Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"

S Curtiss Wrote:

**Your reply here completely ignores the foundation you set above. You
say
in response to thousands of miles of added roads "This is a defeat for
all
of humanity, including you." yet state here "Wilderness is sacred
because
there is so little of it left." Yet you are going to whine like a
child
because somewhere on a trail there is a guy on a bicycle. It has
already
been established "Wilderness" designations do not allow bicycles. Why
do you
and Vandeman insist on arguing on something that is already
established? Why
do you insist on creating further friction between different user types
when
cooperation should be the largest concern to protect as much area as
possible. The more development there is, the less fringe land there is
for
recreation which leads to less "wilderness" down the road. If you want
to
throw some sort religious connotation into the motives or results of
purpose
for venturing into any natural area, that is fine. However, this
country is
based on freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. You can visit
your
"cathedral" your way as I can in my way. You have "wilderness" and
many
other areas either unsuitable for, or designated by law, to be
non-accessible for bicycles. You have the recourse of law to call
rangers or
other authorities and report tresspass. So why this constant reference
to
keeping bikes out of "wilderness" when that is already established? If
you
want to maintain as much "wilderness" as possible, I would suggest
allowing
access to as much non-wilderness as possible. I would suggest some
plain
language and consistency in land designation. I would suggest getting
as
many "recreationists" into non-wilderness as possible to lend numbers
to the
decreasing voice of preservation. The more people to see land and
forests
for something beyond a new mall or house or hotel means more people to
stand
against the development.
Either we share what we have, or we lose it all.


That is one of the best posts that I have ever seen on here.

I find your comparisons between religious groups and pressure groups to
be an interesting one because it is so obvious it is easy to miss. MV
and ED can be readily compared to religious fanatics who shout long and
hard about how their way is the right way but do little to make things
better for anyone and simply causes friction and spread mistrust
between different factions of society. I dread to think how many
cyclists have a negative attitude towards hikers with an "all hikers
are fanatical arseholes so f**k you!" attitude that has been developed
from the perceptions driven by MV, rather than absed on actual positive
experiences.

MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected. This I agree with, however
you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas. The
solution is surely to ringfence and restrict all human activity within
areas that are particularly sensitive (please don;t tell me that all
areas are sensitive because this is not correct) to the effects of
human activity and promote tolerance and mutual respect elsewhere such
that the same space can be used by people with differing interests with
minimal conflict.

I would hope that MV would read this and think about his methods and
his extremism, but deep down I know that it won't happen. I will
continue to ride, but as always it will be in a responsible manner
defined by my own moral code, the same moral code and responsible
manner that I exercise whilst walking down the street, or when I am at
work or even when I am hiking, times when you wouldn't even realise
that I am a mountainbiking nut unless you started talking to me about
bikes.


--
davebee

On Mon, 29 May 2006 08:21:29 +1000, davebee
wrote:


S Curtiss Wrote:

**Your reply here completely ignores the foundation you set above. You
say
in response to thousands of miles of added roads "This is a defeat for
all
of humanity, including you." yet state here "Wilderness is sacred
because
there is so little of it left." Yet you are going to whine like a
child
because somewhere on a trail there is a guy on a bicycle. It has
already
been established "Wilderness" designations do not allow bicycles. Why
do you
and Vandeman insist on arguing on something that is already
established? Why
do you insist on creating further friction between different user types
when
cooperation should be the largest concern to protect as much area as
possible. The more development there is, the less fringe land there is
for
recreation which leads to less "wilderness" down the road. If you want
to
throw some sort religious connotation into the motives or results of
purpose
for venturing into any natural area, that is fine. However, this
country is
based on freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. You can visit
your
"cathedral" your way as I can in my way. You have "wilderness" and
many
other areas either unsuitable for, or designated by law, to be
non-accessible for bicycles. You have the recourse of law to call
rangers or
other authorities and report tresspass. So why this constant reference
to
keeping bikes out of "wilderness" when that is already established? If
you
want to maintain as much "wilderness" as possible, I would suggest
allowing
access to as much non-wilderness as possible. I would suggest some
plain
language and consistency in land designation. I would suggest getting
as
many "recreationists" into non-wilderness as possible to lend numbers
to the
decreasing voice of preservation. The more people to see land and
forests
for something beyond a new mall or house or hotel means more people to
stand
against the development.
Either we share what we have, or we lose it all.


That is one of the best posts that I have ever seen on here.

I find your comparisons between religious groups and pressure groups to
be an interesting one because it is so obvious it is easy to miss. MV
and ED can be readily compared to religious fanatics who shout long and
hard about how their way is the right way but do little to make things
better for anyone and simply causes friction and spread mistrust
between different factions of society. I dread to think how many
cyclists have a negative attitude towards hikers with an "all hikers
are fanatical arseholes so f**k you!" attitude that has been developed
from the perceptions driven by MV, rather than absed on actual positive
experiences.

MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected.

And wildlife. You forgot that part.

This I agree with, however
you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas.

But there is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES off-road. THEY aren't
alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really THAT dense?

The
solution is surely to ringfence and restrict all human activity within
areas that are particularly sensitive (please don;t tell me that all
areas are sensitive because this is not correct) to the effects of
human activity and promote tolerance and mutual respect elsewhere such
that the same space can be used by people with differing interests with
minimal conflict.

I would hope that MV would read this and think about his methods and
his extremism, but deep down I know that it won't happen. I will
continue to ride,

That's your bottom line. You will never let consideration of wildlife
or the environment interfere with your pet preoccupation.

but as always it will be in a responsible manner
defined by my own moral code, the same moral code and responsible
manner that I exercise whilst walking down the street, or when I am at
work or even when I am hiking, times when you wouldn't even realise
that I am a mountainbiking nut unless you started talking to me about
bikes.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee
wrote:


first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not
that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his
comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email
browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security.
Jeesh.

davebee Wrote:


MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected.


MV Wrote:

And wildlife. You forgot that part.

wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence?[/color]

I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference.

The wilderness implies the
area and everything contained therin.

Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH!

Your obtuseness requires that
everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child
with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a
single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST
PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal
insults.

davebee Wrote:
you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas.

MV Wrote:
This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES
off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really
THAT dense?


There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people
to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp
the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking
you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike,
given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your
boots do not require recreation.

Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee
wrote:


first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not
that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his
comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email
browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security.
Jeesh.

davebee Wrote:


MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected.


MV Wrote:

And wildlife. You forgot that part.


wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence?


I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference.

The wilderness implies the

area and everything contained therin.


Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH!

Your obtuseness requires that

everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child
with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a
single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST
PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal
insults.

davebee Wrote:

you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas.

MV Wrote:

This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES
off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really
THAT dense?


There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people
to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp
the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking
you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike,
given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your
boots do not require recreation.


Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)[/color]

Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road.

cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)

Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road.

By gosh! You hit on it! I resolve all hikers should go barefoot! Except
Mikey, his 11 toes would look funny to the other hikers on the trail...

"ChainSmoker" wrote in message
...
cc wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:


Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)

Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road.

By gosh! You hit on it! I resolve all hikers should go barefoot! Except
Mikey, his 11 toes would look funny to the other hikers on the trail...

11 toes? Turkeys only have 4 per foot, 3 in the front one behind.

On Mon, 29 May 2006 13:33:32 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee
wrote:


first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not
that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his
comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email
browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security.
Jeesh.

davebee Wrote:


MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected.


MV Wrote:

And wildlife. You forgot that part.


wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence?


I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference.

The wilderness implies the

area and everything contained therin.


Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH!

Your obtuseness requires that

everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child
with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a
single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST
PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal
insults.

davebee Wrote:

you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas.

MV Wrote:

This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES
off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really
THAT dense?


There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people
to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp
the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking
you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike,
given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your
boots do not require recreation.


Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)

Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road.[/color]

We shouldn't. But effecting that is politically difficult. I have been
working on that for a decade. But you knew that already, so why did
you ask?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee
wrote:


first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not
that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his
comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email
browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security.
Jeesh.

davebee Wrote:


MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected.


MV Wrote:

And wildlife. You forgot that part.

wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence?

I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference.

The wilderness implies the
area and everything contained therin.

Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH![/color]

I'm glad you admit KNOWING the difference... finally. Now you can stop
treating all areas as if they are designated wilderness in your statements.
You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop
misrepresenting the legal and acceptable use of trail systems by non-hikers.
You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop
citing your references to wilderness habitat when referring to access for
off-road cycling in non-wilderness areas.

Your obtuseness requires that
everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child
with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a
single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST
PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal
insults.

davebee Wrote:
you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas.

MV Wrote:
This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES
off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really
THAT dense?


There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people
to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp
the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking
you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike,
given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your
boots do not require recreation.

Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)
We've had this discussion (over and over and over...)
"Apparently, your opinion even supercedes reality. Land managers across the
country are working with cycling organizations to enhance cooperation among
all user groups. The Bureau of Land Management has a national action plan in
place just for the purpose. The BLM recognizes the benefits of off-road
cycling and your opinions of off-road cycling and the reasons given
supporting the benefits of off-road cycling are a non-issue.
It is simple. You try to close your eyes and cover your ears by placing your
OPINION as a determining factor as what is valid. However, it has been
PROVEN to those who make the decisions that off-road cycling offers benefits
of health, increased awareness of the importance of preservation,
cooperative maintenance, economic benefits and more.
Your OPINION as to the validity of these benefits is null. Your OPINION of
off-road cycling is null. All you have is your OPINION resting on a
carefully selected foundation of chosen information."
-----------

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 13:33:32 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee
wrote:



first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not
that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his
comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email
browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security.
Jeesh.

davebee Wrote:


MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected.


MV Wrote:


And wildlife. You forgot that part.


wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence?


I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference.

The wilderness implies the


area and everything contained therin.


Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH!

Your obtuseness requires that


everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child
with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a
single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST
PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal
insults.

davebee Wrote:


you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas.

MV Wrote:


This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES
off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really
THAT dense?


There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people
to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp
the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking
you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike,
given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your
boots do not require recreation.


Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)

Mike, give me one reason that we should allow hikers' shoes off-road.


We shouldn't. But effecting that is politically difficult. I have been
working on that for a decade. But you knew that already, so why did
you ask?[/color]

Because you hike, making you as guilty as you purport us to be. In other
words, you're obviously a hypocrite, and simply a psychopathic hater of
those who choose to mountain bike.

On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:24:43 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:48:34 +1000, davebee
wrote:


first off lets do what mike never does and snip some of the crap Not
that he makes it easy cutting into the middle of sentances to post his
comments. Apologies for not colour coding it for those using an email
browser. I come in through cyclingforums because of the added security.
Jeesh.

davebee Wrote:


MV has not based his science on anything officially recognised and his
acusations that everything that goes against his "facts" is controlled
by a mountainbikers conspiracy is bizarre to say the very least.
Surprisingly, underneath all the crap and the egomania and the
accusations I think Vandeman makes a reasonably valid point to the
extent that wilderness should be protected.


MV Wrote:

And wildlife. You forgot that part.

wilderness, wildlife... whats the diffence?

I'm glad you admit not knowing the difference.

The wilderness implies the
area and everything contained therin.

Right, but not all habitat is wilderness. DUH!

I'm glad you admit KNOWING the difference... finally. Now you can stop
treating all areas as if they are designated wilderness in your statements.[/color]

I have never done so. I rarely talk about wilderness, because it's
subjective. The topic is HABITAT. DUH!

You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop
misrepresenting the legal and acceptable use of trail systems by non-hikers.
You can also, since you acknowledge "not all habitat is wilderness", stop
citing your references to wilderness habitat when referring to access for
off-road cycling in non-wilderness areas.

Can anyone decipher what this idiot is trying to say?

Your obtuseness requires that
everybody spells things out to you as if you are a 2 year old child
with mental health problems. And then you pounce ont he omission of a
single word or a slightly inadequate description. At least FOR THE MOST
PART people try to explain things for you without resorting to personal
insults.

davebee Wrote:
you also have to permit recreation away from developed urban areas.

MV Wrote:
This I agree with, howevert here is absolutely no reason to allow BIKES
off-road. THEY aren't alive, and don't need recreation. Are you really
THAT dense?


There is no need to be rude. The bicycle of course is a tool for people
to use to aid their enjoyment of the outside. because you fail to grasp
the idea perhaps you should consider this. I assume when you go walking
you wear a pair of hiking boots. Your boots are comparable to my bike,
given so much as they are a tool to aid your enjoyment. Likewise your
boots do not require recreation.

Okay, not tell me WHY you can't recreate without bring your bike onto
tre trail? Are you incapable of walking? In other words, Why should we
allow bikes off-road? Give me one good reason why I or any land
manager should allow bikes off-road. (Hint: there aren't any!)
We've had this discussion (over and over and over...)

So when are you going to answer the question?????

"Apparently, your opinion even supercedes reality. Land managers across the
country are working with cycling organizations to enhance cooperation among
all user groups. The Bureau of Land Management has a national action plan in
place just for the purpose. The BLM recognizes the benefits of off-road
cycling and your opinions of off-road cycling and the reasons given
supporting the benefits of off-road cycling are a non-issue.
It is simple. You try to close your eyes and cover your ears by placing your
OPINION as a determining factor as what is valid. However, it has been
PROVEN to those who make the decisions that off-road cycling offers benefits
of health, increased awareness of the importance of preservation,
cooperative maintenance, economic benefits and more.
Your OPINION as to the validity of these benefits is null. Your OPINION of
off-road cycling is null. All you have is your OPINION resting on a
carefully selected foundation of chosen information."
-----------

Still waiting! ...
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande