Urge Obama to Keep National Park Service Rule Changes in Place

I never thought I'd agree with anything George W. did during his
presidency, but he's doing _one_ very good thing, at the very end of his
presidency, to help the environment, and that's opening the National
Parks to mountain biking if park managers determine that it can be done
without damage to trails or wildlife.

About 30 properties managed by the NPS have trails for mountain biking,
but prior to Bush planning to put into effect a rule change that would
allow mountain biking on these trails in parks, it hasn't been legal to
use these trails.

Since all the experts agree that mountain biking is no more destructive
to trails and no more harmful to wildlife than hiking or horseback
riding, it's about time that these rules were changed. In fact in many
cases mountain biking is _less_ damaging than other types of trail usage.

In any case, the anti-environmentalists will probably try to get Obama
to reverse Bush's changes, so it's important to write to Obama and urge
him to let stand the rules changes.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:13:46 -0800, SMS
wrote:

I never thought I'd agree with anything George W. did during his
presidency, but he's doing _one_ very good thing, at the very end of his
presidency, to help the environment,

What BS! You don't want to help the environment, you only want to be
able to ride your bike where it doesn't belong.

and that's opening the National
Parks to mountain biking if park managers determine that it can be done
without damage to trails or wildlife.

That's patently IMPOSSIBLE.

About 30 properties managed by the NPS have trails for mountain biking,
but prior to Bush planning to put into effect a rule change that would
allow mountain biking on these trails in parks, it hasn't been legal to
use these trails.

Since all the experts agree that mountain biking is no more destructive
to trails and no more harmful to wildlife than hiking or horseback
riding,

More BS. For the truth: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

it's about time that these rules were changed. In fact in many
cases mountain biking is _less_ damaging than other types of trail usage.

In any case, the anti-environmentalists will probably try to get Obama
to reverse Bush's changes, so it's important to write to Obama and urge
him to let stand the rules changes.

He's not stupid and insensitive, as Bush is. For one thing, he's not a
mountain biker (no sane, caring person is).

Mountain bikers care only about one thing: more access to ride their
bikes where they don't belong. That is obvious to everyone.
--
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 Dec 12, 7:04*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
For the truth:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

TL;DR

Two points for what I could manage to read before concluding your work
is hard pressed to be considered scientific. First, a quote.
- "It is obvious that mountain biking is harmful to some wildlife and
people. No one, even mountain bikers, tries to deny that."
It is not obvious, or more people would think this. Stating it is
obvious does not make it so, or do anything to help your cause. The
sweeping generalization is a great way to make anyone with a science
background dismiss your work, much like the emotional arguments you
use (i.e.; "He's not stupid and insensitive, as Bush is. For one
thing, he's not a mountain biker (no sane, caring person is).").
Also, most folks writing academic papers do not reference their own
work as proof of anything.

Chris

Chris Nygaard wrote:
On Dec 12, 7:04 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
For the truth:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

TL;DR

Two points for what I could manage to read before concluding your work
is hard pressed to be considered scientific. First, a quote.
- "It is obvious that mountain biking is harmful to some wildlife and
people. No one, even mountain bikers, tries to deny that."
It is not obvious, or more people would think this. Stating it is
obvious does not make it so, or do anything to help your cause. The
sweeping generalization is a great way to make anyone with a science
background dismiss your work, much like the emotional arguments you
use (i.e.; "He's not stupid and insensitive, as Bush is. For one
thing, he's not a mountain biker (no sane, caring person is).").
Also, most folks writing academic papers do not reference their own
work as proof of anything.

You must be new around here if you are trying to reason with Mikey V.
about mountain biking.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

On Dec 25, 9:16*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
You must be new around here if you are trying to reason with Mikey V.
about mountain biking.
I admire his interst in doing more to save the world, but think he
exicution on trying to do anything about it is mostly wrong. Picking
fights with people is rarely endearing to either person or the cause.
Plus, all the emotional ploys he inserts in his academic papers are a
total riot. Last time I checked, science did not respond to emotion.

Chris

Chris wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
You must be new around here if you are trying to reason with Mikey V.
about mountain biking.
I admire his interst in doing more to save the world, but think he
exicution on trying to do anything about it is mostly wrong. Picking
fights with people is rarely endearing to either person or the cause.
Plus, all the emotional ploys he inserts in his academic papers are a
total riot.

Please do not call them "academic" or "scientific" papers. They are neither.

SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
Chris wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
You must be new around here if you are trying to reason with Mikey V.
about mountain biking.
I admire his interst in doing more to save the world, but think he
exicution on trying to do anything about it is mostly wrong. Picking
fights with people is rarely endearing to either person or the cause.
Plus, all the emotional ploys he inserts in his academic papers are a
total riot.

Please do not call them "academic" or "scientific" papers. They are
neither.

I think "rants" is the word we are looking for.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

On Dec 29, 10:28*am, SMS wrote:
Chris wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
You must be new around here if you are trying to reason with Mikey V.
about mountain biking.
I admire his interst in doing more to save the world, but think he
exicution on trying to do anything about it is mostly wrong. Picking
fights with people is rarely endearing to either person or the cause.
Plus, all the emotional ploys he inserts in his academic papers are a
total riot.

Please do not call them "academic" or "scientific" papers. They are neither.

Call them by their actual name, toilet papers.

"Siskuwihane" wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:28 am, SMS wrote:
Chris wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
You must be new around here if you are trying to reason with Mikey V.
about mountain biking.
I admire his interst in doing more to save the world, but think he
exicution on trying to do anything about it is mostly wrong. Picking
fights with people is rarely endearing to either person or the cause.
Plus, all the emotional ploys he inserts in his academic papers are a
total riot.
Please do not call them "academic" or "scientific" papers. They are neither.

Call them by their actual name, toilet papers.

LOL

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll