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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:55:31 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

NONE of that is a reason to allow BIKES off-road. Show me where a
BIKE
is necessary for off-road exercizing! Idiot. Try again....
Show where there is a reason to NOT allow them. You haven't.


That's because such reasons don't exist. And it really doesn't matter
whether off-road cycling is justified in MJV's mind. As long as land
managers see the reality of the situation, there will always be
off-road cycling, the huffing and puffing of whack-jobs like MJV
notwithstanding.

MTBs don't do any more harm to the landscape than hikers. A reason
that works for land managers, and works for me, too. BTW - this
assertion has been proved on multiple occasions, by different
researchers.

Anyone who actually READ those studies, as I did, but not you, would
see that they don't prove what they claim to prove. You are just LYING
-- nothing new, for a mountain biker.

The people whose job it is to assess information read those studies and
came
to the conclusion that off-road cycling is ACCEPTABLE and recognized. Your
denial does not undermine the findings of REAL researchers and scientists
who have made these determinations. Your OPINIONS are simply wrong and
your
selective use of others' work to support them is a fabrication of lies.
Your best contribution is the advancement of the poor stereotypes of the
"environmentalist". Fortunately, those of us with a grasp on reality have
been able to see beyond the stereotypes (of everyone interested in the
outdoors) to find the common ground of preservation.
Your lies have been defeated by your own actions. Your opinions have been
discounted by better minds. Your presentations and "website(s)" stand as a
parody to actual research.
We may even owe you a "thank you"! Your lies (and others like you) focused
attention on real available information while providing an incentive to
create better research methods which has provided the foundation of
official
recognition. YOU pointed to research which stated more study was needed.
YOUR fabrications created a focus for research to make real
determinations.
In the process, YOUR OPINIONS were shown to be baseless.
You may have done as much for the sport as the suspension fork!

Did you say something?

Awwwwwwwwwww.... Trapped by logic of reality and fact.... AGAIN!

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:55:31 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

NONE of that is a reason to allow BIKES off-road. Show me where a
BIKE
is necessary for off-road exercizing! Idiot. Try again....
Show where there is a reason to NOT allow them. You haven't.


That's because such reasons don't exist. And it really doesn't matter
whether off-road cycling is justified in MJV's mind. As long as land
managers see the reality of the situation, there will always be
off-road cycling, the huffing and puffing of whack-jobs like MJV
notwithstanding.

MTBs don't do any more harm to the landscape than hikers. A reason
that works for land managers, and works for me, too. BTW - this
assertion has been proved on multiple occasions, by different
researchers.

Anyone who actually READ those studies, as I did, but not you, would
see that they don't prove what they claim to prove. You are just LYING
-- nothing new, for a mountain biker.

The people whose job it is to assess information read those studies and
came
to the conclusion that off-road cycling is ACCEPTABLE and recognized.
Your
denial does not undermine the findings of REAL researchers and scientists
who have made these determinations. Your OPINIONS are simply wrong and
your
selective use of others' work to support them is a fabrication of lies.
Your best contribution is the advancement of the poor stereotypes of the
"environmentalist". Fortunately, those of us with a grasp on reality have
been able to see beyond the stereotypes (of everyone interested in the
outdoors) to find the common ground of preservation.
Your lies have been defeated by your own actions. Your opinions have been
discounted by better minds. Your presentations and "website(s)" stand as
a
parody to actual research.
We may even owe you a "thank you"! Your lies (and others like you)
focused
attention on real available information while providing an incentive to
create better research methods which has provided the foundation of
official
recognition. YOU pointed to research which stated more study was needed.
YOUR fabrications created a focus for research to make real
determinations.
In the process, YOUR OPINIONS were shown to be baseless.
You may have done as much for the sport as the suspension fork!

Did you say something?

Awwwwwwwwwww.... Trapped by logic of reality and fact.... AGAIN!
Typical MV response when cornered by actual information: "did you say
something?" Awwwwwww... He's so cute when he's flustered.

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:20:57 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason". Those
that
do have already made the determination.

Ding! We have a winner! The reason is simple: people want to do it,
and it is allowed by law and land management personnel. Any attempt to
deconstruct this for semantics games is sophistry, but that won't stop
him, will it?

Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
allowed. Try again.

and it
has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing yourself to support your opinions...? Again...? You are
merely
showing how long you have been casting lies and missinformation. The FACT
that mountain biking IS recognized by the BLM and other OFFICIAL
agencies
proves your OPINIONS have been REJECTED by those whose job it is protect
public lands.
The LIE is your presentation of off-road cycling as a harmful activity.
That
LIE has been recognized for what it is.

Did you say something?

Awwwwwwwwwwww.... Trapped by logic of reality and fact.... AGAIN!
Typical MV response when cornered by actual information: "did you say
something?" Awwwwwww... He's so cute when he's flustered.

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news
Awwwwwwwwwww.... Trapped by logic of reality and fact.... AGAIN!
Typical MV response when cornered by actual information: "did you say
something?" Awwwwwww... He's so cute when he's flustered.


He's not that cute, flustered or othewise.

Funny,
Your writings read like the unabombers manifesto. Are you guys related
?


Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:34:43 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"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.

