Why Do Mountain Bikers STILL Not Get It?

You are old. You are probably sick with prostate cancer or another
ailment. When you pass we will mark your environmental whackoism. I now
ban you from any kind of bike related transportation. You are no longer
allowed to ride a bike.

TJ

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:58:24 +1300, Westie wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
.. . You saying that nature is a place to test yourself. That is purely a human
.. . concept, and leaves wildlife totally out of the picture! To make it easier to
.. . see, how would you feel if the wildlife felt the same about the inside of your
.. . house? See the point? You wouldn't like your home being used for thrills by
.. . spiders, mosquitoes, rats, mice, squirrels, raccoons, bed bugs, etc.
.. .
.. .How do we know that spiders, mosquitoes, rats etc, DON'T use our homes
.. .for thrills? I know that some possums that I had in my roof had a
.. .bloody great time galloping across the ceiling at night. Don't forget
.. .that the vast majority of these animals destroy the structure of our
.. .homes too. Wood worms tunnel, rats chew, woodpeckers peck, raccoons
.. .nest, bedbugs drink our blood, bedmites live off the dried skin flakes.
.. . Making assumptions about what the animals really think is a purely
.. .human concept.
..
.. Now you know why the wildlife hate having us around.
..
..Hate? Isn't that a human emotion? To quote you: "That is purely a
..human concept". How do you know that animals 'hate' having us around?

Elementary. They always try to get away from us.

.. .I look forward
.. .to sharing the thrill of nature with him too, whether playing in the
.. .surf, hiking to a hilltop or rolling along a trail on our bikes.
.. .
.. . A good, tough hike or backpack can do the same thing, and do it MUCH BETTER.
.. .
.. .I think that you better get back onto the debate about exclusing ALL
.. .human activity from wildlife areas. Your argument that hiking should be
.. .allowed because it has less impact than mountainbiking is flawed.
.. .Hiking has an impact and a significant impact. You cannot use the
.. .argument that it is OK to hike but not to bike. You should be banning
.. .hiking as well.
..
.. Not ALL hiking.
..
..Please expand on that. Why not? Hiking has an impact. Hikers can
..tramp to the highest plateaus and mountain tops - areas where
..mountainbikes cannot reach. Where I live hikers cover enormous areas of
..landscape and widerness. Far great than anything that a mountain bike
..can reach. Why is ANY impact allowed? You argue that impacts should be
..reduced, yet hiking is OK. Why allow ANY hiking?

I think hiking should be banned wherever possible. But mountain bikers can go
anywhere a hiker can go. On foot.

.. .If we
.. .ignore man's need to be thrilled and challenged by nature then less and
.. .less people will feel they have anything to loose when public lands are
.. .threatened.
.. .
.. . Getting "thrilled and challenged" doesn't increase your respect for nature. It
.. . has next to nothing to do with nature, except as an OBSTACLE. If you still can't
.. . see that, look at people. What if you used PEOPLE to get "thrilled and
.. . challenged"
.. .
.. .Flawed analogy. By your own words, people are not nature and therefore
.. .cannot be compared to it. Invalid argument and a shocker of an analogy.
..
.. Look up "analogy" in the dictionary.
..
..It's still a 'flawed' analogy. Look up 'flawed' in the dictionary.
..
.. .We certainly need to protect and insulate huge areas of nature from
.. .human activity
.. .
.. . What's to prevent the mountain bikers from HIKING there?????
.. .
.. .Hiking has an impact on nature too. You say that impacting on nature is
.. .bad. Why is hiking better than biking?
..
.. See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
..
..I would prefer that you keep it in the newsgroup. I don't care to have
..this discussion outside it. Could you post some choice reasons from
..your website? Thank you.

I just did.

.. .there will come a day people say, well
.. .forest is pretty but we need jobs! this is a city not yosemite! If we
.. .have resposible use
.. .
.. . That's just the point: mountain biking is NOT a "responsible use".
.. .
.. .Why not? And why is hiking a responsible use?
..
.. It is more responsible (less impact) than hiking.
..
..Please explain why hiking and it's impact is acceptable.
..How is hiking more responsible? Specific examples would be best, thank you.

No impact is acceptable. But less impact is better than more. DUH!

