Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

Anyone who bikes on a hiking trail is a scoundrel and not even
worth the time to discuss ANYTHING. You have no moral credibility and I regard
you as little better than a common criminal.

You are entitled to your opinion ... however misguided.

You were equating cycling on trails with walking on trails,
both recreations. Now I know why Mr. Vandeman is always calling you and your ilk
liars.

I said they were both RECREATIONS ... not that they were equal.

Your logic is as screwy as your opinions ... which logically
follows come to think of it!

Says the man who refuses, point blank, to apply logic believing his intuition magically yields him the right answer.

Everyday conflicts will eventually settle the issue in favor
of excluding bikes from trails that are used by hikers and
equestrians.

I very much doubt it; as I said, the trajectory is going the other way.

Yes, it is evidence, you moron, unless the person is lying
through his teeth. He is citing a specific park which is a hell of lot more than
you have ever done.

Fine, then I will cite Swinley Forest ... you can go look it up. There are, to my knowledge, no collisions nor conflict there between hikers and bikers.

And the fact that he cites one specific place means nothing. You did too .... you said there were daily collisions there ... then you couldn't provide one iota of evidence to backup that statement. So, you will forgive my sceptical approach.

Mr. Vandeman has a rather peculiar view of bikes I must admit.

How many times do I have to say it ... I not only don't give a damn what Mr Vandeman's views are but I would view with extreme prejudice anything emanating from him. I don't trust him one iota.

I KNOW that mountain bikers are
assholes and total jerks and deserve no consideration whatsoever under any
conditions. Mountain bikers deserve contempt and that is what I give them
whether they are on or off their bikes.

As you reap, so shall you sow ... good luck

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t
walk?

Change the record ...

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

You were equating cycling on trails with walking on trails,
both recreations. Now I know why Mr. Vandeman is always calling you and your ilk
liars.

I said they were both RECREATIONS ... not that they were equal.

One is a recreation that does no harm to nature and the other is a recreation that degrades nature. That is how unequal they are.
[...]

Yes, it is evidence, you moron, unless the person is lying
through his teeth. He is citing a specific park which is a hell of lot more than
you have ever done.

Fine, then I will cite Swinley Forest ... you can go look it up. There are, to my knowledge, no collisions nor conflict there between hikers and bikers.

And the fact that he cites one specific place means nothing. You did too ... you said there were daily collisions there ... then you couldn't provide one iota of evidence to backup that statement. So, you will forgive my sceptical approach.

Anyone who is citing a location from personal experience is good enough for me. The area around Aspen, Colorado is a center for mountain biking and that activity renders the trails near town unsuited for hikers and equestrians. Thus spake Zarathustra.

Mr. Vandeman has a rather peculiar view of bikes I must admit.

How many times do I have to say it ... I not only don't give a damn what Mr Vandeman's views are but I would view with extreme prejudice anything emanating from him. I don't trust him one iota.

That’s because you are an asshole mountain biker. Mr. Vandeman and I are civilized beings. You think like a barbarian because you are a barbarian. The only prejudiced lout here is you who thinks it is fine to bike on trails used by hikers and equestrians.

I KNOW that mountain bikers are
assholes and total jerks and deserve no consideration whatsoever under any
conditions. Mountain bikers deserve contempt and that is what I give them
whether they are on or off their bikes.

As you reap, so shall you sow ... good luck

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t
walk?

Change the record ...

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can‘t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 19:59:59 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

You were equating cycling on trails with walking on trails,
both recreations. Now I know why Mr. Vandeman is always calling you and your ilk
liars.

I said they were both RECREATIONS ... not that they were equal.

One is a recreation that does no harm to nature and the other is a recreation that degrades nature. That is how unequal they are.
[...]

Yes, it is evidence, you moron, unless the person is lying
through his teeth. He is citing a specific park which is a hell of lot more than
you have ever done.

Fine, then I will cite Swinley Forest ... you can go look it up. There are, to my knowledge, no collisions nor conflict there between hikers and bikers.

And the fact that he cites one specific place means nothing. You did too ... you said there were daily collisions there ... then you couldn't provide one iota of evidence to backup that statement. So, you will forgive my sceptical approach.

Anyone who is citing a location from personal experience is good enough for me. The area around Aspen, Colorado is a center for mountain biking and that activity renders the trails near town unsuited for hikers and equestrians. Thus spake Zarathustra.

Mr. Vandeman has a rather peculiar view of bikes I must admit.

How many times do I have to say it ... I not only don't give a damn what Mr Vandeman's views are but I would view with extreme prejudice anything emanating from him. I don't trust him one iota.

That’s because you are an asshole mountain biker. Mr. Vandeman and I are civilized beings. You think like a barbarian because you are a barbarian. The only prejudiced lout here is you who thinks it is fine to bike on trails used by hikers and equestrians.

I KNOW that mountain bikers are
assholes and total jerks and deserve no consideration whatsoever under any
conditions. Mountain bikers deserve contempt and that is what I give them
whether they are on or off their bikes.

As you reap, so shall you sow ... good luck

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t
walk?

Change the record ...

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can‘t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Interesting the change in the meaning of words over time.

The Oregon Trail from Independence, Missouri to the Oregon Territory,
used predominantly by wagons.

The Chisholm Trail, from DeWitt County, Texas to the Kansas railroad
towns, for cattle.

The Goodnight-Loving Trail from Texas to Denver, Colorado, Again
cattle.

The California, Mormon and Oregon Trails, used by immigrant wagon
trains.

But now it appears that trails can be used only for foot travel.

Lucky that earlier inhabitants of Americans didn't believe this modern
pronouncement or California would still be speaking Spanish.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can‘t walk?

Interesting the change in the meaning of words over time.

The Oregon Trail from Independence, Missouri to the Oregon Territory,
used predominantly by wagons.

The Chisholm Trail, from DeWitt County, Texas to the Kansas railroad
towns, for cattle.

The Goodnight-Loving Trail from Texas to Denver, Colorado, Again
cattle.

The California, Mormon and Oregon Trails, used by immigrant wagon
trains.

But now it appears that trails can be used only for foot travel.

Lucky that earlier inhabitants of Americans didn't believe this modern
pronouncement or California would still be speaking Spanish.

We are only addressing the issues that prevail in the here and now, namely cycling on foot trails (paths). What you are comparing has no more relevance than comparing the Silk Road to an Interstate Highway. They are both roads, but vastly different. The same goes for your trails. The meanings of words do indeed change over time.

I recall when the word ‘gay’ was perfectly acceptable and what it meant. Now it means something altogether different. Shakespeare is almost unreadable without the footnotes to explain what he means by his words, and yet it is all English.

By the way, read “The Oregon Trail� by Francis Parkman for what this country was like (1849) west of the Mississippi before everything was ruined by settlement ... and by roads ... and by cyclists riding their bikes on foot paths.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:59:05 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can‘t walk?

Interesting the change in the meaning of words over time.

The Oregon Trail from Independence, Missouri to the Oregon Territory,
used predominantly by wagons.

The Chisholm Trail, from DeWitt County, Texas to the Kansas railroad
towns, for cattle.

The Goodnight-Loving Trail from Texas to Denver, Colorado, Again
cattle.

The California, Mormon and Oregon Trails, used by immigrant wagon
trains.

But now it appears that trails can be used only for foot travel.

Lucky that earlier inhabitants of Americans didn't believe this modern
pronouncement or California would still be speaking Spanish.

We are only addressing the issues that prevail in the here and now, namely cycling on foot trails (paths). What you are comparing has no more relevance than comparing the Silk Road to an Interstate Highway. They are both roads, but vastly different. The same goes for your trails. The meanings of words do indeed change over time.

I recall when the word ‘gay’ was perfectly acceptable and what it meant. Now it means something altogether different. Shakespeare is almost unreadable without the footnotes to explain what he means by his words, and yet it is all English.

By the way, read “The Oregon Trail” by Francis Parkman for what this country was like (1849) west of the Mississippi before everything was ruined by settlement ... and by roads ... and by cyclists riding their bikes on foot paths.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

You are certainly correct - that everything west of the Mississippi
was ruined by settlement - just think how California has been ruined
by an inundation of the failures from back east. And recently too. a
good friend, who moved to California during WW II, once told me about
driving from Burbank to Riverside and traveling through Orange Groves
on the way. Now it is the land of the fruits and nuts.
--
Cheers,

John B.

One is a recreation that does no harm to nature and the other
is a recreation that degrades nature. That is how unequal they are.

Interesting that the science suggests that the impacts are similar and both very low level when compared with almost anything else. Unsurprising really given that the power is still, as I've said many times, one human power whether it's a biker or hiker.

And, earlier in this thread, you said that you didn't care about environmental issues and were happy to support trail proliferation so everyone could have their own.

Do you actually have a consistent position or do you just make things up as you go along ?

Anyone who is citing a location from personal experience is
good enough for me. The area around Aspen, Colorado is a center for mountain
biking and that activity renders the trails near town unsuited for hikers and
equestrians. Thus spake Zarathustra.

So, what about my personal experience of a real, stated location ?

Personal anecdote is worth squat unless backed up by real statistics across a broader area.

And, as we earlier ascertained that you are not a Zoroastrian nor an adherent of Nietzsche I suggest you drop the 'thus spake zarathustra'. Your pronouncements are, to me at least, unconvincing and not in any way the last word on the matter.

That’s because you are an asshole mountain biker. Mr. Vandeman
and I are civilized beings. You think like a barbarian because you are a
barbarian. The only prejudiced lout here is you who thinks it is fine to bike on
trails used by hikers and equestrians.

Vandeman has been convicted of criminal battery, I've never been in the slightest trouble with the law. You are happy to use profanity and ad hominem whereas I eschew both. Who's the barbarian here ?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

One is a recreation that does no harm to nature and the other
is a recreation that degrades nature. That is how unequal they are.

Interesting that the science suggests that the impacts are similar and both very low level when compared with almost anything else. Unsurprising really given that the power is still, as I've said many times, one human power whether it's a biker or hiker.

Human power is multiplied many times by being on a machine with wheels. I believe I have also said this many times.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

And, earlier in this thread, you said that you didn't care about environmental issues and were happy to support trail proliferation so everyone could have their own.

Yes, I am not like Mr. Vandeman in that respect. Cyclists can have their own trails as long as they stay away from MY trails.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Do you actually have a consistent position or do you just make things up as you go along ?

The only one here with an inconsistent opinion is you. If you were consistent, then motorcyclists could be on the trails with you – and you would totally deserve one another.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Anyone who is citing a location from personal experience is
good enough for me. The area around Aspen, Colorado is a center for mountain
biking and that activity renders the trails near town unsuited for hikers and
equestrians. Thus spake Zarathustra.

So, what about my personal experience of a real, stated location ?

Personal anecdote is worth squat unless backed up by real statistics across a broader area.

One bad apple destroys the whole barrel. Bicycles have to be prohibited from ALL trails everywhere that are used by hikers and equestrians - just good old fashion American common sense. Statistics lie all the time about everything. Never trust them to say anything meaningful!

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

And, as we earlier ascertained that you are not a Zoroastrian nor an adherent of Nietzsche I suggest you drop the 'thus spake zarathustra'. Your pronouncements are, to me at least, unconvincing and not in any way the last word on the matter.

I only make pronouncements to fools like you who are incapable of understanding plain English. Like all mountain bikers, you only converse with your own ilk in your own gibberish.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

That’s because you are an asshole mountain biker. Mr. Vandeman
and I are civilized beings. You think like a barbarian because you are a
barbarian. The only prejudiced lout here is you who thinks it is fine to bike on
trails used by hikers and equestrians.

[Mr.] Vandeman has been convicted of criminal battery, I've never been in the slightest trouble with the law. You are happy to use profanity and ad hominem whereas I eschew both. Who's the barbarian here ?

I gotta call ‘em as I see ‘em! ANYONE who rides his bike on a trail used by hikers and equestrians is far worse than a barbarian. Such a ‘person’ is an immoral lout. I believe Mr. Vandeman could sue you for slander, but he is too busy getting more important things done for humanity. I guess it is up to me to kick your sorry ass.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:06:46 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

One is a recreation that does no harm to nature and the other
is a recreation that degrades nature. That is how unequal they are.

Interesting that the science suggests that the impacts are similar and both very low level when compared with almost anything else. Unsurprising really given that the power is still, as I've said many times, one human power whether it's a biker or hiker.

Human power is multiplied many times by being on a machine with wheels. I believe I have also said this many times.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

And, earlier in this thread, you said that you didn't care about environmental issues and were happy to support trail proliferation so everyone could have their own.

Yes, I am not like Mr. Vandeman in that respect. Cyclists can have their own trails as long as they stay away from MY trails.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Do you actually have a consistent position or do you just make things up as you go along ?

