hiking trails are for hikers.

Do you own the trails ? Clearly not. Do I own them ? Clearly not. Are they a PUBLIC resource ? Yes. Therefore, axiomatically, we are equally entitled to them. They are NOT yours and they never were.

Trails belong to hikers. It is axiomatic!

Overall, I think we're about done. The argument is not going to be resolved; you think that the trails are 'yours' (Hikers to be specific) and simply don't like mountainbikes on them. You're not going to change that view are you ?

“Also look up the word ‘never’ in your dictionary.” – Ed Dolan

I see trails as a public resource to which I, as a citizen, am entitled to fair access. I simply don't accept that there is one sacrosanct use.

You are only entitled to what the managers of the resources say you are entitled to. Managers that think you are entitled will have to be removed and replaced by more intelligent managers. It will be a political process ultimately.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Mr. Vandeman and I will press on ever ready to refute those who would desecrate natural areas with their mechanical contrivances. The future will see bikes banned from trails the same as we now see motorcycles banned from trails ... and for the same reasons.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great