Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

[Mike Vandeman]

Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
Updated March 8, 2007

1. Why do people mountain bike?
a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in
the same amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain
constant pressure on land managers, to open more and more trails to
bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already open to them, if
they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that closing trails to
bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could only be true if they
were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk. There's nothing
inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace
automobile use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token,
replacing hiking with mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see,
rather than the quality of their experience. While riding a bike,
especially over terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be constantly
paying attention to not crashing. That makes it almost impossible to
notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop instantly, if
he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation.
A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the same
stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several
times as far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal
box.)
c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail,
especially a trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not
familiar with, is very challenging. (But if mountain biking is the
high point of your week, as it seems to be for many mountain bikers,
you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of the bike!)
d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills and
competing with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives
people to spend more money on their bike, and ride it harder and more
often. Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a lot of
mountain biking. Of course, it is also extremely harmful to the parks
and natural areas that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting, that is as
harmful as mountain biking.

2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the
attraction for participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain
bikes and mountain biking accessories, as well as "adventure" travel
guides, make a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even some
auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and sponsor mountain biking,
and try to use its popularity to sell more cars. The tourism industry
also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.

3. What harm does mountain biking do?
a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip
into the soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They
also create V-shaped grooves that make walking difficult or even
dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the gears and ball
bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several times as fast as a
hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
(shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops,
starts, and turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and
opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other
bikes, so that they could withstand the greater forces they were
subject to on rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are being
applied to the trails! To give a definite number, the winner of a
20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed
limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small
animals and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost
impossible to avoid killing countless animals and plants on and under
the trail. They have to pay attention to controlling the bike, and
can't afford to look carefully at what is on the trail, especially
when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see, for example, a
snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by
crossing on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other
hand, simply ride right through the creek bed, crushing any animals or
plants that happen to be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
photos of mountain bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through
creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants as they ride
across streams, they ride through streams stirring up sediment. The
sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
sediment in water.
c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a
hiker. This translates into several times the impacts, both on the
trail and on the wildlife (to say nothing of the other trail users).
Existing parklands are already inadequate to protect the wildlife that
live there. When they are crisscrossed by mountain bikers and legal or
illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more. Have you
ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes
in a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives
wildlife further from the resources that they need to survive,
including water, food, and mates.
d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each
other on narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain
biking also result in more habitat destruction, as trails are widened
by bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of their way).
e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and
consequently exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to
place, resulting in the spread of exotic invasive species, such as
weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the
trails and hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and
equestrians fear for their safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails
with bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they are simply being
selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually they have no problem
sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that are a
problem!)
g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere,
teach children and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment
of nature is acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect on
people's treatment of nature.
h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have
been resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a
plastic matrix or other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in
Pleasanton Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's
hard to imagine that this will have a beneficial effect on the park
and its wildlife….
i. Allowing mountain bikes in a park greatly increases the damage
to the trails, damage from "bootleg" (illegally created) trails, and
the problems of conflicts between trail users, and hence the cost of
maintaining the park. Considering how tight park budgets are, we can't
afford the extra costs of policing, and repairing the damage from,
mountain biking.
j. For the science on mountain biking and its impacts on wildlife
and people, see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.

4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
impact than hiking. Is that true?
a.If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that they
don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, but
only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the
studies are correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it
would still follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per
person, since mountain bikers typically travel so much farther than
hikers. Besides overlooking distances travelled, those "studies"
almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't study mountain
biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed. Actually,
the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of
the two is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning
hiking. We are only considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the
only relevant question is, "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course,
it is!) There is only one truly scientific study that I know of that
compares the impacts of hiking and mountain biking. It found that
mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than hiking (Wisdom, M.
J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of
Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69, 2004,
pp.531-550.) See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
b. On its web site, IMBA mentions recent research on mountain
biking by Dave White et al and Jeff Marion, both of whom claim that
mountain biking and hiking have "similar" impacts. Is that true?
First, "similar" is not a scientific term and really has no clear
meaning. That term is being used only to obfuscate. Second, these are
survey studies, not experimental studies. By its very nature, a survey
study cannot be used to compare the impacts from two activities,
because it doesn't control all the variables. For example, we don't
know if the differences in erosion between two trails are due to the
mountain biking vs. hiking use, or due to differences in the weather,
terrain, steepness, soil type, management practices, amount of use,
hikers on the "mountain biking trail", mountain bikers on the "hiking
trail", etc. White et al only measured their trails once, and didn't
even collect any data on hiking impacts! See
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/white and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/marion.
c. Why would a researcher risk his/her reputation by doing
such shoddy work? For money! And to ensure the continuance of their
sport. If land managers think that mountain biking is more harmful
than hiking, they will be more likely to close trails to bikes. Bike
parts manufacturer Shimano paid Professor White to do his study.
Research funds are difficult to obtain. A researcher who can be relied
upon to produce research favorable to mountain biking will be able to
obtain funding from the mountain biking industry. A researcher who
tells the truth about mountain biking won't be able to obtain research
funds and will risk stunting his/her career.
5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for
wildlife protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal
Utility District (in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California).
They both restrict bicycles to paved roads, where they can't do much
harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed to enjoy their sport for over a
hundred years, without riding off-road.

6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked
open. Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out
of the ground by mountain bikers.

7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails,
but not mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, apparently
because they think it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that
mountain bikers have exactly the same access to trails that everyone
else has! It is only their bikes that are banned. If mountain bikers
were really being discriminated against, they could easily go to court
to gain access. However … they already have access to every trail in
the world!

8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a
taxpayer! The public has the right, through its elected
representatives, to restrict how land is used. A federal court has
already ruled that there is no right to mountain bike. It is a
privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason (such as
safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails
(see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm).

9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction
and trail maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat
both directly (by killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by
reducing the size of the intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover,
mountain bikers favor trails that are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and
full of obstacles that provide thrills for mountain bikers. Such
designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the trail) and
make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be
necessary, if bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the
main reason why trail maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by
hikers require hardly any maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles
to a park greatly increases its cost of maintenance. Nothing is really
"free", including trail construction and maintenance. (How does the
saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)

10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to
quickly summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust
in a cell phone, than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural
areas are already one of the safest places you can be. In over 50
years of hiking and backpacking, I have never witnessed any situation
requiring emergency aid. Most people go to natural areas partly for
solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces of
machinery, we would stay in the city!

11. Can't mountain biking help get our overweight kids off the couch?
Hiking can already do that, without causing extra harm to wildlife and
people. Mountain biking downhill provides zero exercise benefit.
Mountain biking on level ground provides minimal exercise benefit,
much less than walking. Since it's impossible to pay any attention to
your surroundings while mountain biking (or you will crash), there's
no reason to promote mountain biking. It benefits only those who stand
to make money off of it, such as bike manufacturers, retailers, and
tour companies.

12. Doesn't mountain biking get people out of their cars? So do
walking, road cycling, and transit use, without harm to the natural
environment. Since very few mountain biking opportunities are within
easy bicycling distance, the vast majority of mountain bike trips
require transporting the bike in a truck, SUV, or car. If mountain
bikers cared about the environment, they would bicycle to the park,
lock their bike at the trailhead, and hike. Or simply bicycle on paved
roads, as bicyclists have for the past century.

13. Doesn't the threat from mountain biking pale, in comparison to
other sources of environmental damage, such as logging? Maybe, and
maybe not. Mountain biking teaches people that the rough treatment of
nature is acceptable, so it may lead to many other abuses. In parks,
where most mountain biking is done, it is probably the most harmful
activity allowed. But even if mountain biking is less damaging than
another activity, such as logging, it is still additional damage. If
an area is already messed up (e.g. by logging), how does that make it
okay to do additional damage? It doesn't!

