A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 4th 13, 12:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

I don’t blame the mountain bikers for wanting to take advantage of a situation. It is the land managers I blame. They are clearly nincompoops!

Why ? Because they disagree with you ? As public servants they should, and largely do, serve the public. Thus, if the public want to ride their bikes on trails then it is completely correct that this use is accommodated.

Biking and hiking on the same trails is an incompatible use.


Says who ? I am sure that some conflict exists; conflict exists in any arena where people are forced to share resources.

However, to make such a bald assertion is not supportable.

Different types of trails may, or indeed may not, support mixed use … but to state that it’s always the case is nonsense. The South Downs Way, and many other famous trails, is multi traffic and I am not aware of conflict.. Most of Scotland is now multi-use with, again, minimal conflict.

Sure, a downhill MTB trail is not a safe place to walk and certain rocky scrambles uphill are impossible on a MTB. So, yes, there is a safety issue in some circumstances that might prevent shared use but, in general, shared use can be quite sensibly applied.

By the way, cyclists on trails are in fact a small minority compared to hikers.


Not the case. I can point you to many locations where it’s the other way around.

Always have been and always will be.


You have a crystal ball or can see the future ? If mountain biking continues growing at its current rate this won’t be the case for too much longer..

It is not majority rule. Hiking trails are for hikers. If you had ever kept up with Mr. Vandeman’s many posts, you would realize how dangerous cycling on hiking trails is. Maybe the liability issue will eventually kick in and result in some lawsuits against the land managers.


No, axiomatically, in a democracy public resources are for the use of the public. The very statement ‘Hiking Trails’ implies some a-priori ownership of said trail by a specific group which is not, and never was, the case.. The trails do not ‘belong’ to hikers who are then doing all other groups a favour in providing access. The trails belong to the public and the public can decide to what use they are put.

And, citing the criminal Mike Vandeman as a source is not very credible. However, in the following thread on alt.mountain-bike as you can see ...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...g/0KXsYu_iyJ8J

... using a reasonable methology it is estimated that there are around 0.00123 fatalities per million miles travelled by mountainbike vs automobile fatalities at approximately 1.5 per million miles. So, cycling on hiking trails is a LOT safer than riding in a car … an activity that the vast majority of people in the US are quite happy to contemplate daily. So, no, mountain biking is not dangerous when compared with most activities.

Let me leave you with a sobering thought. It is not love that makes the world go around, it is hate that makes the world go around. The day is not far off when the hatred that hikers feel for cyclists on their sacred trails is going to manifest itself in some murders. At that point even the nincompoop land managers will have to sit up and take notice.


I fear you are projecting. Would some hikers prefer that bikes were banned from their favourite trails ? Of course. Is this fair ? No ! Would most sane, reasonable people concede that everyone has, within reason, an equal right to use public natural resources ? Yes.

Therefore, they don’t hate cyclists and many many people now conduct both activites. There may well be a tiny minority that feel this way but they are the lunatic fringe and will, I hope, be dealt with by the authorities in the usual way. Most people are reasonable, they see the fairness of sharing resources and mitigate it with a sensible approach to using particular trails.

The major error you are committing is not recognizing that hiking and cycling on the same trails is an incompatible use. The two cannot coexist peacefully. What cyclists do on a trail is a form of desecration from the hiker’s viewpoint. There will always be this conflict. It is not resolvable.


This simply isn’t true. The vast majority of the world manages to get on fine with sharing without major conflict. There may be some diehards who won’t accept this but they are a very small minority. The conflict will resolve itself as the younger generation, who have grown up always seeing bikes, people and horses together, grows to maturity. It’s a temporary issue occasioned by change and the fact that, yes, for some it's an unwelcome change.
Ads
  #2  
Old June 7th 13, 05:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan writes:

Have been gone from this newsgroup for awhile as my ISP cancelled serving Usenet newsgroups. They say it is too costly to carry the newsgroups as they get very low usage by just a few who post voluminous messages. In other words, it is not cost effective. Have gotten news.eternal-september.org and will see how it works.

