"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
. ..
Edward Dolan wrote:

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.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not
hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless
a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
trails.

Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
trails.
Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for
hikers.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
to
not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would
prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to
share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails,
the motorized ATV vehicles.

I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
trails
for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of
South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage
as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for
the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and
desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.

I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave
that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable
differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness.

I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that
it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying
"can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along;
it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes,
mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least
TOLERABLE idiots and liars.
At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
"experience" that is his determining factor. You have to sidestep that and
try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information
and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is OBVIOUS
your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife
is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you desire.
If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction
caused by building than whining about a few bikes.

That is
the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of
secondary importance.

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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

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.

I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?
It obviously hasn't worked for you. You've been doing it for over 10 years.
Your OPINION of information different from your presentations is not a
filter for the validity of that information or the character of the
researchers.
===

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:06:34 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Jason wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often
enough,
and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it?


Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it
often enough it much be true.

Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or
citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable!

You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.

Your OPINION of the activity is not a valid filter for determing the
validity of the science or data that may show different conclusions than
your OPINIONS.
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:57:49 GMT, jason
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference.


Yes many of us can which is why you're science always gets slammed down
hard. It's junk science,

And how would you know? Qualifications, please! This should be good
for a laugh.
And do not point us back to your own website.

heck even calling it science is a stretch.
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:21:04 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain
bikers
who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for
their
desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and
general uncouthness.

Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you
"eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not
so
great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so
great",
"faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries"

Your cheap imitation of Ed The Great is just that: a cheap,
ineffective imitation.

You are the master of cheap imitation, so maybe you have something. You have
been imitating and stealing the work of real reserchers for years only to
take it apart and put it together to fit your OPINIONS. Your entire body of
"work" has been an ineffective imitation. As far as imitating Dolan goes...?
Maybe I'm imitating the person that was imitated by the person Dolan
copied... Maybe you are just ****ing on whipsnakes.

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:2rydnSfA1oyMTQzZnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...

We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain
bikers who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers
for their desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all
slobbiness and general uncouthness.

Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you
"eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not
so great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so
great", "faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries"

As long as Curtiss does not come up with anything new, all he will get
from me is my drivel. Since my drivel is better than his drivel, he will
lose.
And which eye opening revelation have you put forth...? That you are
"great"...? I think I heard that one. FYI - It doesnt't get funnier the
more you tell it.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
.. .
Edward Dolan wrote:

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.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are
not
hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails.
Unless
a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the
trails.

Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking
trails.
Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for
hikers.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers
to
not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would
prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to
share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails,
the motorized ATV vehicles.

I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some
trails
for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of
South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage
as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for
the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and
desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy
hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail
impact that have no basis in fact.

I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave
that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable
differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness.

I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that
it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying
"can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along;
it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes,
mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least
TOLERABLE idiots and liars.
At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
"experience" that is his determining factor.

It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.

You have to sidestep that and
try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information
and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is OBVIOUS
your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife
is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you desire.
If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction
caused by building than whining about a few bikes.

People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
issue?

That is
the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of
secondary importance.

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

===
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

S Curtiss wrote:

At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
"experience" that is his determining factor.

Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many
hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their
experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't
also like the "experience" of solitude.

You have to sidestep that and
try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information
and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure.

Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to
base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the
disruption of his hiking enjoyment.

Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife,
or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at
least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his
arguments against mountain bikes.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:37:28 GMT, jason
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
And how would you know? Qualifications, please! This should be good
for a laugh.


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.

Oh by the way refresh
my memory what is your phd in again? Something to do with how Asians and
black people taste things as I recall. Ya your qualified to speak on the
environment with that one. Isn't that the equilivent of underwater
basket weaving?
===
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

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:55:35 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
"experience" that is his determining factor.

Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many
hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their
experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't
also like the "experience" of solitude.

You have to sidestep that and
try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information
and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure.

Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to
base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the
disruption of his hiking enjoyment.

Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife,
or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at
least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his
arguments against mountain bikes.

I AM being honest. That's exactly what drives mountain bikers so
crazy! They can't believe that anyone could be less selfish than they
are!
===
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