A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 4th 06, 08:43 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
cc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.

Neither do hiking shoes.


Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.


No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails - you are the hypocrite. DUH!
Ads
  #12  
Old December 4th 06, 08:44 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
cc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

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

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.


So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.



Yes. This has been amply established.
  #13  
Old December 4th 06, 09:22 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Bruce Jensen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

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

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.


So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.



Yes. This has been amply established.


Bigotry applies to humans vs. animals as well. The critters are, like
it or not, the ultimate minority, the least powerful and the ones who
always get the shaft.

Bruce Jensen

  #14  
Old December 4th 06, 09:30 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
JD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 524
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"


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

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.


So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.



Yes. This has been amply established.



Imagine that, both of you dorks responding to a vandamn post.

JD

  #15  
Old December 4th 06, 10:37 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
cc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

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

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.
So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.


Yes. This has been amply established.



Imagine that, both of you dorks responding to a vandamn post.

JD


It's amazing you have the gall to post about 'leg-humping'. If it didn't
make you cry at night that you are the evolutionary relic referred to as
Cro-Magnon man, you would FOAD and stick to your own posts. Your
humping, however, proves the contrary.

cc
  #16  
Old December 4th 06, 11:21 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
S Curtiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 459
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 3 Dec 2006 18:43:35 -0800, "
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:



Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild
Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000


Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to
exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers.

Exaggeration. Sensationalism. Fabrication. Show us where cyclists have
"exclusive use" of the public trail system.

There is no user
conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are
not users.

The BIKES are owned by taxpaying users and the LAW allows for their use. NFS
Rulings - November 2005.
The ONLY conflicts are those created by small-minded liars and extremists
who proclaim an agenda of "wildlife" but really are only interested in
boosting their egos by saying big words and creating friction.
===



  #17  
Old December 5th 06, 07:25 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Chris Foster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 3 Dec 2006 18:43:35 -0800, "
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:



Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in
Wild Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...03/SPG4OMO5321
.DTL&hw=Tom+Stienstra&sn=001&sc=1000


Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to
exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. There is no user
conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are
not users.


Horses are not users either. They are living beings, but where in the US
Constitution are horses mentioned??

The article didn't mention what percentage of the users performed what
activity. So.... How can you make the determination who is a minority
and who is a majority?? Another Mikey assumption??

===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #18  
Old December 5th 06, 07:52 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
JP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP" wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:



Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild
Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000


So where's the lie? (Hint: there aren't any. That's why you didn't
quote any.)


Wrong, you poor wannabe naturalist.
Your unsubstantiated opinion is the LIE.
Yu haven't cited evidence to back any of your claims. Ever.
Your website is not proof.
But you can't help it. There is no evidence that supports any of your
claims.
No legitimate agenmcy will give you the time of day.
That is why your sad little impotent quest gets played out on AMB

1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them.
That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses
running on trails...LIAR!!!!

2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your
opinion.
Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not
belong in public. LIAR!!!

3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact
hikers like wider trails. Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!

4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS
LIE.

5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to
walk.
Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking
trail.
But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke
Vandeman.
And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet
can ride. LIAR!!!

Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the
damage
caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on
for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!!

Yawn......did you say something???


  #19  
Old December 5th 06, 08:19 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Bruce Jensen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?

JP wrote:

1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them.
That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses
running on trails...LIAR!!!!

2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your
opinion.
Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not
belong in public. LIAR!!!

3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact
hikers like wider trails. Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!

4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS
LIE.

5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to
walk.
Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking
trail.
But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke
Vandeman.
And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet
can ride. LIAR!!!

Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the
damage
caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on
for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!!


I wish to point out that much of this is opinion, and from a highly
focussed perspective (as are Mr. Vandeman's comments), and should be
taken as such. For example - as a hiker, I greatly prefer very narrow
and, if possible, almost nonexistent trails when I walk in Nature. The
less sign of heavy use, the better. Purely a matter of opinion, and
certain to vary from person to person. Regarding rights bestowed
simply due to paying of taxes, that is a topic that will have opinions
all over the place and numerous opinions (do we, for example, have an
unlimited timeless right to see classified documents, even though our
taxes pay for them?).

YMMV.

The name-calling is beside the point.

Bruce Jensen

  #20  
Old December 5th 06, 08:57 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 785
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?


Bruce Jensen wrote:
JP wrote:

1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them.
That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses
running on trails...LIAR!!!!

2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your
opinion.
Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not
belong in public. LIAR!!!

3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact
hikers like wider trails. Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!

4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS
LIE.

5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to
walk.
Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking
trail.
But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke
Vandeman.
And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet
can ride. LIAR!!!

Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the
damage
caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on
for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!!


I wish to point out that much of this is opinion...


Really? Which part is opinion?

I see one in there, besides the invective.

E.P.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist Werehatrack General 2 July 27th 06 02:49 PM
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. terrybigwheel Unicycling 10 May 23rd 06 04:25 AM
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") spin156 Techniques 15 November 28th 05 08:21 PM
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" matabala Racing 1 August 23rd 05 04:49 PM
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 [email protected] Australia 0 January 4th 05 04:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.