On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:26:29 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:y_idndsQZYQCxxvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@prairiewave .com...
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.
People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.
You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking with
mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them. This is
not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you continue
to deny.
Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would
see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts
are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements
only to see your own comments.
The fact is, bikers always demand that hikers yield to them: hikers
have to get out of the way, or bikers can't get by! DUH!
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.
Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments about
usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything?
Below - your statement from another thread
"Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even
believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan
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.
I believe "the great" needs his little pills.....
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande