Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on
the
same
trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would
understand
that simple
fact.

Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which
I, for
one, don't share and I doubt too many others do
either.

But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
other words, your opinion ain't worth ****!

Or, to phrase it differently, you can't
tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice
going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that
approach /sarcasm.

When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever
going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.

This conversation is never going to move on Ed because you are impervious to reason. You think you're right and all the facts and logic in the world won't sway you.

The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we
open
more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we
share. Sharing
creates some issues but unless we want to use up even
more of the natural world
it has to be the preferred option.

The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off
of ALL
trails used by hikers.

I'm sure it is your preferred option ... and
that's why I don't care one iota what you want anymore. With every
utterance you show yourself as the entitled, hubristic, selfish and ignorant
individual you are.

"When you endlessly repeat yourself that is
all you are ever going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along." - Ed
Dolan

Learn some humility. You are not great, you are no saint and you need to at least try and understand that there is no option but to compromise.

You have opined, again and again, that sharing
isn't
possible. Since it works quite well in most
locations I guess what you
should have written is that sharing isn't possible ...
for you. And, given
that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why
the **** should anyone
care about you and your wants ?

The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere,
most
especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a
****ing Dumb Asshole
you are!

Works fine in Swinley Forest, Porridge Pot,
Minley Manor, Forest of Dean, Exmoor, Scotland .. and many other places I'm
aware of.

It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
they hate your guts!

I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.

The land managers will have to be educated. For the
moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.

You know something ? When everyone you're
speaking with, in a position of some authority, is
telling you that you're wrong
and that you need to share ... they just might be
right. You're not a
redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed,
you're a selfish loner
who just wants what you want and b****r everyone
else.

The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but
they are
also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power
to bear despite
whatever their original mission might have been. It is
why even our National
Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools
like you.

But I thought you claimed that hikers were
massively in the majority Ed ? I think you said that there were between
10,000 and 1,000,000 hikers for every biker. As such, surely you would
have more power to bring to bear ?

As with everything under the sun organization is
the key. There are of course many times more hikers than bikers and those
numbers will tell in the end.

Ah, more flip flopping. Do at least try to be consistent for more than two posts.

Or are you spouting nonsense again
?

Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be
permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and
purpose
which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary
rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!

I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing
certain spaces because of the huge difference in power,
weight and speed.

However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and
should
be.

Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as
motorcycles
and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for
walkers.

No, Ed, trails are for people.

"Or are you spouting nonsense again ?" - your own
words!

No. Just sense that you don't want to hear.

For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not
relevant.

Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I
own
something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have
certain rights. I am
not going to accept that I have to pay for something
which a self-righteous
minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't
happen to suit their
agenda.

The public lands are being managed by governmental
agencies
which have very specific missions which are written into
law. National Parks and
Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than
National Forests and BLM
areas because of their different missions. The only idiot
here, as usual, is
yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding
their lawful
missions.

The National Parks Service mission statement
says "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal
areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means
and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments
and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of
the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations."

I don't read, in there, anything about
preserving the chosen recreation of one Mr E Dolan. So, no, the land
managers are staying true to their actual mission rather than the one you would
like them to adopt.

The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area ethic
compared to the National Park one.

I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that there is nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking. So your statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their mission statement.


I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.

Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use.
Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church
because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your ****ing
sport
of mountain biking.

The land managers are doing their best to manage
for
genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated
objectives of the parks
service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't
specifically include
satisfying one Ed Dolan !

If you want to have a 'church' then do it on
your own
land. On public lands, you have to
share.

If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the
very
first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails
used by hikers. You can't
share what can't be shared.

You can't share ... that's the fundamental
issue. The land managers are doing their jobs just fine and most people
can share without any major issues. Only arrogant and sociopathic
individuals think they can have everything they want and damn everyone
else.

The reports of conflicts are pouring in by the thousands. Note
the latest wrinkle:

Noted. And, let's see what happens. I await, with some anticipation, the realisation that there are minimal reports from a small number of exercised individuals as happened when a similar approach was taken in Australia.

You
are even leading your own children to your ****ed-up
sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I
have
warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a
warning.

I will take no lessons from you in terms of
safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more
dangerous but would still
displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want
to enjoy the trails in
solitude.

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who
ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads
regardless of your nutty
ideas.

I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been, in the last five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There has been 1 off road .... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.

Mine don't ... they ride exclusively on
trails. No roads.

Your kids will soon relate more to their peer group than a nut
like you.

Probably ... but that's an age thing. At least they can relate; unlike you..

I find your references to children totally and
utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it
appropriate to wish death or
serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow
recreational activity
preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but
of course you won't,
because you genuinely don't understand, much less care,
about anyone
else.

The only pathology being presented here is yours. You
don't
even care enough about the safety of your own children to
prevent them from
riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever
happens.

So, how is it uncaring to allow them to cycle
in a SAFER location ? Not safe, I know that, but far far safer than on the
road.

Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.

More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe". What total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is being lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/drive...s-6753301.html

You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you ?

Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
contemplate:

Shall I reciprocate with 3 reports of hiker
problems for you to contemplate ? They do, after all, outnumber the biking
ones by a factor of roughly 3.
Or would you prefer to read about road bike
deaths ?

What a sick puppy you are.

I will enjoy reading some day that you have managed to kill
yourself by doing something stupid - like riding your bike on a hiking trail.

You'll be waiting a long time.

I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to
mountain
bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be
dead
and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain
bikers
who ride their bikes on
trails I would **** on their graves.

Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my
land
I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these
AREN'T your trails are
they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land !
So, you can relax ... no
one is riding on your trails at all.

Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours
for
doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers,
not to Asshole
mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world
knew that - even your
sainted grandfather!

No, Ed, the trails do not belong to
hikers. They belong to people ... and you can state the converse as many
times as you like ... but it's still untrue.

People ... doing what! You make no sense
whatever.

You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use and ownership are not the same.