.. .What if parks somehow became enmeshed in this
.. .endless 'war on terror' we face.
.. .
.. . Mountain bikers don't work to protect the parks, even when they are allowed to
.. . ride. At most, they do "trail maintenance", which is, from the point of view of
.. . the wildlife, just as destructive as trail construction.
.. .
.. .How many hikers are involved in trail maintenance? How many hikers
.. .always stay on the trail? Why allow hiking? Surely trails, toilet
.. .facilities, parking lots, access roads, park buildings, steps on steep
.. .trails, observation platforms, and tramper's huts are all very
.. .destructive things provided only for hikers?
..
.. Really? Mountain bikers don't use toilets? That explains a lot!
..
..Yes they do. But bear in mind that the infrastructure is ALREADY in
..place because of hikers. It is hikers and lovers-of-nature that have
..impacted on the area in the first place. Why is that vast
..infrastructure acceptable? Sure even hikers should be banned?

Of course. But mountain bikers have NEVER been banned form any trail, liar.

.. .I find it hard to understand someone protesting the
.. .impact of mountain bike tires on a trail who has graded a huge chunk
.. .out of the mountain to live there...
.. .
.. . I doubt that they built the road. Mountain biking is an ADDITIONAL impact.
.. . Banning bikes REDUCES impacts.
.. .
.. .And by your logic, banning hiking would reduce any impact also. So why
.. .ban bikes and not hiking?
..
.. The latter is harder. Bikes have no rights. DUH!
..
..The latter is harder to ban? Is that what you are saying? That hiking
..is difficult to ban so you should allow it? Seems to be unreasonable -
..banning one activity that has an impact just because the other activity
..that has an impact is HARDER to ban....
..That's a little unfair and biased, isn't it?

Not a bit, because the same rules apply to everyone. Where's the
discrimination?????

..Hmmmm. Bikes don't have rights? I doubt that equipment that hikers use
..like tents, backpacks, camp stoves, waterproof jackets, and tramping
..boots have rights either. Perhaps we should ban them too? What do you
..think?

Sure. Why not? But you don't advocate that, making you a hypocrite.

.. .Why do you doubt that they built the road? If their house is at the end
.. .of the road it is logical to assume that they built the road. Simply
.. .dimissing the fact that SOMEONE built the road for some reason other
.. .than mountainbiking or hiking doesn't make it any better.
.. .
.. .I believe that if we had completely
.. .unbiased means of evaluating each person's impact on nature that
.. .mountain bikers would not emerge as the primary villian.
.. .
.. . Irrelevant. Banning bikes still reduces total impacts. Bikers DRIVE to the
.. . trails, using those freeways, ofteh from as far as San Jose!
.. .
.. .Likewise, banning hikers would reduce impacts too.
..
.. I actually advocate that, but YOU don't, hypocrite.
..
..How do you advocate it? You've just said above that you are willing to
..allow hiking because it is harder to ban. You yourself are a hiker. You
..campaign against mountain biking, not mountainbiking AND hiking. Which
..one is it?

Both. Read my signature.

..Hypocrite? In what way? It is obvious that banning hiking as well as
..MTBing would reduce all impacts.

You are a hypocrite because you want ME to advocate banning hiking, but YOU
don't. QED

.. Irrelevant. Banning bikes still reduces total impacts. Bikers DRIVE
.. to the
.. trails, using those freeways, ofteh from as far as San Jose!
..
.. .And how do the hikers from San Jose or the families out for a Sunday
.. .afternoon walk in the wilderness get to these trails? I'm guessing that
.. .they walk from San Jose?
..
..Could you answer this question for me, please?

You'll have to ask them. I WALK.

.. .People who rail against bikers should ask themselves what impact they
.. . themselves are having.
.. .
.. . We DO.
.. .
.. .Not hard enough obviously.
.. .
.. .If we dont examine ourselves as critically as
.. .others then is it any surprise that the right has been successful in
.. .painting the environmentally conscious as hypocritical tree-huggers?
.. .
.. .
.. .Adding an ADDITIONAL source of damage is not beneficial, OBVIOUSLY!
.. .
.. .Ah ha. So some damage from hiking is OK, but supposedly adding some
.. .more damage from biking is not OK? Extra damage that according to
.. .studies by the IMBA is no greater than damage caused by hiking anyway.
..
.. You obviously haven't read those biased studies. See
.. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
..
..Well, given that they seem to be the only studies that are available

That is a LIE.

we
..might just have to use them. Can you post the results from an
..independant study or provide proof that MTBing is more damaging than
..hiking? If not, what do you base you whole argument on?

I just did.
===
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