"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
at all for those of us who live in reality!

That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
never produced any citations or references for his position, because
none exits.

At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.

I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?
===
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 Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking
trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental
attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These
attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day.
That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
believe I can say it any clearer than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
trails.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn
to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the
trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.

Yawn.
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:


Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no
corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons,
and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and
mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful
of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are
over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries
at all for those of us who live in reality!

That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain
biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort
to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has
never produced any citations or references for his position, because
none exits.

At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking
are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers
still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the
back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest
about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like
MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply
say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and
it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV.


I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?

Same for you, hypocrite. You
should practice talking in the
mirror! The last couple of
days have been amazing. First,
Cervantes. Now this ! You're
incredible . . .

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the
different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation
in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are
as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want
bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer
than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use
the trails.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists
would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to
learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off
the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd
enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories
about trail impact that have no basis in fact.

Yawn.

Did you say something?? Acutally you didnt. Just more MV BS

===
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



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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?


Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it
often enough it much be true.

Jason wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?


Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it
often enough it much be true.

Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or
citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable!

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not
hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless
a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails.

Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails.
Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for
hikers.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to
not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would
prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to
share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails,
the motorized ATV vehicles.

I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails
for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of
South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage
as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for
the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and
desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.

I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave
that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable
differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness. That is
the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of
secondary importance.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:06:34 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Jason wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?


Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it
often enough it much be true.

Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or
citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable!

You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.
===
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 Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
.. .
Edward Dolan wrote:

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share
hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different
mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of
doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as
night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking
trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not
hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless
a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails.

Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails.
Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for
hikers.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to
not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would
prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to
share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails,
the motorized ATV vehicles.

I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails
for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of
South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage
as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for
the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and
desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.

I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave
that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable
differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness.

I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that
it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying
"can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along;
it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes,
mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least
TOLERABLE idiots and liars.

That is
the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of
secondary importance.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.


Yes many of us can which is why you're science always gets slammed down
hard. It's junk science, heck even calling it science is a stretch.