The only one here with an inconsistent opinion is you. If you were consistent, then motorcyclists could be on the trails with you – and you would totally deserve one another.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Anyone who is citing a location from personal experience is
good enough for me. The area around Aspen, Colorado is a center for mountain
biking and that activity renders the trails near town unsuited for hikers and
equestrians. Thus spake Zarathustra.

So, what about my personal experience of a real, stated location ?

Personal anecdote is worth squat unless backed up by real statistics across a broader area.

One bad apple destroys the whole barrel. Bicycles have to be prohibited from ALL trails everywhere that are used by hikers and equestrians - just good old fashion American common sense. Statistics lie all the time about everything. Never trust them to say anything meaningful!

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

And, as we earlier ascertained that you are not a Zoroastrian nor an adherent of Nietzsche I suggest you drop the 'thus spake zarathustra'. Your pronouncements are, to me at least, unconvincing and not in any way the last word on the matter.

I only make pronouncements to fools like you who are incapable of understanding plain English. Like all mountain bikers, you only converse with your own ilk in your own gibberish.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

That’s because you are an asshole mountain biker. Mr. Vandeman
and I are civilized beings. You think like a barbarian because you are a
barbarian. The only prejudiced lout here is you who thinks it is fine to bike on
trails used by hikers and equestrians.

[Mr.] Vandeman has been convicted of criminal battery, I've never been in the slightest trouble with the law. You are happy to use profanity and ad hominem whereas I eschew both. Who's the barbarian here ?

I gotta call ‘em as I see ‘em! ANYONE who rides his bike on a trail used by hikers and equestrians is far worse than a barbarian. Such a ‘person’ is an immoral lout. I believe Mr. Vandeman could sue you for slander, but he is too busy getting more important things done for humanity. I guess it is up to me to kick your sorry ass.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Nope, you got it wrong again.

ANYONE who attempts to deprive others of the use of a public facility
is a barbarian, or perhaps better described as a bigoted arse.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:06:46 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

I gotta call ‘em as I see ‘em! ANYONE who rides his bike on a trail used by hikers and equestrians is far worse than a barbarian. Such a ‘person’ is an immoral lout. I believe Mr. Vandeman could sue you for slander, but he is too busy getting more important things done for humanity. I guess it is up to me to kick your sorry ass.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Nope, you got it wrong again.

ANYONE who attempts to deprive others of the use of a public facility
is a barbarian, or perhaps better described as a bigoted arse.

All you know is what you get from the mountain biking community, such as it is. If you would access what is available in the way of information and discussion on the Web from the hiking community, you would not be so god damn ****ing ignorant ... even though you would still be an asshole.

Start he

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:45:55 -0700
From: R Knox
Subject: MCOSD DTEIR O-rTMP - DRAFT Preliminary Comments

Mike: For those who might be considering drafting comments and
concerns about the MCOSD DTEIR for the Off-road and Trail Management
Plan... these preliminary comments may be helpful:

Regards comments for the MCOSD DTEIR - O-RTMP
http://www.marincountyparks.org/dept...-projects/rtmp

Most importantly perhaps, is the requirement that this plan, which not
only sees growth in use of our pastoral open space preserves,
including paved motor vehicle parking where none have pre-existed this
plan, but actively and aggressively advertises, markets and solicits
such increased use and uses, be reconciled with this program plan's
unsupportable claims of no impacts and no mitigations.

1. This is not a resource protection or preservation plan, it is an
users' plan. Please document the grassrootedness upon which this
program claim is based, and skip the unsupported cheerleading PR-spin,
and stick to the longer-term historical facts, pre-Linda Dahl.

2. This is not a plan of the people or a people's plan, it is a
user's plan. And a plan for increasing uses and users impacts. See
item #1 above.

3. The marketing slogan of this plan is that it is a "people's plan,"
but again, it is not that. It is a users' plan, and certainly not a
resource protection plan. It was developed with the considerable aid
of user groups, not a wide, certainly no majoritarian sample of
Marin's taxpayers or citizens. This plan is the result, not of a
grassroots undertaking, but is a minority agenda being pushed
top-down. With lots of cheerleading, PR and marketing behind it.

4. Plan acknowledges aggressive program growth and of the increasing
of use, all uses of our open space preserves, including providing
never before offered, specialized mountain bicycle access trails and
experiences.

5. No implementation costs are calculated or disclosed, although this
is a massive undertaking.

6. Measure A is temporary and runs out 6 years before this plan
expires. Any growth in programs, projects, facilities or services
funded by this source will become unsustainable.

