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

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

1. There is no right to mountain bike. That was decided a decade ago
in federal court: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10. Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. 95% of the conflicts
he mentions are due to the presence of the bikes. Not too many hikers
will approach at such a speed that they spook horses or scare other
hikers!
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.
3. Bikes are harmful to wildlife and people: they accelerate erosion,
create V-shaped ruts, kill small animals and plants on the trail,
including tree roots (all of which a hiker can step over or around),
and drive other trail users off the trails and out of the parks.
4. Mountain biking teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is
acceptable -- a BIG step backwards in an era when most people are
becoming MORE concerned about nature.

Mountain bikers are obviously people who can walk. I am not willing to
sacrifice our scanty remaining wild lands, just so a few people can
speed through them so fast that they can't possibly experience them
(as Stienstra was doing in Butano State Park).
===
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:
Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.

Neither do hiking shoes.

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.
===
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 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!

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

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?

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

wrote in message
ps.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

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP" wrote:


wrote in message
ups.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.)
===
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 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???