Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news
You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists
to
continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.

The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
stated in the first two sentences.

I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
mountain biking on public lands.
===
Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question
over the years

Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves
my point.

continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield in
making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with
the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
move forward.
The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
"research" behind.

===
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 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:56:37 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Because the public allows it,

That's not a reason to allow it. You just restated the fact that it's
allowed. WHY should it be allowed? OBVIOUSLY, you can't come up with a
single good reason to allow bikes off-road.

just like they allow the paving of roads so
you can ride your bike on them, or they allow the trees and fossil fuels so
that you can have tires on your bike.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news
You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists
to
continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.

The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
stated in the first two sentences.

I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
mountain biking on public lands.
===
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 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 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone
else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
marijuana on public lands.

Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long as you
continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable
options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand.

And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
footprint in nature than hikers.

That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
isn't any!

And since the reality is that nobody
is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have
access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth -
more access to more places. Including National Parks!

I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if it
were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So his
opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of these
things is essentially singular, and of no importance.

E.P.
===
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 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:41:35 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
tribes, for instance)
Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no
danger.

That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we
aren't harming them.
While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most
prevalent
in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
presence over time is much improved.

That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH!
Crawl back under your rock.

True to form. You split the context in a meeger attempt at changing
direction. You are pathetic in the extreme in your manner of discussion and
your lack of honesty in the recognition of real information.
How about recognizing the complete context for a change? How about
exhibiting some integrity of the title (PhD) you constantly flaunt? How
about actually recognizing the complete pool of scientific evidence rather
than pulling only the pieces you like?

"You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other recreation,
that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these areas of
habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving wildlife to be
more sensitive to human presence."

When you acknowledge it is the urban growth that is reducing numbers, rather
than the mere presence of a person (bike or no bike), you will have taken a
big leap of integrity and honesty. Until then, you have no platform on which
to present your "opinions".

Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global warming
featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan.
Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is exacting changes
of climate.
Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your sig
(I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.



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.)

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 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:26:07 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:15:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a
human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house"
and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent
presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing your own writings with references only to materials carefully
chosen to support your opinions

That's a LIE.



Precisely HOW is it a lie?

Aren't you referencing your own publication?

Don't your publications contain material chosen to support your opinion?

No, they contain ALL relevant research. Only one of the studies
explicitly supports me. They other authors lied about their data and
what they imply.

I'm not sure I know what the lie is here, except it is pretty clear to me
that the assertion that there is a lie is itself a lie.


===
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

See what I mean Steve?
You gave a reasoned response based on facts.
The troll ignored it.
"Yawn" "Did you say something" His standard playground putdown.
He doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty.
He'll never have the courage to really engage in honest debate.
He's a spoiled brat seeking attention.
You wasted your time. He put you down.
He's won the little game you didn't even know you were playing.
His little impotent ego is fed for another day.

Did you really want to make him feel better?

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:23 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question
over the years

Show me even ONE valid answer. Since you CAN'T and DON'T, that proves
my point.
Your choice to split context and ignore the complete text (below) proves my
point to everyone except you. That is all the proof I need as off-road
cycling makes progress within the entire community and your voice has been
dropped by the wayside.

continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield
in
making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with
the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
move forward.
The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
"research" behind.


Posted exactly one year ago (11/22/05):
"Cycling off-road is an excellent physical and mental exercise, allows the
rider to enjoy this exercise without the constraints and dangers of being in
auto traffic, allows the rider to enjoy the natural environment, and develop
an appreciation for the natural environment. The appreciation of any
activity is highly subjective. If your PhD was worth the tissue paper it is
written on, you would grasp that as fundamental. However, with your opinion
firmly in place, you perceive anything you dislike or disagree with as being
senseless, wasteful or hazardous in some way. You say "give me one good
reason to bike off-road" in the same manner in which one would ask "give me
one good reason to put your hand in a fire".

Progress has been made while your distorted views show only more holes.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes
off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone
else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
marijuana on public lands.

Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long as
you
continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable
options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand.

And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
footprint in nature than hikers.

That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
isn't any!
Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion does not
make the statement in any way a "lie".

"A study published in the summer 2006 Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration (Volume 24, Number 12) takes a close look at the
environmental impacts of mountain biking. Researchers measured trail erosion
and other impacts on 31 trails used for mountain biking in the southwestern
U.S. The study concludes that, "certain impacts to mountain bike trails,
especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails,
and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle
trails."
Recreational ecologists Dave White from Arizona State University and Pam
Foti from Northern Arizona University led the three-year research project
titled "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." The researchers used
"Common Ecological Regions" (CERs) to provide consistency in comparing the
ecological effects of mountain biking with those of other recreational
activities."

Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk of the
lies being presented.



And since the reality is that nobody
is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have
access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth -
more access to more places. Including National Parks!

I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if it
were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So his
opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of these
things is essentially singular, and of no importance.

E.P.
===
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 Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:15:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing your own writings with references only to materials carefully
chosen to support your opinions

That's a LIE.
No. It isn't. Provide INDEPENDANT review of your statements and opinions to
show validity.

hardly counts as a reference. Provide
INDEPENDANT review of YOUR statements and opinions. Until you do, you are
only making a "because I say so" statement.

Try having some integrity and respond to the ENTIRE context.

"JP" wrote in message
newsx%8h.970$ki3.866@trndny01...
See what I mean Steve?

Did you really want to make him feel better?

I don't think for a minute he is smart enough to look at it in the way you
present. Even so, I like to believe at some point one of the people that
organize these "conferences" he invites himself to through a "call for
papers" will do a background check on him and reject his submissions.