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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:21:52 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
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.
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 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.

There is no user
conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are
not users.
The BIKES are owned by taxpaying users and the LAW allows for their use.
NFS
Rulings - November 2005.
The ONLY conflicts are those created by small-minded liars and extremists
who proclaim an agenda of "wildlife" but really are only interested in
boosting their egos by saying big words and creating friction.

No, there are real dangers in being around fast-moving mountain
bikers. Several horses have died from encounters with gonzo mountain
bikers.

Many people have died from encounters with lots of things... Your attempt
to blame all ill on off-road cycling continues to be transparent.

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. 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.

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

Did. Nothing hard and fast about top-posting but here's a tidbit you might
wish to review.

"If you believe someone has violated netiquette, send him or her a message
by private e-mail;
do not post a follow-up to the offending post."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette

I file most recent papers in the front of the file,
and most recent comments at the top of the page.
UNLESS... I'm dealing point by point in which case I insert my comments
directly after the points I am addressing.
I snip unnecessary text from my response to save the reader time.
But most don't bother with these simple courtesies.
If you don't like top-posting, don't.
If it ****es you off killfile the author.
With all the crap being posted on Usenet you're reacting to topo-posting.

HTH

JP






"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...

JP wrote:
Top posting is a preference.
It saves time and effort for the reader already following a thread.

Google "netiquette" sometime.

HTH.

E.P.

On 05 Dec 2006 18:25:51 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

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...03/SPG4OMO5321
.DTL&hw=Tom+Stienstra&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.

Horses are not users either. They are living beings, but where in the US
Constitution are horses mentioned??

They were here since before the Constitution was invented.

The article didn't mention what percentage of the users performed what
activity. So.... How can you make the determination who is a minority
and who is a majority?? Another Mikey assumption??

===
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 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:01:30 GMT, jason
wrote:



Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!


hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of
your research and facts as accurate?

Where in my signature do you see the word "cancer"? Idiot.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=4926

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=58298
===
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 Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:28:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:21:52 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
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.
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.

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.

There is no user
conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are
not users.
The BIKES are owned by taxpaying users and the LAW allows for their use.
NFS
Rulings - November 2005.
The ONLY conflicts are those created by small-minded liars and extremists
who proclaim an agenda of "wildlife" but really are only interested in
boosting their egos by saying big words and creating friction.

No, there are real dangers in being around fast-moving mountain
bikers. Several horses have died from encounters with gonzo mountain
bikers.

Many people have died from encounters with lots of things... Your attempt
to blame all ill on off-road cycling continues to be transparent.

===
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 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.

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.

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

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".

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

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.)

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

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:52:02 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.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.)

Wrong, you poor wannabe naturalist.
Your unsubstantiated opinion is the LIE.
Yu haven't cited evidence to back any of your claims. Ever.
Your website is not proof.
But you can't help it. There is no evidence that supports any of your
claims.
No legitimate agenmcy will give you the time of day.
That is why your sad little impotent quest gets played out on AMB

1. Citizens have the right to use wilderness areas, our taxes support them.

Nope, restrictions are allowed. That's why Yosmite National Park
doesn't allow mountain biking.

That use includes two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. I spooked horses
running on trails...LIAR!!!!

2. Hikers have no more right to trails than bikes, regardless of your
opinion.

\Bikes don't habve any rights. Hikers do.

Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not
belong in public. LIAR!!!

3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact
hikers like wider trails.

You know that's a lie.

Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!

4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS
LIE.

Yes, they do. That's exactly what they do.

5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to
walk.
Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking
trail.

So what? He can still walk.

But he could ride them if he wished. Another specious remark by Lying MIke
Vandeman.
And there are thousands like him, with joint damage etc who cannot hike yet
can ride. LIAR!!!

Your biggest LIE of course is the one where you neglect to mention the
damage
caused by equestrian use. HORSES destroy trails!!! But you have a hard-on
for mountain bikes so you will colntinue to LIE!!!

Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North America
and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights.

Yawn......did you say something???

===
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