I don’t blame the mountain bikers for wanting to take advantage of a situation. It is the land managers I blame. They are clearly nincompoops!


Why ? Because they disagree with you ? As public servants they should, and largely do, serve the public. Thus, if the public want to ride their bikes on trails then it is completely correct that this use is accommodated.


It is an incorrect use since the two modes of use are incompatible with one another. The land managers need to prioritize the publics they serve. The trails can’t be all things to all men.

Biking and hiking on the same trails is an incompatible use.


Says who ? I am sure that some conflict exists; conflict exists in any arena where people are forced to share resources.


The conflict is serious and can never be resolved to the satisfaction of hikers.

However, to make such a bald assertion is not supportable.


It is only the mountain bikers who are infringing on hiking trails which from time immemorial have been reserved for hikers and equestrians.

Different types of trails may, or indeed may not, support mixed use … but to state that it’s always the case is nonsense. The South Downs Way, and many other famous trails, is multi traffic and I am not aware of conflict. Most of Scotland is now multi-use with, again, minimal conflict.


Mountain bikers are making hiking trails impossible for hikers. You simply have no idea how much bikers are hated on hiking trails. Mountain bikers need to get their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. It is a no brainier!

Sure, a downhill MTB trail is not a safe place to walk and certain rocky scrambles uphill are impossible on a MTB. So, yes, there is a safety issue in some circumstances that might prevent shared use but, in general, shared use can be quite sensibly applied.


It is not just a safety issue, it is an esthetic issue. If you had any esthetic sense you would factor that into the equation also.

By the way, cyclists on trails are in fact a small minority compared to hikers.


Not the case. I can point you to many locations where it’s the other way around.


I am sure you are right in some instances. Hikers have been scared away by the mountain bikers.

Always have been and always will be.


You have a crystal ball or can see the future ? If mountain biking continues growing at its current rate this won’t be the case for too much longer.


Mountain biking on hiking trails is actually quite dangerous. That alone is going to reign it in. I believe mountain biking has already peaked.

It is not majority rule. Hiking trails are for hikers. If you had ever kept up with Mr. Vandeman’s many posts, you would realize how dangerous cycling on hiking trails is. Maybe the liability issue will eventually kick in and result in some lawsuits against the land managers.


No, axiomatically, in a democracy public resources are for the use of the public. The very statement ‘Hiking Trails’ implies some a-priori ownership of said trail by a specific group which is not, and never was, the case. The trails do not ‘belong’ to hikers who are then doing all other groups a favour in providing access. The trails belong to the public and the public can decide to what use they are put.


Democracy does not work well in all instances. What the public wants cannot always be given. We depend on managers to manage, not to give in cravenly to the threats of certain publics just because they make the most noise. You probably think people have the right to assemble and demonstrate in the public square too!

And, citing the criminal Mike Vandeman as a source is not very credible. However, in the following thread on alt.mountain-bike as you can see ...


Mr. Vandeman is only disliked by certain types of mountain bikers. He is liked by hikers and others who value wilderness and nature.. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of mountain biking on hiking trails and wilderness values.
[...]

Let me leave you with a sobering thought. It is not love that makes the world go around, it is hate that makes the world go around. The day is not far off when the hatred that hikers feel for cyclists on their sacred trails is going to manifest itself in some murders. At that point even the nincompoop land managers will have to sit up and take notice.


I fear you are projecting. Would some hikers prefer that bikes were banned from their favourite trails ? Of course. Is this fair ? No ! Would most sane, reasonable people concede that everyone has, within reason, an equal right to use public natural resources ? Yes.


The correct answer to your first assertion is yes and the correct answer to your second assertion is no. Glad I was able to enlighten you. No charge!.

Therefore, they don’t hate cyclists and many many people now conduct both activites. There may well be a tiny minority that feel this way but they are the lunatic fringe and will, I hope, be dealt with by the authorities in the usual way. Most people are reasonable, they see the fairness of sharing resources and mitigate it with a sensible approach to using particular trails.


How can you share when what is being shared is contested. It has to go one way or the other.If mountain bikers win and take over all the hiking trails, hikers will have to confine their walking activities to city streets. That is pretty much all I do these days myself. What is at stake is wilderness itself and all natural beauty. Mountain bikers have no regard for these things and will destroy them for mere sport. How utterly revolting!

The major error you are committing is not recognizing that hiking and cycling on the same trails is an incompatible use. The two cannot coexist peacefully. What cyclists do on a trail is a form of desecration from the hiker’s viewpoint. There will always be this conflict. It is not resolvable.


This simply isn’t true. The vast majority of the world manages to get on fine with sharing without major conflict. There may be some diehards who won’t accept this but they are a very small minority. The conflict will resolve itself as the younger generation, who have grown up always seeing bikes, people and horses together, grows to maturity. It’s a temporary issue occasioned by change and the fact that, yes, for some it's an unwelcome change.


Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain bikers on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something mountain bikers never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has far more support among the hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to save our trails is far from over.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #3  
Old June 7th 13, 11:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:04:53 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

A great deal snipped

Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain bikers

on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something mountain bikers
never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has far more support among the
hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to save our trails is
far from over.


I see, I think. You are saying that hikers own the trails, or at least
you imply that when you refer to trails as "their trails".

Now I don't know what y'all have out there in California but back east
the trails are part of either national or state forests and are
"owned" by the citizenry. In fact I worked two summers for the Forest
Service when I was in High school and I know damned well that my pay
check wasn't signed by a pack of hikers.

So, if the trails in California are also part of either national or
state parks or forests then, quite simply, you either don't know what
you are talking about when you rant and rave about bikers being on
"their trails", or you are deliberately lying about the situation.

Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a
different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
refer to the trails as "their's".


Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

--
Cheers,

John B.
  #4  
Old June 7th 13, 02:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

The conflict is serious and can never be resolved to the
satisfaction of hikers.


Why should the conflict be resolved only to the satisfaction of the hikers ? Hikers don't own the trails ... they are certainly entitled to a voice but not more than anyone else. Many of the trails were actually created by pack animals ... I doubt you would accept that equestrians 'own' them.

The very term 'hiking trail' implies ownership. They are NOT hiking trails ... they are trails. Some may be appropriate only for hiking, some only for biking and some for mixed use ... but that is a different matter and doesn't convey ownership. The use can be changed.

It is only the mountain bikers who are infringing on hiking
trails which from time immemorial have been reserved for hikers and
equestrians.


No, they were not reserved for one special interest group. They were reserved for people ... and people historically chose to use them for certain activities.

Mountain bikers are making hiking trails impossible for
hikers. You simply have no idea how much bikers are hated on hiking trails.
Mountain bikers need to get their own trails entirely separated from hiking
trails. It is a no brainier!


If it's a no brainer then prove it. How come Swinley Forest, where I mostly ride, has no biker/hiker conflicts despite shared use of all but a handful of more extreme trails ? Some trails are recommended for hiking and others for biking but both are permitted. The recommendation determines who gives way.

I don't see any hatred ...

It is not just a safety issue, it is an esthetic issue. If you
had any esthetic sense you would factor that into the equation
also.


But, with respect, aesthetics are highly subjective ... axiomatically so. Personally, I really can't see the issue ... even when hiking. How does the addition of a mountain bike to a person materially change the aesthetic ? I could actually understand that you might want solitude ... I do periodically and, yes, I would then prefer not to be disturbed by anyone. However, I acknowledge that there simply isn't enough world to go around for us all to have our own bit ... we have to share.

Mountain biking on hiking trails is actually quite dangerous.
That alone is going to reign it in. I believe mountain biking has already
peaked.


I reiterate ... 0.00123 per million miles travelled ... that's VERY safe.

Democracy does not work well in all instances. What the public
wants cannot always be given. We depend on managers to manage, not to give in
cravenly to the threats of certain publics just because they make the most
noise. You probably think people have the right to assemble and demonstrate in
the public square too!