Very funny. My papers speak for themselves.
===
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
...

Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
allowed. Try again.

That's because growing marijuana is illegal (at least in most parts of the
US and Canada), whereas MOUNTAIN BIKING IS LEGAL if the landowner allows it.
Understand the difference, or is that too deep of a concept to grasp?


and it
has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

That was funny. I'm still chuckling. Could you possibly be any more dumb?

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

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!


Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!



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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mike Vandeman wrote in
news
On 22 Nov 2006 12:41:02 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"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".

That's one of his time-honored tactics - to claim there is no research
if none is presented a priori, and from that assume that the poster is
lying. It's neatly circular.

Coincidentally, YOU didn't present any research, either! There isn't
any! Put up or shut up.

Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!


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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

Biking on-road is much more hazardous. Significantly more on-road
cyclists
are injured or killed each year than off-road cyclists.

So what? Trails don't go to transportation destinations, so they are
irrelevant. The only solution to the car problem is to get rid of the
cars. DUH!

Who said anything about a car problem? DUH!

On-road cyclists require roads that are created by decimating tracts of
land. Paved roads will not recover for eons. Off-road tracks leave a
significantly smaller footprint and if not used, will completely recover
in
a very short time.

That's a LIE, as you well know.

No, a lie is you stating that what I said is a lie.

I often go by trails that were once ridden and/or hiked on, but are now
closed. The closure has only been for maybe 4 or 5 years, and it is very
hard to find the trail was unless you knew about it when it was in use.

Take one of the local mountains - Seymour. It has approximately 25
kilometres of trails that can be used for biking (some are shared with trail
runners and hikers). Each trail averages 2 metres wide, but for arguments
sake, we'll say every one is 3 metres wide. Sample:
http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/Seymour/Pangor/c.jpg

Oh, and if you want to see what a tree from a "pristine, virgin" rainforest
looks like, here's an example:
http://www.gutsploder.net/rides/June31_03/15.jpg

Anyway, simple math shows that the area used by trails is approximately 0.75
square kilometres. Compare that to the road that goes up the mountain (goes
to the ski area, but is popular with road cyclists as it is a fairly long
and steep climb). It's 12 kilometres long and 14 metres wide. That's
approximately 1.7 square kilometres. The power line that crosses the
mountain? I don't know the exact numbers, but the swath cut out is very
wide (approximately 100 metres) and it is approximately 4 kilometres in
length. That's 0.4 square kilometres a Then there's the ski area at the
top; the amount of land used by it is something I don't know, but it is a
lot. Here's a link. The top right photograph is just a small part of the
ski resort. The bottom left is the road going up the mountain.
http://www.ehabweb.net/seymour.html

Now look at this pictu
http://www.penmachine.com/photoessay...l/Images/1.jpg

Notice what is prevalent in the photo? Maybe something similar to where
you're viewing this from? But wait. Stare closely at the top third - the
part that is dark green. Look really hard. Harder. That's where the
biking/hiking trails are! See them? See even one trail?

Want to see what search and rescue spends their time doing? Have a look at
this page, and you'll get an idea of what they spend most of their time on;
it isn't mountain biking.
http://www.northshorerescue.com/task.html

Here's our provincial and local governments' stance on biking on said
mountain, with indications of what is and isn't illegal (these are facts -
you know - the type of things rational people use).
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/exp.../mtseymou.html (look under
Park Info)
http://www.britishcolumbia.com/parks/?id=108 (9th paragraph)


Keep criticizing what we should do - there's nothing bad happening in your
area. We lying mountain bikers are the only group of people that maintain
the trails; hikers, horse riders, and trail runners do very little, if
anything with regards to trail maintenance. We mountain bikers work with
local groups and governments on preserving the trails. We work on improving
the trails systems so that they are safer for everyone (not just bikers)
whether it be trail maintenance or signage. We have environmental engineers
assisting us (yes, unlike you, there are people who actually know what they
are talking about when it comes to environmental issues, and some of them
like to bike on the mountains).

Keep living life between your ears. Keep posting non-factual information,
lies, and rhetoric. Keep referencing yourself as an authority. Keep trying
to stir the **** in areas you know less than nothing about so that you can
justify your ineffectual existence. Your epitaph will read "I lied", and it
will be justified.

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:20:57 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On 24 Nov 2006 23:28:35 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:
You haven't the authority to determine what is a "good reason".
Those that
do have already made the determination.

Ding! We have a winner! The reason is simple: people want to do
it, and it is allowed by law and land management personnel. Any
attempt to deconstruct this for semantics games is sophistry, but
that won't stop him, will it?

Why do land managers allow it? Because people want to do it,

Not a good reason. They want to grow marijuana, too, but they aren't
allowed. Try again.

and it
has the same impact on the land as recreational hiking.

That's a LIE, and you know it: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing yourself to support your opinions...? Again...? You are
merely showing how long you have been casting lies and
missinformation. The FACT that mountain biking IS recognized by the
BLM and other OFFICIAL agencies proves your OPINIONS have been
REJECTED by those whose job it is protect public lands.
The LIE is your presentation of off-road cycling as a harmful
activity. That LIE has been recognized for what it is.

Did you say something?

Yeah, he said go away, you are a fool.


===
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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com