|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:6omdncHra9kswxTZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@prairiewave. com... "SMS" wrote in message ... S Curtiss wrote: People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people, regardless of activity, is the priority. Well-stated. It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers might desire, a question of which users there are more of. Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and cyclists. There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers. What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation. The nationwide cooperative efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the "science" and research that supports them with support from the agencies that oversee and enforce the rulings) |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:26:29 -0400, "S Curtiss" wrote: "Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:y_idndsQZYQCxxvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@prairiewav e.com... Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers - period! In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and techniques are in place. And enforced. I'd like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th. DUH! Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why don't you? Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you... I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact. While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts. Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there. If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles. You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call. The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based on who was there first. People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people, regardless of activity, is the priority. You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking with mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them. This is not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you continue to deny. Your OPINIONS on these alleged effects is not a filter to validate or deny access. Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements only to see your own comments. The fact is, bikers always demand that hikers yield to them: hikers have to get out of the way, or bikers can't get by! DUH! "always"...? Generalization. No basis in fact. Your exaggerated claim is not valid. Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle. Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher. You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do with actual information. Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares about the mountain biker's point of view. Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments about usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything? Below - your statement from another thread "Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil. Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get picked up by the Mother Ship? I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things. I believe "the great" needs his little pills..... === 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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:56:38 -0700, SMS wrote: S Curtiss wrote: People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people, regardless of activity, is the priority. Well-stated. BS. You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking with mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them. This is not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you continue to deny. Bike impacts that you continue to ALLEGE as an OPINION. It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers might desire, a question of which users there are more of. Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for bicyclists than hikers, BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain biking has much greater impacts than hiking. Really? Then give us the names of the ones who support your OPINIONS and have reviewed and commented on your presentations. you cannot argue for access of one group over another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and cyclists. === |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS wrote: Beach Runner wrote: Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for bicyclists than hikers, BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain biking has much greater impacts than hiking. As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy. Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false assumptions. Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers. That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for. This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than hikers: Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H. K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004. The results from that study say something slightly different which you igno "Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])." Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning" but the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and exaggerate the results out of context. One study does show a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not significant enough to base a ban on hikers on. That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it. Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure Vandeman! Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary, where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic primary. You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason. This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls, coming soon to a greenbelt near you. === |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 01:51:34 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary results to his. You needn't worry. Nostudy can ever find mountain biking no more harmful than hiking. Never has, never will. The best they can do is lie. 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! Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil. By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for Great Ones like Myself. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:32:18 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS wrote: Beach Runner wrote: Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for bicyclists than hikers, BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain biking has much greater impacts than hiking. As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy. Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false assumptions. Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers. That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for. This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than hikers: Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H. K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004. The results from that study say something slightly different which you igno "Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])." Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning" but the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and exaggerate the results out of context. You conveniently omitted the statistical results, which is the basis for science. One study does show a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not significant enough to base a ban on hikers on. That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it. Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure Vandeman! Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary, where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic primary. You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason. This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls, coming soon to a greenbelt near you. === === 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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"S Curtiss" wrote in message news:7jhjg.1756$ZV5.914@dukeread05... [RBM newsgroup deleted] "Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:6omdncHra9kswxTZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@prairiewave. com... "SMS" wrote in message ... S Curtiss wrote: People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people, regardless of activity, is the priority. Well-stated. It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers might desire, a question of which users there are more of. Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and cyclists. There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers. What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation. Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world. The nationwide cooperative efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the "science" and research that supports them with support from the agencies that oversee and enforce the rulings) The above is nothing but boilerplate by Curitss and has by now become meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:32:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:15:10 -0700, SMS wrote: Beach Runner wrote: Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for bicyclists than hikers, BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain biking has much greater impacts than hiking. As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy. Correct. But one way to unify people is with facts and logic. It is important that everyone understand the facts regarding trail impact, in order to eliminate friction between users that is often based on false assumptions. Look at all the studies regarding impact, and you'll not find a single credible study that shows any significant difference in trail impact or wildlife impact between hikers and mountain bikers. That's a bald-faced lie -- something mountain bikers are famous for. This study says mountain bikers have greater impacts on elk than hikers: Wisdom, M. J. ), Alan A. Ager ), H. K. Preisler ), N. J. Cimon ), and B. K. Johnson ), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004. The results from that study say something slightly different which you igno "Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run, movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13 yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11 yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10 yards/minute [9 m/min])." Relatively the same in comparison. A slight difference in the "morning" but the same for the afternoon. You do NOT get to interpret data and exaggerate the results out of context. You conveniently omitted the statistical results, which is the basis for science. You conveniently expect that statement to mean anything? Statistics are only as relevant as the data and the context of the scope of that data. You can not extrapolate "statistical" results from this study based only on your own definitions of what those statistics should include. One study does show a marginally lower impact on wildlife from mountain biking, but it's not significant enough to base a ban on hikers on. That "study" is pure BS, which anyone can see by simply reading it. Studies you can twist and use are valid, the others are pure BS...? Pure Vandeman! No reply here...? So "statistical results" that counter your opinions are pure BS as opposed to "statistical results" you can create from another study twisted to favor you opinion...? Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary, where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic primary. You apparently believed the lies in his opponents' ads. Do your homework. The Sierra Club supported him for good reason. This spells big trouble for California, as his biggest campaign contributors were developers too. Look for more sprawl and strip malls, coming soon to a greenbelt near you. === === 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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:C9GdncO9kohLTxPZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@prairiewave. com... "S Curtiss" wrote in message news:7jhjg.1756$ZV5.914@dukeread05... [RBM newsgroup deleted] "Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:6omdncHra9kswxTZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@prairiewave. com... "SMS" wrote in message ... S Curtiss wrote: People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people, regardless of activity, is the priority. Well-stated. It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers might desire, a question of which users there are more of. Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and cyclists. There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers. What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation. Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world. The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel. The nationwide cooperative efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the "science" and research that supports them with support from the agencies that oversee and enforce the rulings) The above is nothing but boilerplate by Curitss and has by now become meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"S Curtiss" wrote in message news:3LCjg.30022$ZW3.28943@dukeread04... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:C9GdncO9kohLTxPZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@prairiewave. com... "S Curtiss" wrote in message news:7jhjg.1756$ZV5.914@dukeread05... [RBM newsgroup deleted] "Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:6omdncHra9kswxTZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@prairiewave. com... "SMS" wrote in message ... S Curtiss wrote: People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people, regardless of activity, is the priority. Well-stated. It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers might desire, a question of which users there are more of. Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for bicyclists than hikers, you cannot argue for access of one group over another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and cyclists. There is not only the question of the impact on trails and wildlife, but the impact on other users. Hikers and equestrians do not seem to conflict as much as hikers and bikers. It is all about mental attitudes and how one views wilderness. Vandeman concentrates on the impact issue with regard to trails and wildlife whereas I am mostly concerned about the mental and spiritual dimensions of how different users view wilderness. Frankly, I would not have such a big issue with mountain bikers if I thought they viewed wilderness with respect. Instead, I see too many who are only into wilderness for fun and games. Wilderness is just a mean of recreation for them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers. What makes you think you can speak for anybody? "Us hikers"? Give us a break! Your form of "recreation" (make no mistake, hiking is recreation) does not invalidate my choice of recreation. Hiking is not just a recreation like mountain biking is. It is somewhat spiritual and requires wilderness for its' platform. There is so little wilderness left that it is criminal of you to want to deprive us hikers of our last refuge from the dirty rotten scoundrels of the world. The above is nothing but boilerplate by Dolan and has by now become meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel. The above is nothing but pure idiocy by Curtiss and I will no longer bother with such drivel. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota The nationwide cooperative efforts of different groups sharing resources and recognizing the diversity of access validates my choices. (and my opinions, and the "science" and research that supports them with support from the agencies that oversee and enforce the rulings) The above is nothing but boilerplate by Curitss and has by now become meaningless. I will no longer pay any attention to such drivel. |
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 |