14. What's wrong with night riding? Humans have been destroying
wildlife habitat for centuries, so that very little remains. Our
presence in parks prevents wildlife from using a large part of their
habitat, at least during the daytime. Now that night riding is
becoming popular, wildlife and being denied that habitat even at
night, or incur an increased risk getting run over, if they attempt to
use it. There is very little law enforcement even during the day in
these days of tight budgets. There is no patrolling of parks at night!
This gives mountain bikers free rein to do whatever they want,
including riding trails that are closed to bikes or even building
their own illegal trails. No wonder night riding is so popular! And,
of course, night riding makes an activity that is already very
dangerous, much more dangerous.

Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for the past decade. During the same
period, I studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts
of mountain biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature"
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
===
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

[bruno]

On Mar 9, 8:18 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> Updated March 8, 2007
>
> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
> a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in
> the same amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain
> constant pressure on land managers, to open more and more trails to
> bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already open to them, if
> they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that closing trails to
> bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could only be true if they
> were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk. There's nothing
> inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
> save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace
> automobile use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token,
> replacing hiking with mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
> b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see,
> rather than the quality of their experience. While riding a bike,
> especially over terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be constantly
> paying attention to not crashing. That makes it almost impossible to
> notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
> sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop instantly, if
> he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation.
> A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the same
> stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
> travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several
> times as far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal
> box.)
> c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail,
> especially a trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not
> familiar with, is very challenging. (But if mountain biking is the
> high point of your week, as it seems to be for many mountain bikers,
> you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of the bike!)
> d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills and
> competing with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives
> people to spend more money on their bike, and ride it harder and more
> often. Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a lot of
> mountain biking. Of course, it is also extremely harmful to the parks
> and natural areas that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
> any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting, that is as
> harmful as mountain biking.
>
> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the
> attraction for participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain
> bikes and mountain biking accessories, as well as "adventure" travel
> guides, make a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even some
> auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and sponsor mountain biking,
> and try to use its popularity to sell more cars. The tourism industry
> also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.
>
> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
> a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip
> into the soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They
> also create V-shaped grooves that make walking difficult or even
> dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the gears and ball
> bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several times as fast as a
> hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
> vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
> (shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops,
> starts, and turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and
> opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other
> bikes, so that they could withstand the greater forces they were
> subject to on rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are being
> applied to the trails! To give a definite number, the winner of a
> 20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed
> limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
> b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small
> animals and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost
> impossible to avoid killing countless animals and plants on and under
> the trail. They have to pay attention to controlling the bike, and
> can't afford to look carefully at what is on the trail, especially
> when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see, for example, a
> snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
> hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by
> crossing on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other
> hand, simply ride right through the creek bed, crushing any animals or
> plants that happen to be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
> photos of mountain bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through
> creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants as they ride
> across streams, they ride through streams stirring up sediment. The
> sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
> life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
> amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
> sediment in water.
> c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a
> hiker. This translates into several times the impacts, both on the
> trail and on the wildlife (to say nothing of the other trail users).
> Existing parklands are already inadequate to protect the wildlife that
> live there. When they are crisscrossed by mountain bikers and legal or
> illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
> bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more. Have you
> ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes
> in a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives
> wildlife further from the resources that they need to survive,
> including water, food, and mates.
> d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each
> other on narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain
> biking also result in more habitat destruction, as trails are widened
> by bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of their way).
> e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and
> consequently exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to
> place, resulting in the spread of exotic invasive species, such as
> weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
> f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the
> trails and hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and
> equestrians fear for their safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails
> with bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they are simply being
> selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually they have no problem
> sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that are a
> problem!)
> g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere,
> teach children and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment
> of nature is acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect on
> people's treatment of nature.
> h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have
> been resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a
> plastic matrix or other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in
> Pleasanton Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's
> hard to imagine that this will have a beneficial effect on the park
> and its wildlife....
> i. Allowing mountain bikes in a park greatly increases the damage
> to the trails, damage from "bootleg" (illegally created) trails, and
> the problems of conflicts between trail users, and hence the cost of
> maintaining the park. Considering how tight park budgets are, we can't
> afford the extra costs of policing, and repairing the damage from,
> mountain biking.
> j. For the science on mountain biking and its impacts on wildlife
> and people, seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
>
> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
> impact than hiking. Is that true?
> a.If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that they
> don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, but
> only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the
> studies are correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it
> would still follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per
> person, since mountain bikers typically travel so much farther than
> hikers. Besides overlooking distances travelled, those "studies"
> almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't study mountain
> biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed. Actually,
> the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
> we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of
> the two is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning
> hiking. We are only considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the
> only relevant question is, "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course,
> it is!) There is only one truly scientific study that I know of that
> compares the impacts of hiking and mountain biking. It found that
> mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than hiking (Wisdom, M.
> J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of
> Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North
> American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69, 2004,
> pp.531-550.) Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
> b. On its web site, IMBA mentions recent research on mountain
> biking by Dave White et al and Jeff Marion, both of whom claim that
> mountain biking and hiking have "similar" impacts. Is that true?
> First, "similar" is not a scientific term and really has no clear
> meaning. That term is being used only to obfuscate. Second, these are
> survey studies, not experimental studies. By its very nature, a survey
> study cannot be used to compare the impacts from two activities,
> because it doesn't control all the variables. For example, we don't
> know if the differences in erosion between two trails are due to the
> mountain biking vs. hiking use, or due to differences in the weather,
> terrain, steepness, soil type, management practices, amount of use,
> hikers on the "mountain biking trail", mountain bikers on the "hiking
> trail", etc. White et al only measured their trails once, and didn't
> even collect any data on hiking impacts! Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/whiteandhttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/marion.
> c. Why would a researcher risk his/her reputation by doing
> such shoddy work? For money! And to ensure the continuance of their
> sport. If land managers think that mountain biking is more harmful
> than hiking, they will be more likely to close trails to bikes. Bike
> parts manufacturer Shimano paid Professor White to do his study.
> Research funds are difficult to obtain. A researcher who can be relied
> upon to produce research favorable to mountain biking will be able to
> obtain funding from the mountain biking industry. A researcher who
> tells the truth about mountain biking won't be able to obtain research
> funds and will risk stunting his/her career.
> 5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for
> wildlife protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal
> Utility District (in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California).
> They both restrict bicycles to paved roads, where they can't do much
> harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed to enjoy their sport for over a
> hundred years, without riding off-road.
>
> 6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked
> open. Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out
> of the ground by mountain bikers.
>
> 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails,
> but not mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, apparently
> because they think it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that
> mountain bikers have exactly the same access to trails that everyone
> else has! It is only their bikes that are banned. If mountain bikers
> were really being discriminated against, they could easily go to court
> to gain access. However ... they already have access to every trail in
> the world!
>
> 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a
> taxpayer! The public has the right, through its elected
> representatives, to restrict how land is used. A federal court has
> already ruled that there is no right to mountain bike. It is a
> privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason (such as
> safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails
> (seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm).
>
> 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction
> and trail maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat
> both directly (by killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by
> reducing the size of the intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover,
> mountain bikers favor trails that are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and
> full of obstacles that provide thrills for mountain bikers. Such
> designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the trail) and
> make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
> maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be
> necessary, if bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the
> main reason why trail maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by
> hikers require hardly any maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles
> to a park greatly increases its cost of maintenance. Nothing is really
> "free", including trail construction and maintenance. (How does the
> saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)
>
> 10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to
> quickly summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust
> in a cell phone, than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural
> areas are already one of the safest places you can be. In over 50
> years of hiking and backpacking, I have never witnessed any situation
> requiring emergency aid. Most people go to natural areas partly for
> solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces of
> machinery, we would stay in the city!
>
> 11. Can't mountain biking help get our overweight kids off the couch?
> Hiking can already do that, without causing extra harm to wildlife and
> people. Mountain biking downhill provides zero exercise benefit.
> Mountain biking on level ground provides minimal exercise benefit,
> much less than walking. Since it's impossible to pay any attention to
> your surroundings while mountain biking (or you will crash), there's
> no reason to promote mountain biking. It benefits only those who stand
> to make money off of it, such as bike manufacturers, retailers, and
> tour companies.
>
> 12. Doesn't mountain biking get people out of their cars? So do
> walking, road cycling, and transit use, without harm to the natural
> environment. Since very few mountain biking opportunities are within
> easy bicycling distance, the vast majority of mountain bike trips
> require transporting the bike in a truck, SUV, or car. If mountain
> bikers cared about the environment, they would bicycle to the park,
> lock their bike at the trailhead, and hike. Or simply bicycle on paved
> roads, as bicyclists have for the past century.
>
> 13. Doesn't the threat from mountain biking pale, in comparison to
> other sources of environmental damage, such as logging? Maybe, and
> maybe not. Mountain biking teaches people that the rough treatment of
> nature is acceptable, so it may lead to many other abuses. In parks,
> where most mountain biking is done, it is probably the most harmful
> activity allowed. But even if mountain biking is less damaging than
> another activity, such as logging, it is still additional damage. If
> an area is already messed up (e.g. by logging), how does that make it
> okay to do additional damage? It doesn't!
>
> 14. What's wrong with night riding? Humans have been destroying
> wildlife habitat for centuries, so that very little remains. Our
> presence in parks prevents wildlife from using a large part of their
> habitat, at least during the daytime. Now that night riding is
> becoming popular, wildlife and being denied that habitat even at
> night, or incur an increased risk getting run over, if they attempt to
> use it. There is very little law enforcement even during the day in
> these days of tight budgets. There is no patrolling of parks at night!
> This gives mountain bikers free rein to do whatever they want,
> including riding trails that are closed to bikes or even building
> their own illegal trails. No wonder night riding is so popular! And,
> of course, night riding makes an activity that is already very
> dangerous, much more dangerous.
>
> Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
> San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for the past decade. During the same
> period, I studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts
> of mountain biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of
> Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature"http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
> ===
> 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