7. Mountain bicycling is a notoriously impactful sport, even when
conducted legally on well designed trails.

8. Mountain bicycles should continue, as they have been for 40-plus
years, to be limited to use on fire protection roads only, where they
can be ridden safely with other users, and with less environmental
damage. Or their use should be reduced and eventually eliminated from
MCOSD properties, as their use is antithetical and incompatible with
natural resource protection and the passive, pastoral enjoyment and
solitudinal experiences of our open space preserves by everyone
including future generations.

9. Measure A should not be misused to fund increased use or uses of
our natural resources or for unsustainable growth in programs,
projects, facilities and services. It should be invested and used
very carefully for the repair and maintenance of existing levels of
service, projects, facilities and programs.

10. The growth and spending on expanding existing services, programs,
facilities, and projects is anti-green, and unnecessary. And it
invites increased impacts and resource management costs.

11. Where is the or are the Responsible Mountain Bicycling
educational materials? This RTMP has been going on for several years,
more than two or three years. There has bee ample time for the
development of comprehensive responsible mounting bicycling materials
to have been developed and promulgated to help decrease the impacts of
this all too often misused and abused technology, especially in our
open space preserves, nature and wildlands.

12. No test case(s) has been made and/or preproven of the political,
social, or psychological theory behind this kumbaya plan to reward 30
years of mountain bicycling misbehaviors and damages with new enhanced
facilities, that in doing so, this will reduce the incidents of
misbehavior and environmental damage.

13. This plan is based on hope for safe trails and environmental
protection while promoting aggressive increases in use, including
aggressive growth in programs and services and advertising for
increased use and uses.

14. This plan will be implemented by the same county administration
that rammed roughshod through, the $1-plus million 680 Trail, during a
deep recession while the county and Marin Parks was claiming poverty
and hardship.

15. The renaming of the Marin County Department of Parks, and Open
Space District was renamed Marin Parks in an attempt to convert our
pastoral low-use open space preserves into active recreationalized
parks, US Parks Service style.

16. Even this very generous gift to the mountain bicycling community
comes with the understanding and acknowledgement that it does not in
any way meet the ultimate desires, goals, or "needs" of this user
group. This plan is merely an incremental next step in achieving that
ultimate agenda.

17. The overwhelming majority of open space users are passive, low
intensity, low impact hikers. Equestrians and bicyclists represent a
very minor subset of users of our preserves, yet this plan
disproportionately accommodates and increases the more impactful
uses.

18. The plan claims to impose no environmental impacts and offers no
mitigations except for best management practices, which this county
administration disdains, chafes under, and tries to water down or
avoid using where expedient.

19. While a much smaller project, the 680 Trail, required at least a
minimum of a mitigated negative declaration under CEQA to litigation
proof its planning and processing, it was much more environmentally
impactful than the low-threshold CEQA requirements misled the public
into believing. The regional, state and national environmental
protection and regulatory agencies found many more impacts and
required many more mitigations for this one trial, yet this new RTMP,
which sees the potential for abandoning, rebuilding, realignment, or
improving as many as half or more of all 250 miles of trails and
roads, yet finds not impacts, and contains no mitigations.

20. This plan needs to be processed with the regional, state and
national environmental protection and regulatory agencies for their
objective assessment of the impacts and mitigations that this plan
entails.

21. Measure A, the major funding source for implementing this
excessive plan, is being misused. Expenditures are a very green
issue. Misspent, it is anti-green and unsustainable. Money, funding
and budgets represent an equivalent value of natural resources, in the
form of energy (oil, nutrients, etc.) extracted somewhere from the
earth's soil of this planet. The misuse of our fiscal resources is
anti-green. This plan misuses these fiscal and natural resources.
This plan increases environmental impacts, it does not reduce them.
This programitc plan should be withdrawn and a full project plan
should be developed with specific individual project details including
full addressment of impacts and mitigations and ongoing management and
maintenance costs clearly identified and calculated and made public.

22. The trade-offs that brought about this kumbaya users' plan are
not a bargain, are not green and are unsustainable. They will
accomplish in the long term the opposite of their hoped-for and
proclaimed objectives and goals.

