A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 4th 06, 01:45 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

1. There is no right to mountain bike. That was decided a decade ago
in federal court: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10. Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. 95% of the conflicts
he mentions are due to the presence of the bikes. Not too many hikers
will approach at such a speed that they spook horses or scare other
hikers!
2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
3. Bikes are harmful to wildlife and people: they accelerate erosion,
create V-shaped ruts, kill small animals and plants on the trail,
including tree roots (all of which a hiker can step over or around),
and drive other trail users off the trails and out of the parks.
4. Mountain biking teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is
acceptable -- a BIG step backwards in an era when most people are
becoming MORE concerned about nature.

Mountain bikers are obviously people who can walk. I am not willing to
sacrifice our scanty remaining wild lands, just so a few people can
speed through them so fast that they can't possibly experience them
(as Stienstra was doing in Butano State Park).
===
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
Ads
  #2  
Old December 4th 06, 02:11 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Paul Cassel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 264
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.


Neither do hiking shoes.
  #3  
Old December 4th 06, 03:43 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"


Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:



Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild
Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

  #4  
Old December 4th 06, 04:52 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
JP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Out of Context and without citations


wrote in message
ps.com...

Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:



Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild
Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000



  #5  
Old December 4th 06, 06:42 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
S Curtiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 459
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

1. There is no right to mountain bike. That was decided a decade ago
in federal court: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.

"a decade ago..."? No mention of the RECENT rulings making allowances for
the use of bicycles, the classification of bicycles as not ORVs (ORVs have
been designated MOTORIZED) and the decisions of advancing cooperative
efforts in the U.S. National Forest Rules as of November 2005...?
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf
The recent decisions have over-ruled the myths, misconceptions and lies
previously advanced to hinder the access for off-road cycling.

Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. 95% of the conflicts
he mentions are due to the presence of the bikes.

Or, which has been proven by several surveys by several organizations, the
PERCEIVED effects of riding bikes.
Plus - Show us the math that results in YOUR figure of 95%.

Not too many hikers
will approach at such a speed that they spook horses or scare other
hikers!
2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.

Not true. The NFS allows for seperate designations in some areas and shared
use in others. The cooperative efforts of ALL involved has created better
organization, safer use for everyone AND fair and wise enforcement
3. Bikes are harmful to wildlife and people: they accelerate erosion,
create V-shaped ruts, kill small animals and plants on the trail,
including tree roots (all of which a hiker can step over or around),
and drive other trail users off the trails and out of the parks.

OPINION- OPINION - OPINION. You have not shown your opinions to be based on
anything more than a reference removed from the context of which they were
presented. Even the most recent research reveals off-road cycling and hiking
have similar effects. The NFS rules also address this comaprison.
4. Mountain biking teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is
acceptable -- a BIG step backwards in an era when most people are
becoming MORE concerned about nature.

OPINION. You apply your opinion to results showing that children involved in
outdoor activities are more inclined to be interested in preserving the
outdoors.

Mountain bikers are obviously people who can walk. I am not willing to
sacrifice our scanty remaining wild lands,

Which continue to shrink as you continue your attempts to drive apart
cooperative efforts to preserve.

just so a few people can
speed through them so fast that they can't possibly experience them

Your OPINION of the activity is no measure of how people who actually engage
in the activity experience it.
(as Stienstra was doing in Butano State Park).
===



  #6  
Old December 4th 06, 06:02 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.


Neither do hiking shoes.


Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.
===
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
  #7  
Old December 4th 06, 06:03 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On 3 Dec 2006 18:43:35 -0800, "
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:



Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild
Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000


Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to
exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. There is no user
conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are
not users.
===
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
  #8  
Old December 4th 06, 06:05 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Out of Context and without citations

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP" wrote:


wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike Vandeman wrote:
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:



Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild
Areas. The article
suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000


So where's the lie? (Hint: there aren't any. That's why you didn't
quote any.)
===
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
  #9  
Old December 4th 06, 06:05 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Roberto Baggio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.


So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.


  #10  
Old December 4th 06, 07:44 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
Beej
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to
exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. There is no user
conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are
not users.


It'd be like one of those trails where only mountain bikers were
allowed, but not mountain bikes. :-)

Fortunately, most people are pretty nice. Lots of friendly hikers are
out there when I bike, and lots of friendly bikers are out there when I
hike.

I like the multi-use single track in China Camp--everyone seems to get
along just fine, there. I'm not convinced this bikes-only route is the
way to go. It seems like it would breed resentment instead of a spirit
of cooperation.

As long as mountain bikers are friendly, courteous, and respectful to
other trail users, they'll always be welcomed. The huge number of
multi-use trails in the country speaks for itself in this regard.

-Beej

 




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
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist Werehatrack General 2 July 27th 06 02:49 PM
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. terrybigwheel Unicycling 10 May 23rd 06 04:25 AM
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") spin156 Techniques 15 November 28th 05 08:21 PM
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" matabala Racing 1 August 23rd 05 04:49 PM
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 [email protected] Australia 0 January 4th 05 04:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.