|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. Neither do hiking shoes. Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite. No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal damage to trails - you are the hypocrite. DUH! |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. So being fair to minorities is a bad thing? You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot. Yes. This has been amply established. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
cc wrote:
Roberto Baggio wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. So being fair to minorities is a bad thing? You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot. Yes. This has been amply established. Bigotry applies to humans vs. animals as well. The critters are, like it or not, the ultimate minority, the least powerful and the ones who always get the shaft. Bruce Jensen |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
cc wrote: Roberto Baggio wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. So being fair to minorities is a bad thing? You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot. Yes. This has been amply established. Imagine that, both of you dorks responding to a vandamn post. JD |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
JD wrote:
cc wrote: Roberto Baggio wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. So being fair to minorities is a bad thing? You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot. Yes. This has been amply established. Imagine that, both of you dorks responding to a vandamn post. JD It's amazing you have the gall to post about 'leg-humping'. If it didn't make you cry at night that you are the evolutionary relic referred to as Cro-Magnon man, you would FOAD and stick to your own posts. Your humping, however, proves the contrary. cc |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On 3 Dec 2006 18:43:35 -0800, " wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000 Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. Exaggeration. Sensationalism. Fabrication. Show us where cyclists have "exclusive use" of the public trail system. There is no user conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are not users. The BIKES are owned by taxpaying users and the LAW allows for their use. NFS Rulings - November 2005. The ONLY conflicts are those created by small-minded liars and extremists who proclaim an agenda of "wildlife" but really are only interested in boosting their egos by saying big words and creating friction. === |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote in
: On 3 Dec 2006 18:43:35 -0800, " wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...03/SPG4OMO5321 .DTL&hw=Tom+Stienstra&sn=001&sc=1000 Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. There is no user conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are not users. Horses are not users either. They are living beings, but where in the US Constitution are horses mentioned?? The article didn't mention what percentage of the users performed what activity. So.... How can you make the determination who is a minority and who is a majority?? Another Mikey assumption?? === 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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Mike Vandeman wrote: There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000 So where's the lie? (Hint: there aren't any. That's why you didn't quote any.) Wrong, you poor wannabe naturalist. Your unsubstantiated opinion is the LIE. Yu haven't cited evidence to back any of your claims. Ever. Your website is not proof. But you can't help it. There is no evidence that supports any of your claims. No legitimate agenmcy will give you the time of day. That is why your sad little impotent quest gets played out on AMB 1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them. That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses running on trails...LIAR!!!! 2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your opinion. Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not belong in public. LIAR!!! 3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact hikers like wider trails. Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!! 4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS LIE. 5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to walk. Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking trail. But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke Vandeman. And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet can ride. LIAR!!! Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the damage caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!! Yawn......did you say something??? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
JP wrote:
1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them. That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses running on trails...LIAR!!!! 2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your opinion. Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not belong in public. LIAR!!! 3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact hikers like wider trails. Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!! 4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS LIE. 5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to walk. Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking trail. But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke Vandeman. And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet can ride. LIAR!!! Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the damage caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!! I wish to point out that much of this is opinion, and from a highly focussed perspective (as are Mr. Vandeman's comments), and should be taken as such. For example - as a hiker, I greatly prefer very narrow and, if possible, almost nonexistent trails when I walk in Nature. The less sign of heavy use, the better. Purely a matter of opinion, and certain to vary from person to person. Regarding rights bestowed simply due to paying of taxes, that is a topic that will have opinions all over the place and numerous opinions (do we, for example, have an unlimited timeless right to see classified documents, even though our taxes pay for them?). YMMV. The name-calling is beside the point. Bruce Jensen |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?
Bruce Jensen wrote: JP wrote: 1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them. That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses running on trails...LIAR!!!! 2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your opinion. Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not belong in public. LIAR!!! 3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact hikers like wider trails. Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!! 4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS LIE. 5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to walk. Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking trail. But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke Vandeman. And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet can ride. LIAR!!! Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the damage caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!! I wish to point out that much of this is opinion... Really? Which part is opinion? I see one in there, besides the invective. E.P. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist | Werehatrack | General | 2 | July 27th 06 02:49 PM |
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. | terrybigwheel | Unicycling | 10 | May 23rd 06 04:25 AM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" | matabala | Racing | 1 | August 23rd 05 04:49 PM |
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | January 4th 05 03:04 PM |