A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Recumbent Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 5th 06, 07:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."


"SMS" wrote in message
...

[newsgroups restored]

Chris Foster wrote:
SMS wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
:

http://www.americantrails.org/resour...ngImpacts.html


WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.


All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
real


Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to tell
you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than hiking in
terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't pleasant to
have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.


The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
bikers will never understand.

However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.


Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
period!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


Ads
  #2  
Old June 5th 06, 06:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."


"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"SMS" wrote in message
...

[newsgroups restored]

Chris Foster wrote:
SMS wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
:

http://www.americantrails.org/resour...ngImpacts.html

WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.


All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
real


Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to
tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than
hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't
pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.


The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain
bikers will never understand.


Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others on
the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other
people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are
constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what we
are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude is
not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and
recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of hiking
in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there.

However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.


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.

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.

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?

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.

The gauntlet of wisdom thrown as like an angry monkey, again, from Conan the
Librarian .


  #3  
Old June 5th 06, 09:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."

Edward Dolan wrote:

Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
period!


They are not "hiking" trails, they are simply trails. I may not like
equestrians messing up the trails, and while hiking I may not like
bicycles on the trails, but hikers have no claim to exclusive use of the
trails, at least not based on impact to the trail or wildlife.

Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
don't you?


It works very well for water sports. Personally I don't think it's all
that big a deal, but some hikers like MV have lost all connection with
reality when it comes to mountain bikes on trails.

Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain
biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject.


Oh please. If he's the expert, he would certainly have at least _one_
study, _one_ reference to support his position. He doesn't have
anything. He's good at ranting, but he has no facts or logic to support
his position.

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.


Yet in case after case, mountain bikers have prevailed in defending
their right to be on the trails, and parks continue to open more trails
to bicyclists. In most cases, the park management has done a good job in
their trail designations.

I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary
results to his.


Of course you will. Facts and logic have no meaning to you. You base
everything on emotion. "You can't have a debate with someone who is
willing to make up the facts."
  #4  
Old June 5th 06, 09:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."

S Curtiss wrote:

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.


In reality, hikers are allied strongly with other human-powered users
(XC skiers, mountain bikers, etc), in trying to prevent motorized
intrusion (snow-mobiles, off-road vehicles, etc.). There are very few
hikers that are as clueless as MV or Ed, when it comes to addressing the
real threats to trails and to the back-country.
  #5  
Old June 7th 06, 05:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"SMS" wrote in message
...

[newsgroups restored]

Chris Foster wrote:
SMS wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953
:

http://www.americantrails.org/resour...ngImpacts.html

WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying.


All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you
have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing
real

Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to
tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than
hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't
pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles.


The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that
mountain bikers will never understand.


Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others
on the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other
people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are
constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what
we are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude
is not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and
recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of
hiking in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there.

However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers.


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.

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.

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.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



  #6  
Old June 7th 06, 06:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."


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

Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers -
period!


They are not "hiking" trails, they are simply trails. I may not like
equestrians messing up the trails, and while hiking I may not like
bicycles on the trails, but hikers have no claim to exclusive use of the
trails, at least not based on impact to the trail or wildlife.


Nope, the trails were originally constructed for hikers and equestrians, not
for mountain bikers. If they had been constructed for cyclists, they would
be far different than what they are.

Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why
don't you?


It works very well for water sports. Personally I don't think it's all
that big a deal, but some hikers like MV have lost all connection with
reality when it comes to mountain bikes on trails.

Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from
mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject.


Oh please. If he's the expert, he would certainly have at least _one_
study, _one_ reference to support his position. He doesn't have anything.
He's good at ranting, but he has no facts or logic to support his
position.


It is common sense that cyclists and hikers have very different impacts on
trails. Frankly, I do not need any studies to show me anything in that
regard. My own observations are sufficient.

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.


Yet in case after case, mountain bikers have prevailed in defending their
right to be on the trails, and parks continue to open more trails to
bicyclists. In most cases, the park management has done a good job in
their trail designations.


It is nothing but pure politics, but that does not make it right. Very many
trails are not suited at all for cyclists, and it will send me into a rage
to see a cyclist trying to negotiate such a trail. However, many lowland
trails will work for cyclists, but still it would be better if they were
walking those trails. It is a matter of philosophy more than anything else.

I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show
contrary results to his.


Of course you will. Facts and logic have no meaning to you. You base
everything on emotion. "You can't have a debate with someone who is
willing to make up the facts."


My contempt for facts is boundless. I do not worship them like you do. Facts
are for me to play with. I can make of them what I will.

Never confuse facts with logic. They are not the same at all. Philosophy 101
anyone?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


  #7  
Old June 7th 06, 11:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."


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.

  #8  
Old June 8th 06, 08:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."


"Beach Runner" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.


Yes, Beach Runner has got it exactly right. The whole issue of mountain
bikes on hiking trails is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things.
Perspective is everything - and the broader the perspective, the better.

When I get too narrowly focused on something I have a tendency to go to
extremes. I blame it all on Curtiss. He is a genius at driving me to
distraction.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


  #9  
Old June 8th 06, 06:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."


"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:[email protected] 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.
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.

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.....


  #10  
Old June 8th 06, 09:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."

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.


People like Vandeman and Dolan play right into the hands of the real
enemies of recreation that are many of the logging companies, and the
manufacturers of snow-mobiles, and ATVs. If they can get the
self-powered recreation users fighting among themselves, then there is
no unified constituency to go after the real abusers of the land.

You'd think that by now MV would have given up, in all these years he's
never been able to supply a single source that backs up his position.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.