I agree ... to some degree. Democracy can, for example, lead to the oppression of minorities. That's why we have fundamental rights to safeguard individual freedoms. There are very few unfettered rights; as you say, the right to demonstrate in the public square is contingent on other considerations too.

However, what DOES work is the clear principle that public resources are managed for the benefit of the public. Managers, whilst being employed to manage, are required to consider what is overall in the public interest. You are asking for the managers to accord hiking some 'special' status; that's not their job.

Mr. Vandeman is only disliked by certain types of mountain
bikers. He is liked by hikers and others who value wilderness and nature... Mr.
Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of mountain biking on
hiking trails and wilderness values.


He spouts idiocy regularly and litters his arguments with ad-hominem, circular logic, false dichotomies and blatant lies. On top of that he asks for empathy whilst displaying none himself and gleefully celebrating any injury or death of those with whom he disagrees. Since he has not confined his activities to the online sphere and has been convicted of violent offenses I strongly suggest you find a better 'expert'.

How can you share when what is being shared is contested. It
has to go one way or the other.If mountain bikers win and take over all the
hiking trails, hikers will have to confine their walking activities to city
streets. That is pretty much all I do these days myself. What is at stake is
wilderness itself and all natural beauty. Mountain bikers have no regard for
these things and will destroy them for mere sport. How utterly
revolting!


Where to start ? So many assertions with so few supporting facts.

We are all forced to share the world. No choice whether you like it or not.. You can contest what is a fair allocation, but you can't contest the requirement to share.

To validate your statement about it being either hiker or biker you would have to first prove that mixed use is not possible. Since I can refer you to many locations where it works fine I think you will struggle to prove that premise.

I am sure that SOME mountainbikers have no regard for nature. I very much doubt they are the majority. I am similarly sure that SOME hikers are there for reasons other than appreciating nature ... and the volume of litter left behind at certain locations would support that conclusion.

Speaking personally, I adore being out in the natural environment ... sometimes I wish to appreciate it slowly, at other times faster.

Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain
bikers on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something
mountain bikers never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has
far more support among the hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to
save our trails is far from over.


If you really want to pick a pointless fight then so be it. I would suggest it's a waste of time but it's your funeral. I will continue to ride, and hike, and to deal courteously with other users of the trails. I will also work, with them, to make sure that the trails are maintained for all our enjoyment.

I think you fail to realise that the hiker/biker dichotomy is receding. Riders sometimes hike and hikers sometimes ride.
  #5  
Old June 8th 13, 06:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:04:53 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

A great deal snipped


A great pity for sure since all my words are precious jewels.

Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain bikers

on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something mountain bikers
never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has far more support among the
hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to save our trails is
far from over.


I see, I think. You are saying that hikers own the trails, or at least

you imply that when you refer to trails as "their trails".

Now I don't know what y'all have out there in California but back east

the trails are part of either national or state forests and are
"owned" by the citizenry. In fact I worked two summers for the Forest
Service when I was in High school and I know damned well that my pay
check wasn't signed by a pack of hikers.

It doesn't matter in the slightest who owns the land. What matters is how it is managed. Your pay check was not signed by me, one of your so-called “owners”. It was signed by a manager/administrator. They in effect own the land for all practical purposes.

So, if the trails in California are also part of either national or

state parks or forests then, quite simply, you either don't know what
you are talking about when you rant and rave about bikers being on
"their trails", or you are deliberately lying about the situation.

So every lunatic group that comes down the pike can lay claim to use hiking trails for any purpose whatsoever. Is that your view?

Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!

Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a

different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
refer to the trails as "their's".

Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.


Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #6  
Old June 8th 13, 07:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

The conflict is serious and can never be resolved to the
satisfaction of hikers.


Why should the conflict be resolved only to the satisfaction of the hikers ? Hikers don't own the trails ... they are certainly entitled to a voice but not more than anyone else. Many of the trails were actually created by pack animals ... I doubt you would accept that equestrians 'own' them.


