|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:53:16 -0700, SMS wrote: Beach Runner wrote: Let's deal with priorities. 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests. 2: Stop roads. 3: Stop motorized vehicles. 4: Protect wildlife. 5: Prevent polutants and runoff. That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding where they don't belong. Tell the truth. Well, than stop the fighting, there are remendous dangers we all must unit against. 1: Selling our national forests for the profit of a select few. 2: Logging and the destruction of habitat, and the loss of the forest. T his also increases runoff and erosion. 3: Oil drilling and mining in our forests. 4: Ending motorized vehicles in the parks. These are critical issues, once lost, cause long term or permanent devastation. Let's face it, most people do nothing but use a remote control. All the human powered activities, use a biki, hike, run or jog, cross country ski, and other human powered activities are all healthy and wonderful. We are witnessing the largest mass extinction in history, mostly from the loss of habitat. Similarly, trees are a carbon sink, preventing global warming and of course, maintaining soil integrity. We face a real danger. The enemy is real, powerful, and rich. Politicians are in the pocket of developers, industrialists, oil companies and the like, and few care about the ramifications of their short term profits. The less united, activite, and motivated we are, the more everyone will lose. And it won't be just us, it will be everyone, wildlife, the environment, and our children and our children's children. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote: "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. I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it will be over the mountain bikers' heads. 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. 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On 9 Jun 2006 12:17:42 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:53:16 -0700, SMS wrote: Beach Runner wrote: Let's deal with priorities. 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests. 2: Stop roads. 3: Stop motorized vehicles. 4: Protect wildlife. 5: Prevent polutants and runoff. That fighting was started by mountain bikers, who insist on riding where they don't belong. Tell the truth. Well, than stop the fighting, there are remendous dangers we all must unit against. 1: Selling our national forests for the profit of a select few. 2: Logging and the destruction of habitat, and the loss of the forest. T his also increases runoff and erosion. 3: Oil drilling and mining in our forests. 4: Ending motorized vehicles in the parks. These are critical issues, once lost, cause long term or permanent devastation. Let's face it, most people do nothing but use a remote control. All the human powered activities, use a biki, hike, run or jog, cross country ski, and other human powered activities are all healthy and wonderful. We are witnessing the largest mass extinction in history, mostly from the loss of habitat. Mountain biking destroys habitat and teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. Those are the kids that go on to be big destroyers of the environment. Similarly, trees are a carbon sink, preventing global warming and of course, maintaining soil integrity. We face a real danger. The enemy is real, powerful, and rich. Politicians are in the pocket of developers, industrialists, oil companies and the like, and few care about the ramifications of their short term profits. The less united, activite, and motivated we are, the more everyone will lose. And it won't be just us, it will be everyone, wildlife, the environment, and our children and our children's children. Then stop biking in nature, and the fight will be over. It's really that simple. That shows where your priorities a you would rather mountain bike than work with real environmentalists to protect the environment. === 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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: "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. I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it will be over the mountain bikers' heads. or completely irrelevant. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"BB" wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, Edward Dolan wrote: [newsgroups restored] (irrelevant newsgroups trimmed; get a grip Ed and stop being a troll) I have restored RBS because I want Vandeman and Curtiss to see my posts on this issue. RBM is not into any of this, so they can be cut which I have now done. 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 ... Wilderness is just a means of recreation for them, not a pilgrimage of the soul like it is for us hikers. As Curtiss keeps saying, bikes aren't allowed in designated wilderness so anyone biking there is doing so illegally. They're not going to get any support from me (or sympathy if they're arrested or their bike is confiscated). You may not like the fact that biking is recreation, but that's what recreational areas are for. Besides, nearly all of these areas have designated hiking trails. So if people aren't biking in designated wilderness, and don't bike on designated hiking trails, WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR BEEF, Ed? My main beef is that I do not trust mountain bikers to stay out of wilderness areas and/or to stay off of trails that are for hikers only. I KNOW that is where they want to ride their bikes. If the problem is people doing stuff illegally, then call the cops. I don't ride on hiking-only trails, so I'll never catch them in the act, and besides I'll never be riding anywhere near where you live so you can't expect me to solve this problem. If you want tips on how to clearly identify the bike and rider, we may be able to help. You need to report it to the rangers and/or police instead of just Usenet. Yes, I agree with you about the necessity for enforcement. But it will ruin my day if I have to report malfeasance to a ranger. It is extra work and it is aggravation. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
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. 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. Personally, I was very disappointed in California's recent primary, where a big developer and anti-environmentalist won the Democratic primary. 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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:25 -0700, cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: "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. I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it will be over the mountain bikers' heads. or completely irrelevant. So people's feelings are irrelevant? What planet do you come 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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On 9 Jun 2006 23:25:30 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: 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. 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. As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy. 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. === The differences are basically trivial in the big picture. You are on the same side in the big picture. Not if you mountain bike. It's a form of development (habitat destruction). 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.) That is really wonderful! But habitat can be shared, if it's not logged, roads are built, chemicals are introduced, and developed. 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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
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. 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. 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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:25 -0700, cc wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: "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. I care about that, too, but I know that if I try to talk about it, it will be over the mountain bikers' heads. or completely irrelevant. So people's feelings are irrelevant? What planet do you come from? === Obviously not the same one you are on. That has been amply established. |
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 |