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

Exactly.

"jason" wrote in message
m...
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:22:21 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


Perhaps he could speak at something like this?
http://www.imba.com/resources/summit...ler_index.html


No, those "conferences" are censored.



Censored? You mean they only allow real scientists to talk or people that
actually know what they're talking about? You fail on both accounts, no
wonder they wouldn't let you talk.

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 27 Nov 2006 14:01:47 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
m:

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!

Google won't help you, as demonstrated by the fact that you were
unable to cite any such research. As usual.


Hey fool, I was simply responding to you in the same way you responded
to another poster. A little slow today??


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

===
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

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:34:17 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"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),

Proving that "Because people want to do it" isn't a good reason for
allowing something. QED

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?

===
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 27 Nov 2006 14:01:47 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

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!

Google won't help you, as demonstrated by the fact that you were
unable to cite any such research. As usual.

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

===
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 Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:07:04 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


"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!

YOU did: "Biking on-road is much more hazardous."

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.

Did you say something?
===
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

Mikey,
He completely discredited you and your arguments, and the only reply you
have is "Did you say something?"
How pathetic.

I love the smell of a good old fashioned ass-kicking in the morning




Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:07:04 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


"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!

YOU did: "Biking on-road is much more hazardous."

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.

Did you say something?
===
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 Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:34:17 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

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),

Proving that "Because people want to do it" isn't a good reason for
allowing something. QED

You are stating an OPINION. The FACT that people want to do it PLUS the FACT
that you have yet to offer substantive and external proof your OPINIONS have
substance in scientific evidence PLUS the rest of the statement below (which
you ignored) is reason enough.

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.

Ed Pirrero wrote:
Pat O'Connell wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:
S Curtiss wrote:
[MV schnipped]
We (or I) do not have to prove anything to you.
When it all comes down to it, *this* is really the final word.
Attempting to find MJV-acceptable reasons for a strawman of his
construction is a fool's errand.

He's not a land manager, and he has no sway with land managers, AND he
has no sway with those who do have sway with lab managers.

His demand for "reason[s]" to allow MTBing (on any land, really) is a
paraphrase of the question "Why should MJV be allowed to post in
alt.mountain-bike?"

If a tree fell in the forest, and MJV wasn't there to blame it on
MTBers, did it really matter at all to anyone?
Question: If you guys would put Mikey in your plonk filters, and no one
would reply to him, would he make an ass of himself anyway?

Answer: probably, but no one would care. I haven't seen a direct post
from him in well over two years.

Nobody cares *now*.

You can also kill by message content, such that if he's quoted, those
messages are killed as well.

Try it.

E.P.


remember when dealing with mike the dick that PHD in his case stands for
"Piled Higher and Deeper

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:07:04 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:


"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!

YOU did: "Biking on-road is much more hazardous."

I didn't say anything about cars. Once again, you're lying.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
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.

Did you say something?

Yes, I said something. Try pulling your fingers out of your ears.

I said a lot, and I put a fair degree of factual information into it. It's
even quoted above.

But of course you have no retort for other than the usual rhetoric, which
only proves without a doubt what I said above is true.

QED.