Mountain biking is a Johnny-come-lately to the trails. They should never have been permitted anywhere near them. I blame the managers for being gutless cowards and mindless idiots.

The very term 'hiking trail' implies ownership. They are NOT hiking trails ... they are trails. Some may be appropriate only for hiking, some only for biking and some for mixed use ... but that is a different matter and doesn't convey ownership. The use can be changed.


I do not want mountain bikes anywhere near MY trails! Mixed use can never be ideal. And indeed, use can be changed.

It is only the mountain bikers who are infringing on hiking
trails which from time immemorial have been reserved for hikers and
equestrians.


No, they were not reserved for one special interest group. They were reserved for people ... and people historically chose to use them for certain activities.


I wonder why I never saw any motorcycles or cars/jeeps on trails. They always seem restricted to primitive roads at best. You probably wouldn’t mind seeing all-terrain vehicles on trails either. Hey, the more the merrier! God Damn People should always get what they want!

Mountain bikers are making hiking trails impossible for
hikers. You simply have no idea how much bikers are hated on hiking trails.
Mountain bikers need to get their own trails entirely separated from hiking
trails. It is a no brainier!


If it's a no brainer then prove it. How come Swinley Forest, where I mostly ride, has no biker/hiker conflicts despite shared use of all but a handful of more extreme trails ? Some trails are recommended for hiking and others for biking but both are permitted. The recommendation determines who gives way.


When bikers use a trail, hikers are scared off of it. That why you don’t see any hikers.

I don't see any hatred ...


When folks are recreating they do not want to murder anyone. It creates too many complications.

It is not just a safety issue, it is an esthetic issue. If you
had any esthetic sense you would factor that into the equation
also.


But, with respect, aesthetics are highly subjective ... axiomatically so. Personally, I really can't see the issue ... even when hiking. How does the addition of a mountain bike to a person materially change the aesthetic ? I could actually understand that you might want solitude .... I do periodically and, yes, I would then prefer not to be disturbed by anyone. However, I acknowledge that there simply isn't enough world to go around for us all to have our own bit ... we have to share.


You would not understand an esthetic if it jumped up and bit you in the elbow. There is enough world to go around for hikers if we can get the g.d. bikers off of our trails.

Mountain biking on hiking trails is actually quite dangerous.
That alone is going to reign it in. I believe mountain biking has already
peaked.


I reiterate ... 0.00123 per million miles travelled ... that's VERY safe.


Go over your bars just once and you can end up with a spinal energy from which you will never recover. What the hell on earth is worth that!

Democracy does not work well in all instances. What the public
wants cannot always be given. We depend on managers to manage, not to give in
cravenly to the threats of certain publics just because they make the most
noise. You probably think people have the right to assemble and demonstrate in
the public square too!


I agree ... to some degree. Democracy can, for example, lead to the oppression of minorities. That's why we have fundamental rights to safeguard individual freedoms. There are very few unfettered rights; as you say, the right to demonstrate in the public square is contingent on other considerations too.


Ideally there should never be any right for anyone to demonstrate in the public square without permission from the proper authorities. Frankly, the way things are going, I am more worried about oppression of the majority, not any minorities.

However, what DOES work is the clear principle that public resources are managed for the benefit of the public. Managers, whilst being employed to manage, are required to consider what is overall in the public interest. You are asking for the managers to accord hiking some 'special' status; that's not their job.


Managers should not be turning what has been traditional upside down just because a new group comes down the pike demanding special consideration. Managers need to manage intelligently, not stupidly.

Mr. Vandeman is only disliked by certain types of mountain
bikers. He is liked by hikers and others who value wilderness and nature.. Mr.
Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of mountain biking on
hiking trails and wilderness values.


He spouts idiocy regularly and litters his arguments with ad-hominem, circular logic, false dichotomies and blatant lies. On top of that he asks for empathy whilst displaying none himself and gleefully celebrating any injury or death of those with whom he disagrees. Since he has not confined his activities to the online sphere and has been convicted of violent offenses I strongly suggest you find a better 'expert'.


Mr. Vandeman asks for no quarter and gives no quarter. He and I are alike that way. However, I am not a purist like him. The world has been going to hell ever since I have been part of it and I do not see it ever getting any better. Maybe a huge asteroid will hit the earth soon and we can all go the way of the dinosaurs. Mr. Vandeman knows more about the impact of bicycles on trails than any man alive.

How can you share when what is being shared is contested. It
has to go one way or the other.If mountain bikers win and take over all the
hiking trails, hikers will have to confine their walking activities to city
streets. That is pretty much all I do these days myself. What is at stake is
wilderness itself and all natural beauty. Mountain bikers have no regard for
these things and will destroy them for mere sport. How utterly
revolting!


Where to start ? So many assertions with so few supporting facts.


:: We are all forced to share the world. No choice whether you like it or not. You can contest what is a fair allocation, but you can't contest the requirement to share.


To validate your statement about it being either hiker or biker you would have to first prove that mixed use is not possible. Since I can refer you to many locations where it works fine I think you will struggle to prove that premise.


Very many locations which originally had a mixed use have been taken over by bikers. Hikers cannot coexist with bikers on trails. Get your own g.d. trails!

I am sure that SOME mountainbikers have no regard for nature. I very much doubt they are the majority. I am similarly sure that SOME hikers are there for reasons other than appreciating nature ... and the volume of litter left behind at certain locations would support that conclusion.


As usual, you are neglecting the esthetic. Hikers move slowly, bikers move fast. That makes all the difference.

Speaking personally, I adore being out in the natural environment ... sometimes I wish to appreciate it slowly, at other times faster.


If you appreciated it slowly, you would walk. In other words, you would be a hiker. All mountain bikers want is thrills and spills.

Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain
bikers on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something
mountain bikers never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has
far more support among the hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to
save our trails is far from over.


If you really want to pick a pointless fight then so be it. I would suggest it's a waste of time but it's your funeral. I will continue to ride, and hike, and to deal courteously with other users of the trails. I will also work, with them, to make sure that the trails are maintained for all our enjoyment.


Mountain biking has already peaked. It is on its way out. It will be my pleasure to give it a swift kick in the ass on its way out.

I think you fail to realise that the hiker/biker dichotomy is receding. Riders sometimes hike and hikers sometimes ride.


When I ride my bike I am always on some kind of road. I am NEVER on a trail.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



  #7  
Old June 8th 13, 11:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:21:44 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:04:53 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

A great deal snipped


A great pity for sure since all my words are precious jewels.

Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain bikers

on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something mountain bikers
never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has far more support among the
hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to save our trails is
far from over.


I see, I think. You are saying that hikers own the trails, or at least

you imply that when you refer to trails as "their trails".

Now I don't know what y'all have out there in California but back east

the trails are part of either national or state forests and are
"owned" by the citizenry. In fact I worked two summers for the Forest
Service when I was in High school and I know damned well that my pay
check wasn't signed by a pack of hikers.

It doesn't matter in the slightest who owns the land. What matters is how it is managed. Your pay check was not signed by me, one of your so-called “owners”. It was signed by a manager/administrator. They in effect own the land for all practical purposes.

So, if the trails in California are also part of either national or

state parks or forests then, quite simply, you either don't know what
you are talking about when you rant and rave about bikers being on
"their trails", or you are deliberately lying about the situation.

So every lunatic group that comes down the pike can lay claim to use hiking trails for any purpose whatsoever. Is that your view?

Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!


And this is defined where? In what document?

Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to
prove a point that is simply not true.

Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a

different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
refer to the trails as "their's".

Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.


So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public
facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks
who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.

--
Cheers,

John B.
  #8  
Old June 9th 13, 01:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:21:44 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!


And this is defined where? In what document?


Wilderness Areas specifically exclude any mode of travel other than by foot and horseback. It is why I want more and more areas to be given Wilderness status. The National Parks are not as solid on this issue as they should be. That is because many bureaucrats are gutless cowards and do not always stand up for what is right.

Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to

prove a point that is simply not true.

It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.

Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a

different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
refer to the trails as "their's".

Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.


So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public

facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks
who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.

I am as competent as anyone else, most particularly you.

Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #9  
Old June 9th 13, 02:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:02:37 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:21:44 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!


You are amazingly uninformed. Since "time immemorial" trails were
simply pathways used by animals. Your claims simply illustrate just
how little you really know about the subject.


And this is defined where? In what document?


Wilderness Areas specifically exclude any mode of travel other than by foot and horseback. It is why I want more and more areas to be given Wilderness status. The National Parks are not as solid on this issue as they should be. That is because many bureaucrats are gutless cowards and do not always stand up for what is right.


I ask you again, in what document is this defined?

But more important your statement simply illustrates your ignorance of
the matter. Or perhaps you are too young to remember the sierra club
activities in trying to ban horses from wilderness areas?

Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to

prove a point that is simply not true.

It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.


There is no "god given right" for anyone, there are simply man made
laws and regulations.

Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a

different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
refer to the trails as "their's".

Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.


Pure souls? Convicted criminals seems to be a far more accurate
description.


So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public

facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks
who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.

I am as competent as anyone else, most particularly you.


I see, and your qualifications? Other than you self proclaimed
beatification I have not been appraised of any specific qualifications
that you might have.

Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

--
Cheers,

John B.
  #10  
Old June 9th 13, 09:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:02:37 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!


You are amazingly uninformed. Since "time immemorial" trails were

simply pathways used by animals. Your claims simply illustrate just
how little you really know about the subject.

How far back do you want to go, you confounded dolt! All of my life trails have been reserved for such as myself. It is only very recently that g.d. bikes have been permitted on trails.

And this is defined where? In what document?


Wilderness Areas specifically exclude any mode of travel other than by foot and horseback. It is why I want more and more areas to be given Wilderness status. The National Parks are not as solid on this issue as they should be. That is because many bureaucrats are gutless cowards and do not always stand up for what is right.

I ask you again, in what document is this defined?


Do your own research. I have got better things to do than supply you with documents.

But more important your statement simply illustrates your ignorance of

the matter. Or perhaps you are too young to remember the sierra club
activities in trying to ban horses from wilderness areas?

That would have been a good thing to have done also. Bravo the Sierra Club!

When I was young like you I knew next to nothing about anything. Now that I am old, I know everything about everything. That is what 80 years of life does to one.

Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to

prove a point that is simply not true.

It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.


There is no "god given right" for anyone, there are simply man made

laws and regulations.

At long last, a statement that I can agree with! What man has made, man can unmake.

Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a

different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
refer to the trails as "their's".

Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.


Pure souls? Convicted criminals seems to be a far more accurate

description.

Mr. Vandeman is as innocent of all transgressions as the driven snow. Further, he is a gentleman, something that mountain bikers never are.


So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public

facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks
who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.

I am as competent as anyone else, most particularly you.


I see, and your qualifications? Other than you self proclaimed

beatification I have not been appraised of any specific qualifications
that you might have.

You apparently are not aware of just how GREAT I am? I urge you to study my signature. I am not only GREAT, but HOLY besides.

More seriously, I defer to Mr. Vandeman on any and all issues of qualifications. He is a genius!

Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


 




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
Is Mike Vandeman finally dead? you Mountain Biking 5 March 11th 13 03:02 AM
Is Mike Vandeman finally dead? Mike Vandeman[_4_] Mountain Biking 0 October 30th 12 08:17 PM
Is Mike Vandeman finally dead? Jym Dyer Mountain Biking 1 October 19th 12 12:10 AM
Mike Vandeman returns, bigger, better, stronger. You only think youshafted Vandeman. Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 26 September 30th 11 04:09 AM
Mike Vandeman is Dead? John Mountain Biking 0 January 14th 05 09:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM.


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.