Injured Mountain Biker Had to Be Evacuated by Helicopter

So much for the alleged health benefits of mountain biking!

Mike


http://www.pacificatribune.com/localnews/ci_7581863:

Under the wire - Nov. 28 Injured mountain biker taken by helicopter to
hospital
Pacifica Tribune Staff
Article Launched: 11/28/2007 02:38:59 PM PST

Pacifica Police and firefighters from the North County Fire Authority
responded to a medical call Friday afternoon — the day after
Thanksgiving — involving a young man who fell off his bicycle on the
trails off Adobe Drive and Higgins Way in Linda Mar.

Two engine companies and a battalion chief responded to the 2:15 p.m.
call. Given the terrain, they also called for a utility vehicle.

Firefighter/paramedics were guided onto the trail by another cyclists
who took them to the victim, a young man in his 20s who suffered
traumatic injuries. They stabilized the young man and brought him down
the trail to Linda Mar School where a Calstar medical helicopter was
waiting to fly him to a local hospital.
--
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

I wonder about your idea for a pure habitat.

I think that there would have to be major changes in our federal
government to create this pure habitat. One of the mandates of the
Dep. of Int. is to provide land "for the benefit and enjoyment of the
people". I think that your "pure habitat" goes totally against this
key concept in the history of the national park system.

Also, any person who is going to cause truly horrible damage to the
land will do so regardless of the sign at the gate that says "No
People Beyond This Point".

To make a serious difference in the environmental dynamic of an area,
said area would have to be immense! At least the size of Yellowstone,
and I guarantee you that this nation will not give up its first, its
greatest park to a "Pure Habitat". Other large wildernesses that come
to mind are Wrangle-St Elias National Park, Gates of the Arctic
National Park, and the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. However, the
human visitation of these places is so small that eliminating it would
accomplish almost nil.

Finally, I submit to you that a wilderness that the people never see,
that the people never appreciate will be doomed. To an American seeing
is believing, and if that American never sees that a wilderness is
worth saving, they won't believe it, and they will have no qualms
about the destruction of that wilderness.

Maybe you should think about your propositions before you make them.
--Kevin Presley
I would like to hear any counter argument that you have, send me an E-
Mail,

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:22:35 -0800 (PST), "Kevin.Presley"
wrote:

I wonder about your idea for a pure habitat.

I think that there would have to be major changes in our federal
government to create this pure habitat. One of the mandates of the
Dep. of Int. is to provide land "for the benefit and enjoyment of the
people". I think that your "pure habitat" goes totally against this
key concept in the history of the national park system.

Nonsense. It would supply a benefit -- namely preserving species.
There are already areas off-limits to everyone but scientists &
occasional reporters, such as the northwest Hawaiian islands.

Also, any person who is going to cause truly horrible damage to the
land will do so regardless of the sign at the gate that says "No
People Beyond This Point".

If there is no road, and no trails, not too many people would be able
to get there. And there would be no one to rescue them if they got
injured.

To make a serious difference in the environmental dynamic of an area,
said area would have to be immense!

Nonsense. Wildlife reserves aren't often "immense", and yet they
preserve some important habitat.

At least the size of Yellowstone,
and I guarantee you that this nation will not give up its first, its
greatest park to a "Pure Habitat". Other large wildernesses that come
to mind are Wrangle-St Elias National Park, Gates of the Arctic
National Park, and the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. However, the
human visitation of these places is so small that eliminating it would
accomplish almost nil.

It would accomplish a lot, especially in changing humans' attitude
toward wildlife. It would take more generosity than is currently being
exhibited.

Finally, I submit to you that a wilderness that the people never see,
that the people never appreciate will be doomed. To an American seeing
is believing, and if that American never sees that a wilderness is
worth saving, they won't believe it, and they will have no qualms
about the destruction of that wilderness.

Speak for yourself. A lot of organizations like the Nature Conservancy
are supported by millions of people who will never see most of the
lands they are helping to preserve. It only takes one course in
biology to appreciate the value of habitat preservation. Maybe you
should take that one course. Or read one book. Several good ones are
listed at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/biblio.

Maybe you should think about your propositions before you make them.
--Kevin Presley
I would like to hear any counter argument that you have, send me an E-
Mail,
--
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

I can totally understand having areas that are off limits to people
because of a sensitive habitat. However, most of the protected, public
lands in this country are not so very sensitive that they command a
total elimination of people. I believe that there should be stringent
regulations on the usage of public lands. A good example of this would
definitely be the national wilderness system.

Like I'm sure you do, I think that mountain bikers and ATV riders
cause damage to the ecosystem when their use the land is not managed.
However, I believe that they, just like you and me deserve to have use
of the land. Should there be land off limits to bikers, yes, most
definitely, but we can not deny them the wilderness experience. I
think that ATV's because they are not man powered should not be
allowed to travel off Jeep 4X4 roads.

However, the use of the land by mountain bikers is a more sensitive
subject. Here is the proposition that I make:
Mountain bikers NOT allowed AT ALL in the:
National Wilderness
National Wildlife refuge

Mountain bikers NOT allowed OFF TRAIL in the:
National Park
National Forest

Mountain bikers ALLOWED everywhere, except areas deemed sensitive on
BLM lands.

I will still maintain that the lands are "for the benefit and
enjoyment of the people of the United States. In conclusion, I think
that that the chance of this occurring in the next 50 or so years is
about equal to the chance of a Republican from Texas winning the 2008
presidential election.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:05:58 -0800 (PST), "Kevin.Presley"
wrote:

I can totally understand having areas that are off limits to people
because of a sensitive habitat. However, most of the protected, public
lands in this country are not so very sensitive that they command a
total elimination of people.

What qualifies you to know what is "sensitive"?! Habitat is habitat.
"Not sensitive" is simply humans' way of rationalizing habitat
destruction, when it's inconvenient for them to protect it.

I believe that there should be stringent
regulations on the usage of public lands. A good example of this would
definitely be the national wilderness system.

That's good, but not good enough, since we are still losing species
(such as the California Condor) from Wilderness areas.

Like I'm sure you do, I think that mountain bikers and ATV riders
cause damage to the ecosystem when their use the land is not managed.
However, I believe that they, just like you and me deserve to have use
of the land.

What are you talking about?! They have use of ALL public lands and
trails that anyone else can use. Only BICYCLES and other VEHICLES are
restricted. At least tell the TRUTH!

Should there be land off limits to bikers, yes, most
definitely, but we can not deny them the wilderness experience.

No one is denying them the wilderness experience. They are just too
LAZY to walk, like everyone else.

I
think that ATV's because they are not man powered should not be
allowed to travel off Jeep 4X4 roads.

No, off pavement.

However, the use of the land by mountain bikers is a more sensitive
subject. Here is the proposition that I make:
Mountain bikers NOT allowed AT ALL in the:
National Wilderness
National Wildlife refuge

Mountain bikers NOT allowed OFF TRAIL in the:
National Park
National Forest

Mountain bikers ALLOWED everywhere, except areas deemed sensitive on
BLM lands.

Bikes should not be allowed off of pavement. Everywhere else, they do
an enor5mous amount of harm.

I will still maintain that the lands are "for the benefit and
enjoyment of the people of the United States.

Poppycock. The land belongs to the wildlife, since they were here
first. We stole it from them, plain and simple.

In conclusion, I think
that that the chance of this occurring in the next 50 or so years is
about equal to the chance of a Republican from Texas winning the 2008
presidential election.

You are just unwilling to do your homework, and find out why it's
necessary. Learn conservation biology, and then come back and try to
address the issue again.
--
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