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.

Ah, so irrespective of who developed the trail, and for what, it is now fine for you to annex it and determine its use ? This is nonsense.

I am stating the general consensus.

This is clearly wrong. If it WERE the general consensus then the situation would be very different to what it is.

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!

Who said anything about rapidly ? They are about getting from point A to point B and enjoying the experience of that journey.

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 mountainbike is far closer to a hiker than a motorbike. It is HUMAN POWERED. That is the key distinction irrespective of your concerns.

Wheels belong on roads.Even idiots know that
much!

Tell that to the American West settlers; no road ? sorry, you can't go here.. What a ridiculous statement.

Trails belong to hikers. It is axiomatic!

No, it's not. They belong to people. Unless and until you wish to buy your own land where you can designate whatever exclusive use your heart desires you are sharing a public resource to which you have the same rights as everyone else.

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.

But the managers are appointed by the public, who own the trails. If the public decide, which they appear to have done, that mountainbiking is an acceptable use given its low environmental impact and positive benefits then the managers will, as they have been doing for a while now, open up the trails to mountainbikes. You can't have it both ways; one moment you claim that hikers are the majority so can have what they want and the next, when that starts looking questionable in certain locales, you then say that mountainbikers, even if in the majority, should still be restricted. I think you need to stop trying to argue this from a logical perspective and simply concede that you desperately don't WANT mountainbikers on trails becuase you don't like it. There is no other reason.

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.

And I will press on with mountainbiking, enjoying the experience and promoting it to others as a great way to enjoy the natural environment. I suspect that Vandeman will manage to be as successful as he's been in the last 20 years; to whit, not at all, but we will see won't we ?