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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
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.
No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails
Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.

That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.
Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)
Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.

(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)

It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.


Just because you don't agree
with the *actual research*
doesn't change it. How can you
be so blind?

I mean, everything you say
flies in the face of real
science. Your idiotic thread
on cell phones causing cancer,
for example. You cannot argue
with data! Yet you continue
your flaming diatribes . .
with no results except for a
rather large peanut gallery
telling you to take a hike . .
or drop off the planet.

You do not, and your
opinion is therefore
meaningless. Get the picture?
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:20:41 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:47:23 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:05:49 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"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?
Yes, if it harms the majority. But mountain bikers already have access
to every trail, so they aren't being discriminated against, in spite
of what they say.

Mike, enough of this semantic bull****. It's gone on long enough. For
the purposes of this argument - and many others - a mountain biker is
referred to as such when he is on a bike.
Not according to the dictionary.
I'm sorry. Which dictionary do
you own? The MJV version?
Welcome to "reality".

Take your pick. A mountain biker is someone who habiltally rides a
bike off-road. You don't stop being a mountain biker just because you
get off your bike. DUH!

Just like you don't stop being
a moron when you're not
spewing garbage. However, if
you STFU then it doesn't
matter if you're a complete
jackass! Don't you get it?


When I am on a trail and not
on my bike, I am a hiker. So yes, a mountain biker is discriminated
against when he is told he cannot take his bike on trails.
BS. Hikers & equestrians also can't take a bike on trails. THE EXACT
SAME RULE APPLIES TO EVERYONE, so there can't be any discrimination.
You have done absolutely
nothing to address the point I
brought up. As usual.

Imagine telling a homosexual that he/she is not discriminated against --
as long as they don't practice. It's just stupid and you know it. Yet,
you continue as usual . .

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

===
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
===
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
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"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.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.

Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!

Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).


Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===
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
===
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
===
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

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"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.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.

Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!

Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).

1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.
2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are
"comparable". It means nothing.

Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===
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
===
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
===
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
===
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

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
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.
No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails
Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.

That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.
Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)
Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.

(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)

It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.

Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one
exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut
up.

Just because you don't agree
with the *actual research*
doesn't change it. How can you
be so blind?

I mean, everything you say
flies in the face of real
science. Your idiotic thread
on cell phones causing cancer,
for example. You cannot argue
with data! Yet you continue
your flaming diatribes . .
with no results except for a
rather large peanut gallery
telling you to take a hike . .
or drop off the planet.

You do not, and your
opinion is therefore
meaningless. Get the picture?
===
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
===
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

On 10 Dec 2006 12:38:17 -0800, "Beej" wrote:

On Dec 10, 9:54 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
So you don't know the difference between a bike and a biker?!!! You
really ARE stupid, aren't you?

Please. This is Usenet, and I'm a veteran.

Mike, you've been trying to rid the world of mountain bikes for what,
ten years?

12.

Keep fighting the good fight, I say!

-Beej
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"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.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.
Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!
Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).

1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.

Again, you mistake your
opinion of the studies with
one that is relevant. Your
voice is meaningless, as we
have established.

2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are
"comparable". It means nothing.

Obviously the meaning I
implied was "similar".
Grasping at straws, as usual.


Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
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.
No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails
Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.

That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.
Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)
Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.
(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)
It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.

Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one
exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut
up.

Wilson and Seney is published
in MRD, which is
peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS.
Don't you read the **** you
write, Mike?


Just because you don't agree
with the *actual research*
doesn't change it. How can you
be so blind?

I mean, everything you say
flies in the face of real
science. Your idiotic thread
on cell phones causing cancer,
for example. You cannot argue
with data! Yet you continue
your flaming diatribes . .
with no results except for a
rather large peanut gallery
telling you to take a hike . .
or drop off the planet.

You do not, and your
opinion is therefore
meaningless. Get the picture?
===
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
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:37:29 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:
Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over
to
exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers.
Exaggeration. Sensationalism. Fabrication. Show us where cyclists have
"exclusive use" of the public trail system.

It's a proposal.
It's an OPINION. Please explain how interest in the outdoors (including
hiking) continues to GROW if off-road cyclists are chasing everyone
away.

It isn't. It's decreasing. National parks are losing visitors.
I didn't say National Parks. I said the OUTDOORS. Can't you read? National
Parks are brcoming difficult to visit (higher gas prices) while interest
in
other options are becoming more available.
Numbers are also fluctuating but not so drastically as being claimed.
While
they do show a trend lending to an overall decline, the factors involved
do
not include off-road cycling chasing people out

You are lying again. I have seen numerous parks where hikers &
equestrians were driven out by the presence of mountain bikers.

Anecdotal and meaningless. Your opinions automatically suspect cycling with
total disregard to any other factors.

(most National Parks do not
allow off-road cycling). It is the more local and available public access
land that is attracting people with a wide variety of outdoor options.
Your attempt to throw cycling under the bus as a cause for National Parks'
decline is simply a stupid gesture of impotence.

It hasn't happened, luckily. But every hiking trail
with lots of mountain bikers on it will eventually drive away all the
hikers.
OPINION. It is easy to say sensational things in attempts to sway
emotion
and public attention. Fortunately, it also easy to locate the TRUTH
about
outdoor cooperation and safety.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:43:47 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


As long as mountain bikers are friendly, courteous, and respectful to
other trail users, they'll always be welcomed.

BS. It's the BIKES we object to. There's nothing dangerous about not
smiling.
There is no "we" that is objecting. It is YOU and an extremist minority
that
has never been satisfied and vilify everything outside of your narrow view
with nothing but emotion and opinion.

The huge number of
multi-use trails in the country speaks for itself in this regard.

Yes - They do!

-Beej
===
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!

HEADLINE NEWS ITEM THIS WEEK
The study, published this week in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, is the largest yet to find no bad news about the safety of cell
phones and the radio-frequency energy they emit.


LIAR! That was ONLY about CANCER! DUH!
===
Awwww... still clinging to anything negative despite the evidence of the
positive. I would suggest you call a friend to remove any sharp objects and
abuseable medications from your home. Being that negative on everything
could be a sign.