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

On 4 Dec 2006 10:44:07 -0800, "Beej" wrote:

On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
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.

It'd be like one of those trails where only mountain bikers were
allowed, but not mountain bikes. :-)

Fortunately, most people are pretty nice. Lots of friendly hikers are
out there when I bike, and lots of friendly bikers are out there when I
hike.

I like the multi-use single track in China Camp--everyone seems to get
along just fine, there.

Of course, because most of the hikers & equestrians who don't like
being around mountain bikers were driven out of the park!

I'm not convinced this bikes-only route is the
way to go. It seems like it would breed resentment instead of a spirit
of cooperation.

As long as mountain bikers are friendly, courteous, and respectful to
other trail users, they'll always be welcomed.

BS. It's the BIKES we object to. There's nothing dangerous about not
smiling.

The huge number of
multi-use trails in the country speaks for itself in this regard.

-Beej
===
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

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:21:52 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"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.

It's a proposal. It hasn't happened, luckily. But every hiking trail
with lots of mountain bikers on it will eventually drive away all the
hikers.

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.

No, there are real dangers in being around fast-moving mountain
bikers. Several horses have died from encounters with gonzo mountain
bikers.

===

===
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

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:05:49 GMT, "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?

Yes, if it harms the majority. But mountain bikers already have access
to every trail, so they aren't being discriminated against, in spite
of what they say.

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

===
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

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, 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.

No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===
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

On 4 Dec 2006 12:22:06 -0800, "Bruce Jensen"
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.

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.

Amen. But mountain bikers have the same rights as everyone else, do
that are NOT discriminated against.

Bruce Jensen
===
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

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:

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

Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.

- you are the hypocrite. DUH!
===
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

JP wrote:
Top posting is a preference.
It saves time and effort for the reader already following a thread.

Google "netiquette" sometime.

HTH.

E.P.

In article ,
says...

It's a proposal. It hasn't happened, luckily. But every hiking trail
with lots of mountain bikers on it will eventually drive away all the
hikers.

Didn't happen in the first hundred years of off-road cycling, but any
day now....

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, 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.

No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.


Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry. Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:

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

Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.


That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals. You do not, and your
opinion is therefore
meaningless. Get the picture?