A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 9th 06, 08:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:53:16 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:
Let's deal with priorities.

1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
2: Stop roads.
3: Stop motorized vehicles.
4: Protect wildlife.
5: Prevent polutants and runoff.


That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding

where they don't belong. Tell the truth.

Well, than stop the fighting, there are remendous dangers we all must
unit
against.

1: Selling our national forests for the profit of a select few.
2: Logging and the destruction of habitat, and the loss of the forest.
T
his also increases runoff and erosion.
3: Oil drilling and mining in our forests.
4: Ending motorized vehicles in the parks.

These are critical issues, once lost, cause long term or permanent
devastation.

Let's face it, most people do nothing but use a remote control.
All the human powered activities, use a biki, hike,
run or jog, cross country ski,
and other human powered activities are all healthy and wonderful.

We are witnessing the largest mass extinction in history,
mostly from the loss of habitat.
Similarly, trees are a carbon sink, preventing global warming
and of course, maintaining soil integrity.

We face a real danger. The enemy is real, powerful, and rich.
Politicians are in the pocket of developers,
industrialists, oil companies and the like, and few care about the
ramifications of their short term profits. The less united, activite,
and motivated we are, the more
everyone will lose. And it won't be just us, it will be
everyone, wildlife, the environment,
and our children and our children's children.

Ads
  #22  
Old June 10th 06, 03:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
.. .
S Curtiss wrote:

People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.


Well-stated.

It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
might desire, a question of which users there are more of.

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
cyclists.


There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness.


I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
will be over the mountain bikers' heads.

Frankly, I
would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they
viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into
wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for
them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.

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
  #23  
Old June 10th 06, 03:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On 9 Jun 2006 12:17:42 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:53:16 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:
Let's deal with priorities.

1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests.
2: Stop roads.
3: Stop motorized vehicles.
4: Protect wildlife.
5: Prevent polutants and runoff.

That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding

where they don't belong. Tell the truth.

Well, than stop the fighting, there are remendous dangers we all must
unit
against.

1: Selling our national forests for the profit of a select few.
2: Logging and the destruction of habitat, and the loss of the forest.
T
his also increases runoff and erosion.
3: Oil drilling and mining in our forests.
4: Ending motorized vehicles in the parks.

These are critical issues, once lost, cause long term or permanent
devastation.

Let's face it, most people do nothing but use a remote control.
All the human powered activities, use a biki, hike,
run or jog, cross country ski,
and other human powered activities are all healthy and wonderful.

We are witnessing the largest mass extinction in history,
mostly from the loss of habitat.


Mountain biking destroys habitat and teaches kids that the rough
treatment of nature is acceptable. Those are the kids that go on to be
big destroyers of the environment.

Similarly, trees are a carbon sink, preventing global warming
and of course, maintaining soil integrity.

We face a real danger. The enemy is real, powerful, and rich.
Politicians are in the pocket of developers,
industrialists, oil companies and the like, and few care about the
ramifications of their short term profits. The less united, activite,
and motivated we are, the more
everyone will lose. And it won't be just us, it will be
everyone, wildlife, the environment,
and our children and our children's children.


Then stop biking in nature, and the fight will be over. It's really
that simple. That shows where your priorities a you would rather
mountain bike than work with real environmentalists to protect the
environment.
===
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
  #24  
Old June 10th 06, 03:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
. ..

S Curtiss wrote:


People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.

Well-stated.

It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
might desire, a question of which users there are more of.

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
cyclists.


There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness.



I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
will be over the mountain bikers' heads.


or completely irrelevant.
  #25  
Old June 10th 06, 07:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."


"BB" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, Edward Dolan wrote:


[newsgroups restored]

(irrelevant newsgroups trimmed; get a grip Ed and stop being a troll)


I have restored RBS because I want Vandeman and Curtiss to see my posts on
this issue. RBM is not into any of this, so they can be cut which I have now
done.

There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but
the
impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
views wilderness ... Wilderness is just a means of recreation for
them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers.


As Curtiss keeps saying, bikes aren't allowed in designated wilderness so
anyone biking there is doing so illegally. They're not going to get any
support from me (or sympathy if they're arrested or their bike is
confiscated). You may not like the fact that biking is recreation, but
that's what recreational areas are for. Besides, nearly all of these areas
have designated hiking trails.

So if people aren't biking in designated wilderness, and don't bike on
designated hiking trails, WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR BEEF, Ed?


My main beef is that I do not trust mountain bikers to stay out of
wilderness areas and/or to stay off of trails that are for hikers only. I
KNOW that is where they want to ride their bikes.

If the problem is people doing stuff illegally, then call the cops. I
don't ride on hiking-only trails, so I'll never catch them in the act, and
besides I'll never be riding anywhere near where you live so you can't
expect me to solve this problem. If you want tips on how to clearly
identify the bike and rider, we may be able to help. You need to report it
to the rangers and/or police instead of just Usenet.


Yes, I agree with you about the necessity for enforcement. But it will ruin
my day if I have to report malfeasance to a ranger. It is extra work and it
is aggravation.

Regards,

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


  #26  
Old June 10th 06, 02:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."

Beach Runner wrote:

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers,

BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
biking has much greater impacts than hiking.

As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.


Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
assumptions.

Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers. One study does show
a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.

Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
primary. This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
coming soon to a greenbelt near you.
  #27  
Old June 10th 06, 04:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:25 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
.. .

S Curtiss wrote:


People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.

Well-stated.

It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
might desire, a question of which users there are more of.

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
cyclists.

There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness.



I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
will be over the mountain bikers' heads.


or completely irrelevant.


So people's feelings are irrelevant? What planet do you come from?
===
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
  #28  
Old June 10th 06, 04:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On 9 Jun 2006 23:25:30 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:56:38 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.

Well-stated.


BS. You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking
with mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them.
This is not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you
continue to deny.

It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
might desire, a question of which users there are more of.

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers,


BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
biking has much greater impacts than hiking.

As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.

you cannot argue for access of one group over
another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
cyclists.

===

The differences are basically trivial in the big picture. You are on
the same
side in the big picture.


Not if you mountain bike. It's a form of development (habitat
destruction).

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.)

That is really wonderful! But habitat can be shared, if it's not
logged,
roads are built, chemicals are introduced, and developed.

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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
  #29  
Old June 10th 06, 04:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers,
BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
biking has much greater impacts than hiking.

As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.


Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is
important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in
order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false
assumptions.

Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single
credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or
wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers.


That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for.
This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than
hikers:

Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H.
K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and
B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004.

One study does show
a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not
significant enough to base a ban on hikers on.


That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it.

Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary,
where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic
primary.


You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your
homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason.

This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign
contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls,
coming soon to a greenbelt near you.

===
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
  #30  
Old June 10th 06, 09:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:25 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:



"SMS" wrote in message
. ..


S Curtiss wrote:



People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.

Well-stated.

It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
might desire, a question of which users there are more of.

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over
another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
cyclists.

There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the
impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as
much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one
views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to
trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and
spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness.


I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it
will be over the mountain bikers' heads.


or completely irrelevant.



So people's feelings are irrelevant? What planet do you come from?
===


Obviously not the same one you are on. That has been amply established.
 




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
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking." Edward Dolan General 147 July 24th 06 07:03 PM
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking Stephen Baker Mountain Biking 18 July 16th 04 04:28 AM
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking BB Mountain Biking 31 July 4th 04 02:35 AM
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK Mike Vandeman Social Issues 1 May 5th 04 03:40 AM
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK BB Mountain Biking 1 April 27th 04 07:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM.


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.