too long.

[R p j]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> Frequently Asked Questions about Mike Vandeman
> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> Updated March 8, 2007
>
> Why am I such a pitiful troll? It is because I am a cyclophobic,
> sociophobic, waste of skin. It sucks to be me>

[Mike Vandeman]

On 9 Mar 2007 05:36:59 -0800, "bruno" > wrote:

>On Mar 9, 8:18 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>
>> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
>> a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in
>> the same amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain
>> constant pressure on land managers, to open more and more trails to
>> bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already open to them, if
>> they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that closing trails to
>> bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could only be true if they
>> were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk. There's nothing
>> inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
>> save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace
>> automobile use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token,
>> replacing hiking with mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
>> b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see,
>> rather than the quality of their experience. While riding a bike,
>> especially over terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be constantly
>> paying attention to not crashing. That makes it almost impossible to
>> notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
>> sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop instantly, if
>> he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation.
>> A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the same
>> stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
>> travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several
>> times as far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal
>> box.)
>> c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail,
>> especially a trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not
>> familiar with, is very challenging. (But if mountain biking is the
>> high point of your week, as it seems to be for many mountain bikers,
>> you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of the bike!)
>> d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills and
>> competing with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives
>> people to spend more money on their bike, and ride it harder and more
>> often. Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a lot of
>> mountain biking. Of course, it is also extremely harmful to the parks
>> and natural areas that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
>> any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting, that is as
>> harmful as mountain biking.
>>
>> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the
>> attraction for participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain
>> bikes and mountain biking accessories, as well as "adventure" travel
>> guides, make a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even some
>> auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and sponsor mountain biking,
>> and try to use its popularity to sell more cars. The tourism industry
>> also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.
>>
>> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
>> a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip
>> into the soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They
>> also create V-shaped grooves that make walking difficult or even
>> dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the gears and ball
>> bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several times as fast as a
>> hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
>> vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
>> (shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops,
>> starts, and turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and
>> opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other
>> bikes, so that they could withstand the greater forces they were
>> subject to on rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are being
>> applied to the trails! To give a definite number, the winner of a
>> 20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed
>> limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
>> b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small
>> animals and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost
>> impossible to avoid killing countless animals and plants on and under
>> the trail. They have to pay attention to controlling the bike, and
>> can't afford to look carefully at what is on the trail, especially
>> when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see, for example, a
>> snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
>> hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by
>> crossing on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other
>> hand, simply ride right through the creek bed, crushing any animals or
>> plants that happen to be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
>> photos of mountain bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through
>> creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants as they ride
>> across streams, they ride through streams stirring up sediment. The
>> sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
>> life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
>> amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
>> sediment in water.
>> c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a
>> hiker. This translates into several times the impacts, both on the
>> trail and on the wildlife (to say nothing of the other trail users).
>> Existing parklands are already inadequate to protect the wildlife that
>> live there. When they are crisscrossed by mountain bikers and legal or
>> illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
>> bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more. Have you
>> ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes
>> in a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives
>> wildlife further from the resources that they need to survive,
>> including water, food, and mates.
>> d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each
>> other on narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain
>> biking also result in more habitat destruction, as trails are widened
>> by bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of their way).
>> e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and
>> consequently exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to
>> place, resulting in the spread of exotic invasive species, such as
>> weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
>> f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the
>> trails and hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and
>> equestrians fear for their safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails
>> with bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they are simply being
>> selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually they have no problem
>> sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that are a
>> problem!)
>> g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere,
>> teach children and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment
>> of nature is acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect on
>> people's treatment of nature.
>> h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have
>> been resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a
>> plastic matrix or other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in
>> Pleasanton Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's
>> hard to imagine that this will have a beneficial effect on the park
>> and its wildlife....
>> i. Allowing mountain bikes in a park greatly increases the damage
>> to the trails, damage from "bootleg" (illegally created) trails, and
>> the problems of conflicts between trail users, and hence the cost of
>> maintaining the park. Considering how tight park budgets are, we can't
>> afford the extra costs of policing, and repairing the damage from,
>> mountain biking.
>> j. For the science on mountain biking and its impacts on wildlife
>> and people, seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
>>
>> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
>> impact than hiking. Is that true?
>> a.If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that they
>> don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, but
>> only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the
>> studies are correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it
>> would still follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per
>> person, since mountain bikers typically travel so much farther than
>> hikers. Besides overlooking distances travelled, those "studies"
>> almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't study mountain
>> biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed. Actually,
>> the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
>> we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of
>> the two is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning
>> hiking. We are only considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the
>> only relevant question is, "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course,
>> it is!) There is only one truly scientific study that I know of that
>> compares the impacts of hiking and mountain biking. It found that
>> mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than hiking (Wisdom, M.
>> J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of
>> Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North
>> American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69, 2004,
>> pp.531-550.) Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>> b. On its web site, IMBA mentions recent research on mountain
>> biking by Dave White et al and Jeff Marion, both of whom claim that
>> mountain biking and hiking have "similar" impacts. Is that true?
>> First, "similar" is not a scientific term and really has no clear
>> meaning. That term is being used only to obfuscate. Second, these are
>> survey studies, not experimental studies. By its very nature, a survey
>> study cannot be used to compare the impacts from two activities,
>> because it doesn't control all the variables. For example, we don't
>> know if the differences in erosion between two trails are due to the
>> mountain biking vs. hiking use, or due to differences in the weather,
>> terrain, steepness, soil type, management practices, amount of use,
>> hikers on the "mountain biking trail", mountain bikers on the "hiking
>> trail", etc. White et al only measured their trails once, and didn't
>> even collect any data on hiking impacts! Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/whiteandhttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/marion.
>> c. Why would a researcher risk his/her reputation by doing
>> such shoddy work? For money! And to ensure the continuance of their
>> sport. If land managers think that mountain biking is more harmful
>> than hiking, they will be more likely to close trails to bikes. Bike
>> parts manufacturer Shimano paid Professor White to do his study.
>> Research funds are difficult to obtain. A researcher who can be relied
>> upon to produce research favorable to mountain biking will be able to
>> obtain funding from the mountain biking industry. A researcher who
>> tells the truth about mountain biking won't be able to obtain research
>> funds and will risk stunting his/her career.
>> 5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for
>> wildlife protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal
>> Utility District (in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California).
>> They both restrict bicycles to paved roads, where they can't do much
>> harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed to enjoy their sport for over a
>> hundred years, without riding off-road.
>>
>> 6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked
>> open. Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out
>> of the ground by mountain bikers.
>>
>> 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails,
>> but not mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, apparently
>> because they think it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that
>> mountain bikers have exactly the same access to trails that everyone
>> else has! It is only their bikes that are banned. If mountain bikers
>> were really being discriminated against, they could easily go to court
>> to gain access. However ... they already have access to every trail in
>> the world!
>>
>> 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a
>> taxpayer! The public has the right, through its elected
>> representatives, to restrict how land is used. A federal court has
>> already ruled that there is no right to mountain bike. It is a
>> privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason (such as
>> safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails
>> (seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm).
>>
>> 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction
>> and trail maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat
>> both directly (by killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by
>> reducing the size of the intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover,
>> mountain bikers favor trails that are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and
>> full of obstacles that provide thrills for mountain bikers. Such
>> designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the trail) and
>> make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
>> maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be
>> necessary, if bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the
>> main reason why trail maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by
>> hikers require hardly any maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles
>> to a park greatly increases its cost of maintenance. Nothing is really
>> "free", including trail construction and maintenance. (How does the
>> saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)
>>
>> 10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to
>> quickly summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust
>> in a cell phone, than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural
>> areas are already one of the safest places you can be. In over 50
>> years of hiking and backpacking, I have never witnessed any situation
>> requiring emergency aid. Most people go to natural areas partly for
>> solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces of
>> machinery, we would stay in the city!
>>
>> 11. Can't mountain biking help get our overweight kids off the couch?
>> Hiking can already do that, without causing extra harm to wildlife and
>> people. Mountain biking downhill provides zero exercise benefit.
>> Mountain biking on level ground provides minimal exercise benefit,
>> much less than walking. Since it's impossible to pay any attention to
>> your surroundings while mountain biking (or you will crash), there's
>> no reason to promote mountain biking. It benefits only those who stand
>> to make money off of it, such as bike manufacturers, retailers, and
>> tour companies.
>>
>> 12. Doesn't mountain biking get people out of their cars? So do
>> walking, road cycling, and transit use, without harm to the natural
>> environment. Since very few mountain biking opportunities are within
>> easy bicycling distance, the vast majority of mountain bike trips
>> require transporting the bike in a truck, SUV, or car. If mountain
>> bikers cared about the environment, they would bicycle to the park,
>> lock their bike at the trailhead, and hike. Or simply bicycle on paved
>> roads, as bicyclists have for the past century.
>>
>> 13. Doesn't the threat from mountain biking pale, in comparison to
>> other sources of environmental damage, such as logging? Maybe, and
>> maybe not. Mountain biking teaches people that the rough treatment of
>> nature is acceptable, so it may lead to many other abuses. In parks,
>> where most mountain biking is done, it is probably the most harmful
>> activity allowed. But even if mountain biking is less damaging than
>> another activity, such as logging, it is still additional damage. If
>> an area is already messed up (e.g. by logging), how does that make it
>> okay to do additional damage? It doesn't!
>>
>> 14. What's wrong with night riding? Humans have been destroying
>> wildlife habitat for centuries, so that very little remains. Our
>> presence in parks prevents wildlife from using a large part of their
>> habitat, at least during the daytime. Now that night riding is
>> becoming popular, wildlife and being denied that habitat even at
>> night, or incur an increased risk getting run over, if they attempt to
>> use it. There is very little law enforcement even during the day in
>> these days of tight budgets. There is no patrolling of parks at night!
>> This gives mountain bikers free rein to do whatever they want,
>> including riding trails that are closed to bikes or even building
>> their own illegal trails. No wonder night riding is so popular! And,
>> of course, night riding makes an activity that is already very
>> dangerous, much more dangerous.
>>
>> Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
>> San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for the past decade. During the same
>> period, I studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts
>> of mountain biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of
>> Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature"http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm.
>> ===
>> 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
>
>too long.

Just for you: "Don't mountain bike. Period."
===
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

[John Everett]

On 9 Mar 2007 05:36:59 -0800, "bruno" > wrote:

>On Mar 9, 8:18 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
>too long.

Yes, and your attribution was a really effective use of bandwidth. :-|

--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

[Mark Hickey]

"R p j" > wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mike Vandeman
>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>
>> Why am I such a pitiful troll? It is because I am a cyclophobic,
>> sociophobic, waste of skin. It sucks to be me>

So shun him and quit assigning him the celebrity status he craves by
giving him all the attention. Simple, really.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Devs]

In message >, Mike Vandeman
> writes
unfounded, opinionated crap.

Did a mountain biker shag your wife?
--
Devs
"Punchdown Pete the old Kroner"

[di]

"Devs" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Mike Vandeman
> > writes
> unfounded, opinionated crap.
>
> Did a mountain biker shag your wife?
> --
> Devs
> "Punchdown Pete the old Kroner"

Are you kidding, Mike with a wife, his personality prevented that.

[MattB]

bruno wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:18 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>>Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
<snip crap>

> too long.
>

Yes, and even slightly longer when you reposted it.

But this FAQ makes me wonder about what makes a question frequently
asked. If one kook asks the same question over and over does that make
it frequently asked? Technically I guess it does. I think it may also
tie nicely with the definition of insanity (doing the same ting over and
over and expecting a different outcome).

Does it make it worthy of a FAQ document? Debatable, with one proponent
against everyone else. It definitely doesn't make it a document worth
reading.

Matt

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:39:44 GMT, John Everett
> wrote:

>On 9 Mar 2007 05:36:59 -0800, "bruno" > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 9, 8:18 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>
>>too long.
>
>Yes, and your attribution was a really effective use of bandwidth. :-|

Too long. If you want to communicate with mountain bikers, you need to
stick to words of one syl-la-ble.
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:38:01 -0700, MattB >
wrote:

>bruno wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 8:18 am, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>>
>>>Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
><snip crap>
>
>> too long.
>>
>
>Yes, and even slightly longer when you reposted it.
>
>But this FAQ makes me wonder about what makes a question frequently
>asked. If one kook asks the same question over and over does that make
>it frequently asked? Technically I guess it does. I think it may also
>tie nicely with the definition of insanity (doing the same ting over and
>over and expecting a different outcome).
>
>Does it make it worthy of a FAQ document? Debatable, with one proponent
>against everyone else. It definitely doesn't make it a document worth
>reading.
>
>Matt

Of course, we know that mountain bikers would prefer ANYTHING else,
rather than discuss the damage that their selfish, destructive sport
causes.
===
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

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> Updated March 8, 2007
>


Frequently asked by whom?

You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of an
SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may have
been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.

I take back the "lying sack of ****" comment. You are not a lying sack of
**** using the New Vandeman World Dictionary where word meaning varies
depending on your intrepretation(s). Using the dictionaries that the rest of
us use makes you a liar.

[Ed Pirrero]

On Mar 10, 9:19 am, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> > Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> > Updated March 8, 2007
>
> Frequently asked by whom?

Why bother? He's a troll, and I think everybody catches on right
away. Even the dumbest usenetter gets it pretty quickly.

The givaway is this - when he gets cornered, it's "yawn" or "did you
say something?" and he goes back under his bridge, or starts a new
thread with a new tack.

His goal is to waste time here and in the other groups, to distract
folks from actually talking about their outdoor hobby.

I don't think the response to him will ever reach zero, because
there's a new hook baited every day, and a new fish to grab the bait.
But you should know by now that replying to him is only creating more
noise. And he likes it.

Maybe you could listen to this request from a more rational person:
please, please, please - don't respond. Just let him eat static. I,
for one, would very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

E.P.

[Devs]

In message >, di >
writes
>
>"Devs" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >, Mike Vandeman
>> > writes
>> unfounded, opinionated crap.
>>
>> Did a mountain biker shag your wife?
>> --
>> Devs
>> "Punchdown Pete the old Kroner"
>
>Are you kidding, Mike with a wife, his personality prevented that.
>
>
Oh I get it, Mike has no life but because mountain bikers do, they are
responsible for world famine, wars and global warming. Do you think he
would shut up if we all chipped in and bought him a hooker?
--
Devs
"Punchdown Pete the old Kroner"

[di]

"Devs" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Are you kidding, Mike with a wife, his personality prevented that.
>>
>>
> Oh I get it, Mike has no life but because mountain bikers do, they are
> responsible for world famine, wars and global warming. Do you think he
> would shut up if we all chipped in and bought him a hooker?
> --
> Devs


It's doubtful if he would know what to do with a hooker, we would have to
get a volunteer to coach him.

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Mar 2007 09:49:59 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" >
wrote:

>On Mar 10, 9:19 am, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
>> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>> > Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> > Updated March 8, 2007
>>
>> Frequently asked by whom?
>
>Why bother? He's a troll, and I think everybody catches on right
>away. Even the dumbest usenetter gets it pretty quickly.
>
>The givaway is this - when he gets cornered, it's "yawn" or "did you
>say something?" and he goes back under his bridge, or starts a new
>thread with a new tack.
>
>His goal is to waste time here and in the other groups, to distract
>folks from actually talking about their outdoor hobby.
>
>I don't think the response to him will ever reach zero, because
>there's a new hook baited every day, and a new fish to grab the bait.
>But you should know by now that replying to him is only creating more
>noise. And he likes it.
>
>Maybe you could listen to this request from a more rational person:
>please, please, please - don't respond. Just let him eat static. I,
>for one, would very much appreciate it.

Too bad mountain bikers don't even listen to their own peers! You are
wasting your breath.

>Thanks,
>
>E.P.
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>
>
>
>Frequently asked by whom?
>
>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of an
>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may have
>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.

At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
No surprize there!
===
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

[John Everett]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:39 -0700, Mike Vandeman
> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>
>>
>>
>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>
>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of an
>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may have
>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>
>At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>No surprize there!

As a Sierra Club National Outings leader I have access to internal
club data bases. I don't know in which area of the club Mike claims to
be/have been active, but I just checked the rosters of all 23 outings
subcommittees and Mike not only doesn't chair any of them but he isn't
even a member of any of them.

--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>
>>
>>
>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>
>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of
>>an
>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may have
>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>
> At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
> where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
> No surprize there!



YOU updated the article on March 8, 2007, by your own admission. This was 3
days ago. You have not been chair of anything having to do with the SC for
the past decade. Indeed, you are persona non grata at the SC for as long as
I have been visiting ca.environment, which is about 7 years.

You are a lying sack of ****.

[Jeff Strickland]

"John Everett" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:39 -0700, Mike Vandeman
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>
>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of
>>>an
>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may
>>>have
>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>
>>At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>>No surprize there!
>
> As a Sierra Club National Outings leader I have access to internal
> club data bases. I don't know in which area of the club Mike claims to
> be/have been active, but I just checked the rosters of all 23 outings
> subcommittees and Mike not only doesn't chair any of them but he isn't
> even a member of any of them.
>

Mike is not a member of the Club anymore.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:08:16 GMT, John Everett
> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:39 -0700, Mike Vandeman
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>
>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of an
>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may have
>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>
>>At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>>No surprize there!
>
>As a Sierra Club National Outings leader I have access to internal
>club data bases. I don't know in which area of the club Mike claims to
>be/have been active, but I just checked the rosters of all 23 outings
>subcommittees and Mike not only doesn't chair any of them but he isn't
>even a member of any of them.

Are you listening? I WAS the chair of the Wildlife Committee of the
San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. I'm not now. And who said anything
about "outings"?!
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:09:47 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:

>
>"John Everett" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:39 -0700, Mike Vandeman
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>>
>>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of
>>>>an
>>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may
>>>>have
>>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>>
>>>At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>>where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>>>No surprize there!
>>
>> As a Sierra Club National Outings leader I have access to internal
>> club data bases. I don't know in which area of the club Mike claims to
>> be/have been active, but I just checked the rosters of all 23 outings
>> subcommittees and Mike not only doesn't chair any of them but he isn't
>> even a member of any of them.
>>
>
>Mike is not a member of the Club anymore.

This is a great example of what an incorrigible LIAR Jeff Strickland
is. Actually, I am (still) a Life Member. But Jeff Strickland long ago
proved that he is totally unreliable as a source of information. Let's
see how he tries to wriggle out of THIS one! We probably won't hear
form him for a while.... :)
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:08:43 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>
>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of
>>>an
>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may have
>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>
>> At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>> where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>> No surprize there!
>
>
>
>YOU updated the article on March 8, 2007, by your own admission. This was 3
>days ago. You have not been chair of anything having to do with the SC for
>the past decade. Indeed, you are persona non grata at the SC for as long as
>I have been visiting ca.environment, which is about 7 years.

And YOU are a bald-faced LIAR. You know NOTHING.

>You are a lying sack of ****.
>
>
>
===
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

[Simon Wyndham]

Mike, most of what you said in that FAQ is of course rubbish. However if
you want to win people over to your way of thinking you won't achieve it
by insulting other peoples hobbies. I could give you a diatribe on how
walkers and horses erode pathways much more than bikes. But I won't.
You wouldn't listen anyway.

Simon

[John Everett]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:18:49 GMT, Mike Vandeman >
wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:08:16 GMT, John Everett
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:39 -0700, Mike Vandeman
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>>
>>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of an
>>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may have
>>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>>
>>>At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>>where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>>>No surprize there!
>>
>>As a Sierra Club National Outings leader I have access to internal
>>club data bases. I don't know in which area of the club Mike claims to
>>be/have been active, but I just checked the rosters of all 23 outings
>>subcommittees and Mike not only doesn't chair any of them but he isn't
>>even a member of any of them.
>
>Are you listening? I WAS the chair of the Wildlife Committee of the
>San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. I'm not now. And who said anything
>about "outings"?!

Actually no, I'm not listening. As I said further up this thread, this
is the first time I've ever participated in a MV thread. And BTW, ARE
YOU LISTENING? I said above, " I don't know in which area of the SC
Mike claims to be/have been active". I just checked out Outings
because I have access to the Club's "extranet".

--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you listening? I WAS the chair of the Wildlife Committee of the
> San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. I'm not now. And who said anything
> about "outings"?!


Yes, you WERE. A very long time ago. Currently, you have not been chair of
anything in The Club for the past decade.

<Mike's Quote>
Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for the past decade. During the same
period, I studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts
of mountain biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature"
</Quote>

In the construction YOU used, YOUR words are that you were "for the past
decade" the chair of some committee. This means that you have been chair
from NOW, backwards in time for the entire decade.

Proper construction that would not make you a liar is, "I was once the chair
of a committee for a decade." That construction says that some point in the
past, you chaired the committee, it does not state that you have been chair
from now and for the decade preceding.

How does one get a PhD and not know something so elementary? I forget, you
use the New Vandeman Dictionary where up means down and "for the past
decade" means "a decade long ago."

L:iar. Forgive me, you are not a liar, you are simply one stupid son of a
bitch. Idiot.







> ===
> 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

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:08:43 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>>
>>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair
>>>>of
>>>>an
>>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may
>>>>have
>>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>>
>>> At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>> where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>>> No surprize there!
>>
>>
>>
>>YOU updated the article on March 8, 2007, by your own admission. This was
>>3
>>days ago. You have not been chair of anything having to do with the SC for
>>the past decade. Indeed, you are persona non grata at the SC for as long
>>as
>>I have been visiting ca.environment, which is about 7 years.
>
> And YOU are a bald-faced LIAR. You know NOTHING.
>

I know that you have not been chair of any SC committee for the past decade.
For you to continue to assert that you have been a chair of anything for the
past decade makes you the liar, my friend.

PS
You also have not spent the "previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and
road construction."

[Wolf Leverich]

On 2007-03-11, Jeff Strickland > wrote:
>
> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Are you listening? I WAS the chair of the Wildlife Committee of the
> > San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. I'm not now. And who said anything
> > about "outings"?!
>
> Yes, you WERE. A very long time ago. Currently, you have not been chair of
> anything in The Club for the past decade.
>
><Mike's Quote>
> Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
> San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for the past decade. During the same
> period, I studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts
> of mountain biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of
> Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature"
></Quote>


Hi all -

Just wandering through since the Sierra Club's name came up.

Like any large organization, the SC membership has diverse
opinions and what any single person says may or may not be
representative of the whole.

For whatever it's worth, I've led and participated in various
Sierra Club outings where folks were on mountain bikes. Used
with common sense and responsibility, mountain bikes are a
great way to enjoy the backcountry.

Speaking *only* as an individual, I'd like to see the Sierra
Club supporting the various mountain biking organizations
on access and trail issues in suitable areas.

(Has anyone else ridden the road that separates the Dick Smith
and San Rafael Wildernesses in the Los Padres? Technical
challenge is just about zero except in early season when you
often have to cross slide zones, but the scenery is pretty
kickass by SoCal standards and you can get to places with zero
tourists and 30 miles of wilderness between you and the next
human being.)

Cheers, Wolf.


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
Member, Sierra Club National Outdoor Activities Governance Committee
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:11:30 +0000, Simon Wyndham >
wrote:

>Mike, most of what you said in that FAQ is of course rubbish. However if
>you want to win people over to your way of thinking you won't achieve it
>by insulting other peoples hobbies. I could give you a diatribe on how
>walkers and horses erode pathways much more than bikes.

A diatribe is irrelevant. Conveniently, you provide no examples of my
alleged "rubbish".

Provide some science, as I do, or shut up. There is no science showing
that walkers cause more erosion than mountain bikers. I don't think
there's ANY reliable science on horses vs. mountain bikers. Put up or
shut up.

But I won't.
>You wouldn't listen anyway.
>
>Simon
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:18:06 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:08:43 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>>>
>>>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair
>>>>>of
>>>>>an
>>>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may
>>>>>have
>>>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>>>
>>>> At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>>> where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>>>> No surprize there!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>YOU updated the article on March 8, 2007, by your own admission. This was
>>>3
>>>days ago. You have not been chair of anything having to do with the SC for
>>>the past decade. Indeed, you are persona non grata at the SC for as long
>>>as
>>>I have been visiting ca.environment, which is about 7 years.
>>
>> And YOU are a bald-faced LIAR. You know NOTHING.
>>
>
>I know that you have not been chair of any SC committee for the past decade.

No, you don't, liar, because it isn't true. You were discredited long
ago, and have continued lying ever since.

>For you to continue to assert that you have been a chair of anything for the
>past decade makes you the liar, my friend.
>
>PS
>You also have not spent the "previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and
>road construction."

Yes, I did, previous to what I'm doing now (wildlife activism). Learn
to read.
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:13:17 GMT, John Everett
> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:18:49 GMT, Mike Vandeman >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:08:16 GMT, John Everett
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:39 -0700, Mike Vandeman
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>>>
>>>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair of an
>>>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may have
>>>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you have
>>>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>>>
>>>>At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>>>where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>>>>No surprize there!
>>>
>>>As a Sierra Club National Outings leader I have access to internal
>>>club data bases. I don't know in which area of the club Mike claims to
>>>be/have been active, but I just checked the rosters of all 23 outings
>>>subcommittees and Mike not only doesn't chair any of them but he isn't
>>>even a member of any of them.
>>
>>Are you listening? I WAS the chair of the Wildlife Committee of the
>>San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. I'm not now. And who said anything
>>about "outings"?!
>
>Actually no, I'm not listening.

It shows. That's why your comments were a non-sequitur: IRRELEVANT to
the discussion!

As I said further up this thread, this
>is the first time I've ever participated in a MV thread. And BTW, ARE
>YOU LISTENING? I said above, " I don't know in which area of the SC
>Mike claims to be/have been active". I just checked out Outings
>because I have access to the Club's "extranet".
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:15:01 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Are you listening? I WAS the chair of the Wildlife Committee of the
>> San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. I'm not now. And who said anything
>> about "outings"?!
>
>
>Yes, you WERE. A very long time ago.

No, only a few years ago. Just prior to when I wrote that FAQ, as I
said.

Currently, you have not been chair of
>anything in The Club for the past decade.

That's a bald-faced LIE. Show us some evidence, or shut up.

><Mike's Quote>
>Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
>San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for the past decade. During the same
>period, I studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts
>of mountain biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of
>Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature"
></Quote>
>
>In the construction YOU used, YOUR words are that you were "for the past
>decade" the chair of some committee. This means that you have been chair
>from NOW, backwards in time for the entire decade.
>
>Proper construction that would not make you a liar is, "I was once the chair
>of a committee for a decade." That construction says that some point in the
>past, you chaired the committee, it does not state that you have been chair
>from now and for the decade preceding.
>
>How does one get a PhD and not know something so elementary? I forget, you
>use the New Vandeman Dictionary where up means down and "for the past
>decade" means "a decade long ago."
>
>L:iar. Forgive me, you are not a liar, you are simply one stupid son of a
>bitch. Idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ===
>> 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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:19:47 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"
> wrote:

>On 2007-03-11, Jeff Strickland > wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Are you listening? I WAS the chair of the Wildlife Committee of the
>> > San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. I'm not now. And who said anything
>> > about "outings"?!
>>
>> Yes, you WERE. A very long time ago. Currently, you have not been chair of
>> anything in The Club for the past decade.
>>
>><Mike's Quote>
>> Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
>> San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for the past decade. During the same
>> period, I studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts
>> of mountain biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of
>> Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature"
>></Quote>
>
>
>Hi all -
>
>Just wandering through since the Sierra Club's name came up.
>
>Like any large organization, the SC membership has diverse
>opinions and what any single person says may or may not be
>representative of the whole.
>
>For whatever it's worth, I've led and participated in various
>Sierra Club outings where folks were on mountain bikes. Used
>with common sense and responsibility, mountain bikes are a
>great way to enjoy the backcountry.

"Great" only for the mountain bikers! Definitely NOT "great" for the
wildlife or the other trail users. Why is it that mountain bikers just
can't manage to tell the truth about their selfish, destructive
sport?????

>Speaking *only* as an individual, I'd like to see the Sierra
>Club supporting the various mountain biking organizations
>on access and trail issues in suitable areas.

The only areas suitable for bikes and other vehicles is on roads --
preferably PAVED roads, where they can't do much harm.

>(Has anyone else ridden the road that separates the Dick Smith
>and San Rafael Wildernesses in the Los Padres? Technical
>challenge is just about zero except in early season when you
>often have to cross slide zones, but the scenery is pretty
>kickass by SoCal standards and you can get to places with zero
>tourists and 30 miles of wilderness between you and the next
>human being.)

This is the typical selfish view of a mountain biker: oblivious to his
effect on wildlife and other trail users.

>Cheers, Wolf.
===
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

[No Name]

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:19:47 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"
> > wrote:

> >Speaking *only* as an individual, I'd like to see the Sierra
> >Club supporting the various mountain biking organizations
> >on access and trail issues in suitable areas.
>
> The only areas suitable for bikes and other vehicles is on roads --
> preferably PAVED roads, where they can't do much harm.


So much for your purported opposition to roads -- mountain bikes are
fine, as long as we pave the mountain trails to make them roads?

--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

[Simon Wyndham]

> that walkers cause more erosion than mountain bikers. I don't think
> there's ANY reliable science on horses vs. mountain bikers. Put up or

What I see with my own eyes, and what you see, should provide the
evidence. And there have been studies, its just that you haven't looked
them up or performed a basic internet search to find out. 4 large hooves
(or even 16 if there is a group of 3 riders) that churn up the ground
over a wide area is obviously going to cause more errosion than the very
thin footprint of a bike, or a group of bikes that follow roughly the
same line. In Malvern in the UK where I live there is some quite
horrendous rutting caused on some paths on the hills by horses. Also,
mountain bikes will usually follow existing paths, even if there is mud
or puddles in the way. Humans will side step these things thus causing
more erosion on the sides of pathways.

Mountain bikers voluntarily get together to make dedicated track areas,
and also to repair existing tracks. I don't recall hearing of such
programs organised by the likes of the Ramblers etc. Though there are
schemes such as that in the forest of Dean in Gloucestershire where
specialised tracks are made for bikers and walkers, as well as mixed use
tracks. What I do know is that there is a group of people that think
that if they don't have an interest in a particular thing, that nobody
else should either.

I'm afraid that in a free country if you don't like mountain bikers you
have a right to do so. But I'm afraid you'll just have to lump it.
Instead of waisting energy and filling yourself with anger over trivial
issues that you have exaggerated in your own mind you might be better
off just going out and enjoying the countryside you so proclaim to love.

Simon

[Ed Pirrero]

On Mar 12, 4:45 am, Simon Wyndham > wrote:
>
> Instead of waisting energy and filling yourself with anger over trivial
> issues that you have exaggerated in your own mind you might be better
> off just going out and enjoying the countryside you so proclaim to love.

He's not wasting energy, because his whole agenda is to create noise
in usenet. You've fallen for his troll, and nothing you say will
change his mind. Smarter folks than you have tried for the last ten
or so years that he's been posting his drivel on the 'net.

Go ahead and look some stuff up from 1997. You'll see the exact same
stuff, just different respondents.

E.P.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:50:54 -0700, > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:19:47 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Speaking *only* as an individual, I'd like to see the Sierra
>> >Club supporting the various mountain biking organizations
>> >on access and trail issues in suitable areas.
>>
>> The only areas suitable for bikes and other vehicles is on roads --
>> preferably PAVED roads, where they can't do much harm.
>
>
>So much for your purported opposition to roads -- mountain bikes are
>fine, as long as we pave the mountain trails to make them roads?

Thanks for demonstrating just how STOOPID mountain bikers are. You of
course know that I oppose paving.
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:45:50 +0000, Simon Wyndham >
wrote:

>
>> that walkers cause more erosion than mountain bikers. I don't think
>> there's ANY reliable science on horses vs. mountain bikers. Put up or
>
>What I see with my own eyes, and what you see, should provide the
>evidence. And there have been studies, its just that you haven't looked
>them up or performed a basic internet search to find out.

They are all listed on my web site.

4 large hooves
>(or even 16 if there is a group of 3 riders) that churn up the ground
>over a wide area is obviously going to cause more errosion than the very
>thin footprint of a bike, or a group of bikes that follow roughly the
>same line.

That doesn't follow. The horse's weight is distributed over a much
larger area, reducing the PRESSURE.

In Malvern in the UK where I live there is some quite
>horrendous rutting caused on some paths on the hills by horses. Also,
>mountain bikes will usually follow existing paths, even if there is mud
>or puddles in the way. Humans will side step these things thus causing
>more erosion on the sides of pathways.

Bikers do the same thing. DUH!

>Mountain bikers voluntarily get together to make dedicated track areas,
>and also to repair existing tracks.

That only increases erosion.

I don't recall hearing of such
>programs organised by the likes of the Ramblers etc. Though there are
>schemes such as that in the forest of Dean in Gloucestershire where
>specialised tracks are made for bikers and walkers, as well as mixed use
>tracks. What I do know is that there is a group of people that think
>that if they don't have an interest in a particular thing, that nobody
>else should either.
>
>I'm afraid that in a free country if you don't like mountain bikers you
>have a right to do so.

I never said I don't like mountain bikers. I don't like mountain
BIKING. DUH! You guys are amazingly dense.

But I'm afraid you'll just have to lump it.
>Instead of waisting energy and filling yourself with anger over trivial
>issues that you have exaggerated in your own mind you might be better
>off just going out and enjoying the countryside you so proclaim to love.
>
>Simon

Provide some science, or shut up. Your biased observations are
worthless.
===
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

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:15:01 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Are you listening? I WAS the chair of the Wildlife Committee of the
>>> San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. I'm not now. And who said anything
>>> about "outings"?!
>>
>>
>>Yes, you WERE. A very long time ago.
>
> No, only a few years ago. Just prior to when I wrote that FAQ, as I
> said.
>
> Currently, you have not been chair of
>>anything in The Club for the past decade.
>
> That's a bald-faced LIE. Show us some evidence, or shut up.
>

Are you CURRENTLY a chair of any SC committee?

No is the correct answer. Since you are not currently a chair, they you
haven't been "chair for past decade", you have been chair IN the past
decade, but not FOR.

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:18:06 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:08:43 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a chair
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You may
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that you
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>>>> where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the liar.
>>>>> No surprize there!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>YOU updated the article on March 8, 2007, by your own admission. This
>>>>was
>>>>3
>>>>days ago. You have not been chair of anything having to do with the SC
>>>>for
>>>>the past decade. Indeed, you are persona non grata at the SC for as long
>>>>as
>>>>I have been visiting ca.environment, which is about 7 years.
>>>
>>> And YOU are a bald-faced LIAR. You know NOTHING.
>>>
>>
>>I know that you have not been chair of any SC committee for the past
>>decade.
>
> No, you don't, liar, because it isn't true. You were discredited long
> ago, and have continued lying ever since.
>

Discredited by who? You? Yeah, right.

What SC committee(s) do you chair TODAY?




>>For you to continue to assert that you have been a chair of anything for
>>the
>>past decade makes you the liar, my friend.
>>
>>PS
>>You also have not spent the "previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and
>>road construction."
>
> Yes, I did, previous to what I'm doing now (wildlife activism). Learn
> to read.

No, Mike, you didn't.

The sentence construction you use implies current and ongoing fight. Either
you ignore the period prior to the past eight years -- making the fight even
longer, and hence bettrer for your resume -- or you have left the position
where your active fight was taking place -- making your assertion a lie.
Either way, you need to write yoiur sig line over so that your credentials
are clear and accurate, or remain the liar that you are.

PS
Your current response does not address the point I raised. It is a common
tactic or liars to attempt to divert the discussion to different topics than
those that expose the lies.

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:11:30 +0000, Simon Wyndham >
> wrote:
>
>>Mike, most of what you said in that FAQ is of course rubbish. However if
>>you want to win people over to your way of thinking you won't achieve it
>>by insulting other peoples hobbies. I could give you a diatribe on how
>>walkers and horses erode pathways much more than bikes.
>
> A diatribe is irrelevant. Conveniently, you provide no examples of my
> alleged "rubbish".
>
> Provide some science, as I do, or shut up. There is no science showing
> that walkers cause more erosion than mountain bikers. I don't think
> there's ANY reliable science on horses vs. mountain bikers. Put up or
> shut up.
>

There are LOTS of examples of where hikers and horses do all of the erosion.
Well, not ALL erosion, just trail erosion, which is the kind of erosion you
are against.

