The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:10:31 GMT, Trekkie Dad
wrote:

This "article" was first posted to eight newsgroups in June 1997, and
has been repeated unchanged since then (see headers below):

Don't most other PhDs publish the same paper over and over and over
again?

Isn't one definition of insanity as being when someone repeats the
exact same thing over and over, but expects a different result each
time?

The guy hasn't had a single new thought on the topic in _seven_ years?

And is it still accurate to call mountain biking "new"?

In 1997 he called it "new", having gone mass market in 1984. Assuming
that is accurate, that would mean it was 13 years old as a mass
activity at that point. Now it is 20 years old. Is it still new?

I could list at least 6 other popular outdoor activities much newer
today than mountain biking was seven years ago. Are any of them more
harmful to the environment?

How many other statements in that article are similarly dated?

Instead of QED, Mikey should use SBO.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 23:04:44 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:

..On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:10:31 GMT, Trekkie Dad
..wrote:
..
..This "article" was first posted to eight newsgroups in June 1997, and
..has been repeated unchanged since then (see headers below):
..
..Don't most other PhDs publish the same paper over and over and over
..again?
..
..Isn't one definition of insanity as being when someone repeats the
..exact same thing over and over, but expects a different result each
..time?
..
..The guy hasn't had a single new thought on the topic in _seven_ years?

When you're right, what's there to change? Can you name even ONE statement
that's wrong????

..And is it still accurate to call mountain biking "new"?
..
..In 1997 he called it "new", having gone mass market in 1984. Assuming
..that is accurate, that would mean it was 13 years old as a mass
..activity at that point. Now it is 20 years old. Is it still new?

Of course, compared to most other sports. Maybe snowboarding is newer?

..I could list at least 6 other popular outdoor activities much newer
..today than mountain biking was seven years ago.

You "could". But you DON'T! Why are you wasting our time?

Are any of them more
..harmful to the environment?
..
..How many other statements in that article are similarly dated?
..
..Instead of QED, Mikey should use SBO.
..
..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)
..------------------------------------------------
..at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
..
..Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
..Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

===
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

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:


===
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.)


No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My dog feels
that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about humans.

Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?

Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to make it more
suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny themselves this ability. It
is unique among those species in setting land aside from itself, which is yet
another manifestation of altering the environment to suit itself.

Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you feel better
somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't this be read to indicate
that perhaps more land should be off-limits to humans, and if making more land
off-limits is good wouldn't making all land off-limits be better? It's the only
way to make all land "pure."

This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Ron

RonSonic wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote:


===
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.)


No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My
dog feels that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about
humans.

Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?

Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to
make it more suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny
themselves this ability. It is unique among those species in setting
land aside from itself, which is yet another manifestation of
altering the environment to suit itself.

Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you
feel better somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't
this be read to indicate that perhaps more land should be off-limits
to humans, and if making more land off-limits is good wouldn't making
all land off-limits be better? It's the only way to make all land
"pure."

This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Milkey is on record as saying his "pure habitat" would only be 10-by-10 in
size.

10-by-10 /acres/ you ask?

Miles??

Or certainly at least 10 by 10 yards, right???

No, it's 10 by 10 FEET! Hell, I live on a canyon with a jillion
10-by-10-foot areas that have never been affected by human contact. (And,
to the best of my knowledge, no one spent ANY previous 8 years doing a
damned thing to achieve it.)

Bill "a big fan of the man(ic), really" S.

There are plenty of places designated off limits to humans, usually
where particularly sensitive species reside. I'm not saying there
should be more or less off-limit areas but this is not really a new
concept.



RonSonic wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:


===
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.)


No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My dog feels
that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about humans.

Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?

Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to make it more
suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny themselves this ability. It
is unique among those species in setting land aside from itself, which is yet
another manifestation of altering the environment to suit itself.

Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you feel better
somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't this be read to indicate
that perhaps more land should be off-limits to humans, and if making more land
off-limits is good wouldn't making all land off-limits be better? It's the only
way to make all land "pure."

This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Ron

(Alex Horvath) wrote in message . com...
There are plenty of places designated off limits to humans, usually
where particularly sensitive species reside.

Name even ONE area that is off-limits to ALL humans. ALL humans.

I'm not saying there
should be more or less off-limit areas but this is not really a new
concept.

Your point being?

RonSonic wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:


===
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.)


No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My dog feels
that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about humans.

Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?

Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to make it more
suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny themselves this ability. It
is unique among those species in setting land aside from itself, which is yet
another manifestation of altering the environment to suit itself.

Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you feel better
somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't this be read to indicate
that perhaps more land should be off-limits to humans, and if making more land
off-limits is good wouldn't making all land off-limits be better? It's the only
way to make all land "pure."

This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Ron

RonSonic wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:


===
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.)


No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?"

It's pure(ly) wildlife habitat. No humans.

My dog feels
that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about humans.

Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?

Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to make it more
suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny themselves this ability.

Humans are BY FAR the most destructive of all species.

It
is unique among those species in setting land aside from itself, which is yet
another manifestation of altering the environment to suit itself.

Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you feel better
somehow?

Of course. But more important, it makes the WILDLIFE feel better.

Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't this be read to indicate
that perhaps more land should be off-limits to humans, and if making more land
off-limits is good wouldn't making all land off-limits be better? It's the only
way to make all land "pure."

This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Learn to read. English. DUH! You guys are amazing.

Ron

(Mike Vandeman) wrote:

Humans are BY FAR the most destructive of all species.


Not only are they BAR FAR the most *creative* of all species, they're
the only creative species.

What's your point?

--
Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick