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.

What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the
tires of bikes
on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.

It would be all the real science that vandeman tries, and
fails, to discredit in this article http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair
quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?

What "real research" would that be?

Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman who simply trawl the web and spout drivel.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

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.

I know full well what is going on. You are criminally trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you would be a dead man.
[...]

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 have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is sensible.

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

I don’t give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion. What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at issue here?
[...]

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.

I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport. Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.
[...]

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 ?

Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways, especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how bad the streets are in the UK.
[...]

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.

It never matters who “owns� anything. In the end it is the practitioners and the customers who “own�. Indeed, use and ownership are not the same thing.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.�
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

What "real research" would that be?

Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman [Mr. Vandeman, Ph.D.] who simply trawl the web and spout drivel.

You are one of the most pitiful human beings in the entire universe. You believe in research! All research is driven by a point of view. I see it every day on my cable TV channels. You must be an idiot to trust to it.

Let’s face it, mountain bikers are the worst of the worst. I would not mind them if they would get their own god damn ****ing trails, but no, they want to horn in on hiking trails. Death is too good for them. I would like to see them drawn and quartered like in the good days of the Middle Ages How else would you ever get through to their addled brains. Yea, torture is the solution!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.�
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

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.

I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you
would be a dead man.

Ed, you are quite simply wrong. These are areas of which I have personal experience and you have none. You're simply projecting your own monomania and obsessions onto others who don't share them. Everyone in these areas understands that the land is a public resource and it has to be shared.

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 have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence
that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You
are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is
sensible.

Your premise was a little different this time though wasn't it ? You stated that the land managers were not upholding their 'lawful missions'. I've disproved that by reference to their actual lawful mission.

What you really want is for the land managers to go beyond their 'lawful missions' and prefer your activity over all others. You are not trying to get them to follow what they are legally tasked to do ... you want them to do something outside that to suit yourself.

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

I don't give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion.
What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a
pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at
issue here?

When are you going to get up to speed on the fact that your 'pilgrimage' has no special status above others sport and recreation ? You are still eroding and impacting the natural environment simply for the purposes of your recreation.

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.

I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that
the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily
get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day
when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean
the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor
vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport.
Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But
cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.

Your last statement is not a consequence of anything that you wrote beforehand. Given that trail cycling is an order of magnitude safer than cycling on the road, which you concede is true, it is a perfectly valid answer to keeping ones children safer.

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
?

Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways,
especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how
bad the streets are in the UK.

Ed Ed Ed. Take a moment BEFORE you spout more nonsense. If you consider the attached report you will note that high speed highways (we call them motorways in the UK) are actually the safest roads in the country. A moment's consideration would lead you to conclude this anyway; all traffic is moving in the same direction and at a similar speed and there is minimal interaction with other road users. (https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013)

You are, yet again, probably wrong in your assertion. When are you going to learn ???

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.

It never matters who "owns" anything. In the end it is the
practitioners and the customers who "own". Indeed, use and ownership are not the
same thing.

Did you actually have a point to make ? You appear to be going in a circle and contradicting yourself.

What "real research" would that be?

Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure
things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed
publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman [Mr. Vandeman, Ph.D.] who
simply trawl the web and spout drivel.

You are one of the most pitiful human beings in the entire
universe. You believe in research! All research is driven by a point of
view. I see it every day on my cable TV channels. You must be an idiot to trust
to it.

Ah, so you PREFER trawling the web and spouting nonsense. Well, at least we're clear as to the status of your claims.

Let's face it, mountain bikers are the worst of the worst. I
would not mind them if they would get their own god damn ****ing trails, but no,
they want to horn in on hiking trails. Death is too good for them. I would like
to see them drawn and quartered like in the good days of the Middle Ages
How else would you ever get through to their addled brains. Yea, torture is the
solution!

Go take your medication and lie down ... you're frothing again !

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

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.

I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you
would be a dead man.

Ed, you are quite simply wrong. These are areas of which I have personal experience and you have none. You're simply projecting your own monomania and obsessions onto others who don't share them. Everyone in these areas understands that the land is a public resource and it has to be shared.

Nothing HAS to be shared except by common agreement (a political process) of how the public resource is to be used by particular groups or individuals. Regulation and its enforcement is the essence of a civilized society..

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 have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence
that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You
are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is
sensible.

Your premise was a little different this time though wasn't it ? You stated that the land managers were not upholding their 'lawful missions'. I've disproved that by reference to their actual lawful mission.

It is their mission that is being contested. It needs to be changed for the better. No bikes on hiking trails. A total no brainer!

What you really want is for the land managers to go beyond their 'lawful missions' and prefer your activity over all others. You are not trying to get them to follow what they are legally tasked to do ... you want them to do something outside that to suit yourself.

I want them to do what is common sense. They need to be educated just like you need to be educated. The way things are now, we have got morons in charge of the situation and morons like you doing what they should not be doing.

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

I don't give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion.
What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a
pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at
issue here?

When are you going to get up to speed on the fact that your 'pilgrimage' has no special status above others sport and recreation ? You are still eroding and impacting the natural environment simply for the purposes of your recreation.

My ‘pilgrimage’ is the purpose for which hiking trails were built and maintained in the entire past century. Hiking trails in fact do have a special status by virtue of their purpose. They were never meant to be lanes for an insane machine sport by morons like you. Get your own trails which will be special constructions designed with the bicycle in mind. Maybe if that were the case, not so many of you dodos would be injuring and killing yourselves.

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.

I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that
the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily
get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day
when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean
the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor
vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport.
Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But
cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.

Your last statement is not a consequence of anything that you wrote beforehand. Given that trail cycling is an order of magnitude safer than cycling on the road, which you concede is true, it is a perfectly valid answer to keeping ones children safer.

The only advantage to biking on a hiking trail is that you are not going to get hit by a motor vehicle. Other than that, it remains extremely dangerous and not something that any child should be doing. The best place for children to ride a bike is on a bicycle path. They most definitely should not be riding in the street.

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
?

Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways,
especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how
bad the streets are in the UK.

Ed Ed Ed. Take a moment BEFORE you spout more nonsense. If you consider the attached report you will note that high speed highways (we call them motorways in the UK) are actually the safest roads in the country. A moment's consideration would lead you to conclude this anyway; all traffic is moving in the same direction and at a similar speed and there is minimal interaction with other road users. (https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013)

It doesn't matter in the slightest what direction traffic is moving if you are on a bicycle. If it is moving fast and it hits you, you are dead as a mackerel. Residential streets are orders of magnitude safer than high speed highways when it comes to cycling.

You are, yet again, probably wrong in your assertion. When are you going to learn ???

One thing is for sure, you are never going to learn much of anything because you lack common sense. High speed highways safer for cyclists than residential streets? Give me a break!

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.

It never matters who "owns" anything. In the end it is the
practitioners and the customers who "own". Indeed, use and ownership are not the
same thing.

Did you actually have a point to make ? You appear to be going in a circle and contradicting yourself.

It doesn't matter who owns what if it is to serve a public purpose. What matters is what the governing authority has decided how it is to be used.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great
Minnesota – Land of 10,000 Taxes

On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 11:27:16 PM UTC-7, Edward Dolan wrote:
Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of
nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!

Â*http://www.earthisland.org/journal/i...ticket_to_ride


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.

Â*

Â*

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by
hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like
everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when
they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to
mountain biking!

Â*

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.�

~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),

from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Â*

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Â*

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Â*

Ed Dolan the Great

aka

Saint Edward the Great

Sorry but in that manner equestrians are riding "thrillcraft" There is NO DAMAGE that is done to national Wilderness areas greater than the hiker/camper.

Just because you've found someone that agrees with your twisted viewpoint doesn't mean that it is any better focused than yours.

"Bog of a brain"???

I really suggest you NEVER make the slightest attempt to purposely impede my progress on any public trail or you will in quite short order learn who has a bog of a brain. Where I come from people do not try to boss others around. At least not more than once.

wrote in message ...

"Bog of a brain"???

When the hell are you going to learn how to post to this group? Who said what when? Why isn’t your moniker somewhere on this post instead of a lot of idiot numbers? Get a brain why don’t you!

I really suggest you NEVER make the slightest attempt to purposely impede my progress on any public trail or you will in quite short order learn who has a bog of a brain. Where I come from people do not try to boss others around. At least not more than once.

Hikers always have the right of way on any trail. Equestrians come first of course, and mountain bikers last. If there are equestrians and hikers on the trail, you will indeed be impeded. Get your own god damn trails why don’t you?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota