Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Alvin D. wrote:

In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.

Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!

Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest
primeval" as you term it?

They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson!

After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having
paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have
walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't
want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian
shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers"
won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all
those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so
scared.

It is primeval enough by the standards of today. Anyone who is walking in a wilderness setting is roughing it no matter how many conveniences he is carrying. In any event, such a walker is in no way impacting the wilderness except in the most minor ways.

I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked
in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly
primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had
ever existed there.

When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are
talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for
instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization
when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite
obviously, you know nothing about.

But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you
are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound
logical and important.


What an Asshole you are! Everything you've applied to hikers can be applied to bikers in spades, in fact to just about anyone. Your remarks are as pointless as you are. Either make a relevant point or get lost!

Of course. When one talks with a fool one must use foolish language
else how will he understand you.

But, as I mentioned previously the valid point is that you are
attempting to hug government built and maintained areas intended for
the entire population to your skinny little chest in order to prevent
others from using them

In short a small and insignificant individual trying to clasp all the
toys in the toy box to his pathetic little chest and shouting, "They
are Mine! All Mine! You can't play with them!"

Has the U.S. actually sunk so low that a greedy little fellow like you
is now its spokesman?

Pathetic.
--

Alvin D.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16
wrote:
[...]

It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.

No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were
ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very
disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it
is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes
and other blood sucking critters, and not much else.

My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.

Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias
where it seemed that no one have ever been before.

But I agree with you about conveniences being acceptable. Like a
mountain bike, or two.

By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike outs.

Not really, I would better say, allied in opposition of a greedy
little boy who wants to keep all the toys for himself.

As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.

Dolan the greedy not Dolan the great.






--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
Watson!

Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor
vehicles, so a bicycle allows my to get beyond those people.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:59:21 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

"news16" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a]
trail [are *******s pure and simple.]

It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.

Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will
have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region.
Many of which don't have headroom over 2'
do much crawling out there.

But read the Wilderness Act.
Lol, US law doesn't apply.


There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was
established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking,

Nope. It doesn't say that at all.

wrote in message ...
[...]

I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked
in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly
primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had
ever existed there.

When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are
talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for
instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization
when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite
obviously, you know nothing about.

But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you
are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound
logical and important.

I have never used the word “primeval� in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything “primeval�. I am only interest in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
[...]

But, as I mentioned previously the valid point is that you are
attempting to hug government built and maintained areas intended for
the entire population to your skinny little chest in order to prevent
others from using them.

Areas set aside as wilderness were intended to be used by the entire population in only a few ways - either by horse back or by walking. You are supremely ignorant of why wilderness was set aside Either get educated or get lost!

In short a small and insignificant individual trying to clasp all the
toys in the toy box to his pathetic little chest and shouting, "They
are Mine! All Mine! You can't play with them!"

Has the U.S. actually sunk so low that a greedy little fellow like you
is now its spokesman?

The only “little fellow� in this mostly asinine discussion is yourself. But like all mountain bikers, you remain as ignorant about what wilderness is for as a new born babe. But unlike the new born babe, your ignorance is culpable. I would punish you for your transgressions against good sense and common decency by a horse whipping to your backside and a kick in your dumb ass to boot. Trying to reason with a fool like you about anything is futile because your ignorance is unconquerable.

Pathetic.

Who gives a good god damn about your “primeval� crap. You must be crazy.

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

"news16" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
Watson!

Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor
vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.

That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers.

Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way to get at them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable penalties would soon bring your transgressions to an end.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.

Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias
where it seemed that no one have ever been before.

There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible.

But I agree with you about conveniences being acceptable. Like a
mountain bike, or two.

Even a single mountain bike is unacceptable. You obviously do not have a clue about what wilderness is for.

By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike outs.

Not really, I would better say, allied in opposition of a greedy
little boy who wants to keep all the toys for himself.

I have the justification for my position. What do you have on your side except criminal mountain bikers who want to do what they want to do – just because! **** the lot of you!

As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.

There are a thousand posts of mine on this newsgroup which will explain to you what are the reasons for hikers only on trails. But of course, like all your kind, you are too lazy to ever do any reading of others.

Dolan the greedy not Dolan the great.

**** you too – Asshole!

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

"news16" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:59:21 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

I suggest that all mountain bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a]
trail [are *******s pure and simple.]

It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.

Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will
have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region.

Many of which don't have headroom over 2'
do much crawling out there.

A trail is a trail is a trail ...

But read the Wilderness Act.

Lol, US law doesn't apply.

Why the hell not?

There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was
established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking,

Nope. It doesn't say that at all.

But you are too god damn ****ing stupid to tell us what it does say - aren't you?

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"John B." wrote in message
...
[...]

As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.

Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a
series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be
limited to walkers.

Here it is again for your mindless brain. Maybe you could post a similar
essay as to why mountain biking is appropriate for wilderness instead of
carrying on like a cry baby.

Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness

by George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist
and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He
has
personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.

I just got
back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my
mountain
bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling
without
the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously
logged
forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or
other
special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain
biking.

The key words here are “appropriate location.�

That is the same
qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
“thrillcraft.� I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when
driving in
snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s
appropriate to
drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike
can
climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.

Although I can’t speak
for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and
the
sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In
other
words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my
cycling
experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my
biking
experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary
conflict
between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.

This is not to
say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to
the
beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to
observe
nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would
agree. When
careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail
in
front of us, not the natural world around us.

Our wildlands are not
outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for
wilderness
designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and
observe
natural systems.

It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime
rationale for
wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational
uses
or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated
clearly:
“Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.�
In an
essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to
establish
among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to
know
the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s
littleness, to
sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
responsibility.�

I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should
not be
permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that
are
strong candidates for wilderness designation.

Legal. The
Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are
deemed
acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
advantage.� The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph,
is
“to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding
settlement
and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the
United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for
preservation
and protection in their natural condition.� Mountain bikes are part of
that
growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike
technology
reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those
walking
or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.

Ecological.
Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than
a pack
of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The
cumulative
effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in
streams,
and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more
damage
than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only
increase
impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild
nature, not
to preserve recreational opportunity.

Sociological. Any
mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike –
shrinks
the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily
surpassed by
those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other
users. On
heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the
experience for
other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in
the
natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of
the way
of a bike.

Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.� The
more
advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our
alienation
from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in
quiet
contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no
different
to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine
Chapel
or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many
mountain
bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one
reason
why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
disrespectful.

For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to
protect
self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological
gadgets
available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and
self-restraint
that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

"news16" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
Watson!

Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their
motor
vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.

That would not have been true 30 or 40 years
Totally true as that was when I started bush biking.

ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today.

LKol, you admit that you have no idea. Armchair ****** award for you.

Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for
use only by equestrians and hikers.

Lol, you admit that trails are not only for walkers. Thank you.


Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way to get at
them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable penalties
would soon bring your transgressions to an end.

Ask yourself why do smart police forces everywhere have bicycle teams.