"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

1. There is no right to mountain bike. That was decided a decade ago
in federal court: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.
"a decade ago..."? No mention of the RECENT rulings making allowances for
the use of bicycles, the classification of bicycles as not ORVs (ORVs have
been designated MOTORIZED) and the decisions of advancing cooperative
efforts in the U.S. National Forest Rules as of November 2005...?
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
The recent decisions have over-ruled the myths, misconceptions and lies
previously advanced to hinder the access for off-road cycling.

Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. 95% of the conflicts
he mentions are due to the presence of the bikes.
Or, which has been proven by several surveys by several organizations, the
PERCEIVED effects of riding bikes.
Plus - Show us the math that results in YOUR figure of 95%.

Not too many hikers
will approach at such a speed that they spook horses or scare other
hikers!
2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
Not true. The NFS allows for seperate designations in some areas and shared
use in others. The cooperative efforts of ALL involved has created better
organization, safer use for everyone AND fair and wise enforcement
3. Bikes are harmful to wildlife and people: they accelerate erosion,
create V-shaped ruts, kill small animals and plants on the trail,
including tree roots (all of which a hiker can step over or around),
and drive other trail users off the trails and out of the parks.
OPINION- OPINION - OPINION. You have not shown your opinions to be based on
anything more than a reference removed from the context of which they were
presented. Even the most recent research reveals off-road cycling and hiking
have similar effects. The NFS rules also address this comaprison.
4. Mountain biking teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is
acceptable -- a BIG step backwards in an era when most people are
becoming MORE concerned about nature.
OPINION. You apply your opinion to results showing that children involved in
outdoor activities are more inclined to be interested in preserving the
outdoors.

Mountain bikers are obviously people who can walk. I am not willing to
sacrifice our scanty remaining wild lands,
Which continue to shrink as you continue your attempts to drive apart
cooperative efforts to preserve.

just so a few people can
speed through them so fast that they can't possibly experience them
Your OPINION of the activity is no measure of how people who actually engage
in the activity experience it.
(as Stienstra was doing in Butano State Park).
===