|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"S Curtiss" wrote in message news:F5Ykg.6583$FR1.4103@dukeread05... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "SMS" wrote in message ... S Curtiss wrote: Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in reality! That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits. At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV. My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have cyclists. Choose your environment. My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness. I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote: "S Curtiss" wrote in message news:F5Ykg.6583$FR1.4103@dukeread05... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "SMS" wrote in message ... S Curtiss wrote: Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in reality! That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits. At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV. My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have cyclists. Choose your environment. My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness. I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it. Mountain bikers try to claim that they are just "hikers on wheels", but we know better. They are more like THUGS on wheels. Another funny phrase is "human-powered", as though that is supposed to make them benign. A switchblade is human powered. So are a butcher knife, brass knuckles, a baseball bat, a battering ram, mace, and sarin gas. That is the sense in which they are "human-powered". 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 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote: "S Curtiss" wrote in message news:F5Ykg.6583$FR1.4103@dukeread05... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "SMS" wrote in message ... S Curtiss wrote: Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in reality! That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits. At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV. My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have cyclists. Choose your environment. My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness. True, but without wildlife (living things), there would be nowhere worth hiking. That is the long view. I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it. 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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
My qualifications are just as good as yours are. Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh Shifty One. In case you missed it mikey and I can see how you can, it was only in plain English. I said mine were as good as yours are. I am as qualified as you are to talk about the environment and any damage caused to it by hikers, horses, atv, mtn bikes, etc. We both can only give opinions and not any real science I have no degree and yours is on some useless subject regarding how people taste foods differently or some such nonsense. Certainly nothing that qualifies you to talk on the environment. If I'm wrong please post where I can find more information on your degree which qualifies you to talk about the environment, and no you can't say your own website. I want a real URL with information on you and your Phd, perhaps from whatever university you got it from. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... [newsgroups trimmed] On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: [...] My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness. I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you [Curtiss] have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it. Mountain bikers try to claim that they are just "hikers on wheels", but we know better. They are more like THUGS on wheels. Another funny phrase is "human-powered", as though that is supposed to make them benign. A switchblade is human powered. So are a butcher knife, brass knuckles, a baseball bat, a battering ram, mace, and sarin gas. That is the sense in which they are "human-powered". Yes, the "human-powered' thing is a distraction and has no bearing on the purpose of hiking trails. I am learning a few things from you that I never knew before. Keep up the good work. Mountain bikers have unusually thick skulls, but you are getting through to some of them at least. I am trimming ARBR and RBM from these threads as those groups are made up strictly of Freds who have no interest in the subject whatsoever. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... [newsgroups trimmed] On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: [...] My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness. True, but without wildlife (living things), there would be nowhere worth hiking. That is the long view. Yes, you are quite right about that. I have been on many a long hike in the wilderness where I never saw any wild creatures at all. I am more into plant life than I am animal life, but to never see any wild animals is on outrage and we should be ashamed of ourselves for having eliminated so much of their habitat. [...] Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"jason" wrote in message . .. [newsgroups trimmed] Mike Vandeman wrote: My qualifications are just as good as yours are. Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh Shifty One. In case you missed it mikey and I can see how you can, it was only in plain English. I said mine were as good as yours are. I am as qualified as you are to talk about the environment and any damage caused to it by hikers, horses, atv, mtn bikes, etc. We both can only give opinions and not any real science I have no degree and yours is on some useless subject regarding how people taste foods differently or some such nonsense. Certainly nothing that qualifies you to talk on the environment. If I'm wrong please post where I can find more information on your degree which qualifies you to talk about the environment, and no you can't say your own website. I want a real URL with information on you and your Phd, perhaps from whatever university you got it from. A Ph.D degree is primarily a research degree. By attaining that degree you are thereby qualified to undertake any research on any subject you choose. The average person will not know how to do research. We will know how to do a search, but not research. They are two different things entirely. You would be wise to defer to Mr. Vandeman in this matter of trail damage and damage to wild life done by mountain bikes as it appears he has done considerable research on the subject. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:43:25 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . [newsgroups trimmed] On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:10:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: [...] My main point which I like to make over and over is that bikers and hikers do not get along at all well on hiking trails. It does not have so much to do with impacts on the trail itself or even on wildlife, but rather on the kind of attitudes we bring to nature and to wilderness. True, but without wildlife (living things), there would be nowhere worth hiking. That is the long view. Yes, you are quite right about that. I have been on many a long hike in the wilderness where I never saw any wild creatures at all. I am more into plant life than I am animal life, but to never see any wild animals is on outrage and we should be ashamed of ourselves for having eliminated so much of their habitat. [...] Yes. I have 3, no, 4 criteria for a successful hike: (1) see and try an edible plant, (2) see a wild animal (common ones like insects and birds don't count, UNLESS, SADLY, THERE IS NOTHING ELSE), (3) go to some high place and get a wide view to see the lay of the land, (4) don't see any bikes (I just added this one, which I used to be able to take for granted ...). 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 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:24:10 GMT, jason
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: My qualifications are just as good as yours are. Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh Shifty One. In case you missed it mikey and I can see how you can, it was only in plain English. I said mine were as good as yours are. I am as qualified as you are to talk about the environment and any damage caused to it by hikers, horses, atv, mtn bikes, etc. We both can only give opinions and not any real science I have no degree There you go: you have no qualifications whatsoever (at least that you are willing to talk about)! and yours is on some useless subject regarding how people taste foods differently or some such nonsense. Certainly nothing that qualifies you to talk on the environment. I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction). Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts) indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less be asked to give such a paper. If I'm wrong please post where I can find more information on your degree which qualifies you to talk about the environment, and no you can't say your own website. I want a real URL with information on you and your Phd, perhaps from whatever university you got it 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 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... [...] I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction). Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts) indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less be asked to give such a paper. Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |