|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:
1. There is no right to mountain bike. That was decided a decade ago in federal court: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10. Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. 95% of the conflicts he mentions are due to the presence of the bikes. Not too many hikers will approach at such a speed that they spook horses or scare other hikers! 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. 3. Bikes are harmful to wildlife and people: they accelerate erosion, create V-shaped ruts, kill small animals and plants on the trail, including tree roots (all of which a hiker can step over or around), and drive other trail users off the trails and out of the parks. 4. Mountain biking teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable -- a BIG step backwards in an era when most people are becoming MORE concerned about nature. Mountain bikers are obviously people who can walk. I am not willing to sacrifice our scanty remaining wild lands, just so a few people can speed through them so fast that they can't possibly experience them (as Stienstra was doing in Butano State Park). === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. Neither do hiking shoes. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
Mike Vandeman wrote: There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Out of Context and without citations
wrote in message ps.com... Mike Vandeman wrote: There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: 1. There is no right to mountain bike. That was decided a decade ago in federal court: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10. "a decade ago..."? No mention of the RECENT rulings making allowances for the use of bicycles, the classification of bicycles as not ORVs (ORVs have been designated MOTORIZED) and the decisions of advancing cooperative efforts in the U.S. National Forest Rules as of November 2005...? http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf The recent decisions have over-ruled the myths, misconceptions and lies previously advanced to hinder the access for off-road cycling. Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. 95% of the conflicts he mentions are due to the presence of the bikes. Or, which has been proven by several surveys by several organizations, the PERCEIVED effects of riding bikes. Plus - Show us the math that results in YOUR figure of 95%. Not too many hikers will approach at such a speed that they spook horses or scare other hikers! 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. Not true. The NFS allows for seperate designations in some areas and shared use in others. The cooperative efforts of ALL involved has created better organization, safer use for everyone AND fair and wise enforcement 3. Bikes are harmful to wildlife and people: they accelerate erosion, create V-shaped ruts, kill small animals and plants on the trail, including tree roots (all of which a hiker can step over or around), and drive other trail users off the trails and out of the parks. OPINION- OPINION - OPINION. You have not shown your opinions to be based on anything more than a reference removed from the context of which they were presented. Even the most recent research reveals off-road cycling and hiking have similar effects. The NFS rules also address this comaprison. 4. Mountain biking teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable -- a BIG step backwards in an era when most people are becoming MORE concerned about nature. OPINION. You apply your opinion to results showing that children involved in outdoor activities are more inclined to be interested in preserving the outdoors. Mountain bikers are obviously people who can walk. I am not willing to sacrifice our scanty remaining wild lands, Which continue to shrink as you continue your attempts to drive apart cooperative efforts to preserve. just so a few people can speed through them so fast that they can't possibly experience them Your OPINION of the activity is no measure of how people who actually engage in the activity experience it. (as Stienstra was doing in Butano State Park). === |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights. Neither do hiking shoes. Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On 3 Dec 2006 18:43:35 -0800, "
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000 Yeah, by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. There is no user conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are not users. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Another Vandemann Lie!! Out of Context and without citations
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:52:22 GMT, "JP" wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Mike Vandeman wrote: There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: Here's the reference to the original article, entitled Gridlock in Wild Areas. The article suggests ways to mitigate user conflicts in recreation areas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000 So where's the lie? (Hint: there aren't any. That's why you didn't quote any.) === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
... There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach: 2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise. So being fair to minorities is a bad thing? You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"
On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
by taking trails away from the majority, and giving them over to exclusive use by a minority: mountain bikers. There is no user conflict. the conflict is merely over the presence of BIKES, which are not users. It'd be like one of those trails where only mountain bikers were allowed, but not mountain bikes. :-) Fortunately, most people are pretty nice. Lots of friendly hikers are out there when I bike, and lots of friendly bikers are out there when I hike. I like the multi-use single track in China Camp--everyone seems to get along just fine, there. I'm not convinced this bikes-only route is the way to go. It seems like it would breed resentment instead of a spirit of cooperation. As long as mountain bikers are friendly, courteous, and respectful to other trail users, they'll always be welcomed. The huge number of multi-use trails in the country speaks for itself in this regard. -Beej |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist | Werehatrack | General | 2 | July 27th 06 02:49 PM |
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. | terrybigwheel | Unicycling | 10 | May 23rd 06 04:25 AM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" | matabala | Racing | 1 | August 23rd 05 04:49 PM |
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | January 4th 05 03:04 PM |