23. There are issues of trust and credibility and ethics related to
this plan, in that it will be administered by the same individuals and
claques that preplanned administered the hyped-up overselling of
Measure A to us. We were told that it was critical and essential to
ameliorating the risks to our parks and open spaces, that our parks
and open spaces were at dire risk. They were not. Perhaps only if
your dream was to over-recreationalize our open spaces as this plan
does. During a deep recession we were budgeting annually at least $13
million a year for these programs. And this disclosure did not
include all the other revenue sources open to us for these programs.
There was hundreds of thousands of dollars budgeted annually through
DPW and the CAO's office for capital improvements, and we enjoyed a
number of other gifts and grants that were not disclosed in the
marketing for Measure A. No listing of the resource protection and
enhancements that were being made on an ongoing basis, budget year to
budget year, even during a recession, were disclosed in that
marketing. The highly impactful premature 680 Trail was rammed
through for the sole purpose of political SOP to rabid mountain
bicyclists for their support of Measure A.

This is the same county administration that will be administering the
new plan, this new "tool." This is the same county administration
that celebrated the "40th Anniversary of Marin Parks", a 1.5 to
2-year-old entity created by new management recently to confusedly
conflate the Marin County Department of Parks and the Marin County
Open Space District.

The only reason this celebration was necessary, an expensive
undertaking during recessionary reduced budgets, was to market the
department and district for Measure A's passage.

The celebration and the expense in staff time and county overhead
could have waited and should have, for better economic times and for
more appropriately celebrating the district's (not the parks
department's) 50th birthday when that times rolls around. Again, it
was the Marin County Open Space District that was 40 in 2011 and 2012
when this premature and inaccurate celebration took place. The Marin
County Parks Department was begun in the late 1950s or earlier,
perhaps as early as the mid-1930, making it much older than the 40
years that has been misascribed to the Marin County Open Space
District, a much more recent, 40+ year old entity.

Yet Marin Parks continues to run a video of this purposefully
confusing and inaccurate misconflation of Marin County Parks
Department and the Marin County Open Space District on its propaganda
program government channel through Community Media (CM2)-MarinTV.
Asking Peter Coyote to quote from the county's PR machine's misleading
ad-copy seems particularly undisciplined and foolhardy.

24. I wish this were not true, but this represents the values and
ethics of the county administration that seeks to hand itself, with
our approval, the tools to this new program-plan, with no impacts and
no mitigations and no costs identified, calculated or accounted for.

Add your concerns here below or above, edit to taste, and/or pass
along to those who might be interested in preparing and submitting
comments for this Draft Tiered Environmental Impact Report for the
Marin County Open Space District Off-road and Trail Management Program
Plan, etc.

Keep in mind this is not a project plan per se but rather a cleverly
developed program plan that hides behind the screen of CEQA the real
costs, the real impacts and the real imitigations of the many
individual construction projects that will result from its
implementation without disclosure of those impacts, mitigations or
costs.

This program/plan should be scrapped and a full EIR should be
performed for all of the projects that will be developed under this
program plan.

Randall Knox
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-457-0592


Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Human power is multiplied many times by being on a machine
with wheels. I believe I have also said this many times.

You have, and you've been wrong every single time. Go and learn some physics. Were you to be right you would have invented a way to create energy .... which violates a fundamental law of the universe. But, hey, good luck with that.

The only one here with an inconsistent opinion is you. If you
were consistent, then motorcyclists could be on the trails with you – and you
would totally deserve one another.

When have I changed my position ? The only one who has done that is you.

One bad apple destroys the whole barrel. Bicycles have to be
prohibited from ALL trails everywhere that are used by hikers and equestrians -
just good old fashion American common sense. Statistics lie all the time about
everything. Never trust them to say anything meaningful!

I get it; anecdotal evidence that supports you position is acceptable, any that doesn't is not. What a fraud.

I only make pronouncements to fools like you who are incapable
of understanding plain English. Like all mountain bikers, you only converse with
your own ilk in your own gibberish.

Hmmm ... so what are we doing now Ed ?

[Mr.] Vandeman has been convicted of criminal battery, I've never
been in the slightest trouble with the law.* You are happy to use profanity
and ad hominem whereas I eschew both.* Who's the barbarian here ?

I believe Mr. Vandeman could sue you for slander,
but he is too busy getting more important things done for humanity. I guess it
is up to me to kick your sorry ass.

For him to sue me for slander (and it would be libel anyway as I'm writing it) I would have had to have said something untrue. Since he is a convicted criminal, a matter well attested in the public record, I welcome any such attempt. As to your ability to kick ass ... well, let's just say that, so far at least, I'm not impressed. You struggle to argue logically and are very inconsistent.