It is decided by people like me who
have some education and
culture, not by slobs like
you.

You've not shown an ounce of
education or culture Ed. You're profane, hubristic, innumerate and can't
argue logically using precepts and logic. No wonder the land managers
ignore you.

I am giving you what you have
deserved all of your life - some straight talk about how stupid you are. ALL
mountain bikers are slobs. It is in their DNA.

Most hikers tend to be solitary
types, even if they are hiking
with others. Trails are where we can
be at one with nature and closest to God
(if He exists). The very last thing
any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn
cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find
a race track for what you want to
do.

So, you just reiterated my point;
you are solitary and don't socialise with others. As such, your views are
your own ... you have no idea what the majority view is since you've never
sought to find out.

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these days ... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'. However, you want the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

And, to repeat myself, most
of the trails were originally meant
for people travelling from point A to
point B ... not as recreation for elitist
and self regarding people like
you.

It doesn't matter what trails were
for originally. For the
past hundred years or so they have
been given over to hikers. That is because
our forefathers had some brains,
unlike the present generation of idiots like
you.

So "It doesn't matter what the
trails were for originally" ? Great, then clearly it's fine for them to be
used for mountainbiking. If it's fine for you to annex them then why is it
any different for a different use ?

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to understand. You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations too. Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals hiked for recreation.