Trail erosion is problematic in every national forest and park, Yosemite,
Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone to name a few, where bikes are not used. Since
trail erosion is problematic for these areas, then they are examples of
where hikers and horses do all of the erosion.

Once again, logic and fact trumps your "science."

[Simon Wyndham]

As others have said I shouldn't really waste my fingers typing. But
trolls can be funny.

> That doesn't follow. The horse's weight is distributed over a much
> larger area, reducing the PRESSURE.

Pressure is only a small part of it. You aren't including the dirt that
gets kicked up, or the fact that all four hooves are not on the ground
at the same time. You obviously haven't actually walked on a well used
horse trail. At least not one that has been used in the wet and muddy
season.

> Bikers do the same thing. DUH!

I don't. I don't see the point of doing the bike equivalent of driving a
4x4 off road if you are afraid to get muddy and wet.

> That only increases erosion.

Ah, I get it. So we all need to just sit at home and do nothing in our
spare time. I hate to break this to you, but humans are a natural part
of the environment. And, just like other animals do, we change the
landscape. Sorry if that irritates you. Elephants ruin the Africa
landscape causing issues for other species and plants. Do you agree with
their culling or not?

> I never said I don't like mountain bikers. I don't like mountain
> BIKING. DUH! You guys are amazingly dense.

I think you'll find that one without the other doesn't work.

> Provide some science, or shut up. Your biased observations are
> worthless.

Aside from making quotes that sound like something that a bad guy from a
science fiction movie would make, do you actually have some intelligent
points to make?

Simon

[No Name]

In article >,
says...

> Thanks for demonstrating just how STOOPID mountain bikers are. You of
> course know that I oppose paving.

Do I?

By your actions, I'd assume you were a shill for the Asphalt Pavers
Association, attempting to discredit all environmentalists as extremist
whack-jobs.

--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

[rick]

"Simon Wyndham" > wrote in message
snip...

do you actually have some intelligent
> points to make?

LOL Mikey and intelligence are not words I would use in the same
sentence.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:05:37 +0000, Simon Wyndham >
wrote:

>As others have said I shouldn't really waste my fingers typing. But
>trolls can be funny.
>
>> That doesn't follow. The horse's weight is distributed over a much
>> larger area, reducing the PRESSURE.
>
>Pressure is only a small part of it. You aren't including the dirt that
>gets kicked up, or the fact that all four hooves are not on the ground
>at the same time. You obviously haven't actually walked on a well used
>horse trail. At least not one that has been used in the wet and muddy
>season.
>
>> Bikers do the same thing. DUH!
>
>I don't. I don't see the point of doing the bike equivalent of driving a
>4x4 off road if you are afraid to get muddy and wet.
>
>> That only increases erosion.
>
>Ah, I get it. So we all need to just sit at home and do nothing in our
>spare time. I hate to break this to you, but humans are a natural part
>of the environment.

Not really. We are a species that is native to Africa, and everywhere
else is a newcomer (exotic species). You can't use an argument like
that to justify a destructive sport.

And, just like other animals do, we change the
>landscape. Sorry if that irritates you. Elephants ruin the Africa
>landscape causing issues for other species and plants. Do you agree with
>their culling or not?

No. That's the height of human arrogance. We don't know how to manage
nature.

>> I never said I don't like mountain bikers. I don't like mountain
>> BIKING. DUH! You guys are amazingly dense.
>
>I think you'll find that one without the other doesn't work.

Learn to tell the truth, for a change.

>> Provide some science, or shut up. Your biased observations are
>> worthless.
>
>Aside from making quotes that sound like something that a bad guy from a
>science fiction movie would make, do you actually have some intelligent
>points to make?

Provide some science, or shut up.

>Simon
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:39:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:

>
>"Simon Wyndham" > wrote in message
>snip...
>
> do you actually have some intelligent
>> points to make?
>
>LOL Mikey and intelligence are not words I would use in the same
>sentence.

You just did, 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

[Simon Wyndham]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> Provide some science, or shut up.

Off to the killfile we go Mike....bye-bye.

Simon

[Simon Wyndham]

Ooh, one more thing before you go Mike, what is your handicap at the
moment? The guys at the club said you were below par these days.

Simon

[rick]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:39:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Simon Wyndham" > wrote in message
>>snip...
>>
>> do you actually have some intelligent
>>> points to make?
>>
>>LOL Mikey and intelligence are not words I would use in the
>>same
>>sentence.
>
> You just did, hypocrite.
> ===
Thanks for proving my point, dolt. Nothing to say, just ignorant
babble....

PS Bob jumped to get away from you and your idiocy, fool....




> 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

[Insignificant Cockroach Turds]

....

[Insignificant Cockroach Turds]

....

[Insignificant Cockroach Turds]

....

[Insignificant Cockroach Turds]

....

[Insignificant Cockroach Turds]

....

[Insignificant Cockroach Turds]

....

[Insignificant Cockroach Turds]

....

[Insignificant Cockroach Turds]

....

[Chris[_2_]]

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in
news:HjeJh.1867$Bi2.1326@trnddc01:

>
> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:11:30 +0000, Simon Wyndham >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike, most of what you said in that FAQ is of course rubbish. However
>>>if you want to win people over to your way of thinking you won't
>>>achieve it by insulting other peoples hobbies. I could give you a
>>>diatribe on how walkers and horses erode pathways much more than
>>>bikes.
>>
>> A diatribe is irrelevant. Conveniently, you provide no examples of my
>> alleged "rubbish".
>>
>> Provide some science, as I do, or shut up. There is no science
>> showing that walkers cause more erosion than mountain bikers. I don't
>> think there's ANY reliable science on horses vs. mountain bikers. Put
>> up or shut up.
>>
>
> There are LOTS of examples of where hikers and horses do all of the
> erosion. Well, not ALL erosion, just trail erosion, which is the kind
> of erosion you are against.
>
> Trail erosion is problematic in every national forest and park,
> Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone to name a few, where bikes are
> not used. Since trail erosion is problematic for these areas, then
> they are examples of where hikers and horses do all of the erosion.
>
> Once again, logic and fact trumps your "science."
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hey Mike,
Where is your response to this ??

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Chris[_2_]]

Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:18:06 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:08:43 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a
>>>>>>chair of
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You
>>>>>>may have
>>>>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that
>>>>>>you have been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>>>> where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the
>>>>> liar. No surprize there!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>YOU updated the article on March 8, 2007, by your own admission.
>>>>This was 3
>>>>days ago. You have not been chair of anything having to do with the
>>>>SC for the past decade. Indeed, you are persona non grata at the SC
>>>>for as long as
>>>>I have been visiting ca.environment, which is about 7 years.
>>>
>>> And YOU are a bald-faced LIAR. You know NOTHING.
>>>
>>
>>I know that you have not been chair of any SC committee for the past
>>decade.
>
> No, you don't, liar, because it isn't true. You were discredited long
> ago, and have continued lying ever since.

Yeah and nanner nanner boo - boo on you


>
>>For you to continue to assert that you have been a chair of anything
>>for the past decade makes you the liar, my friend.
>>
>>PS
>>You also have not spent the "previous 8 years fighting auto dependence
>>and road construction."
>
> Yes, I did, previous to what I'm doing now (wildlife activism). Learn
> to read.
> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Shitbag Adulterer McCain]

Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action :: Unequivocal, Mike Vandeman,
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2007/03/27/coal_interests.html
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action

An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to
make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed
listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species.

"This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers
to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide
emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail.

To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of
Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider
whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the
bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

"This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and
power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell,
president of Clean Air Watch.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/27/endangered_species/?source=whitelist

Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act

Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the
"safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say
environmentalists.

March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to
fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out
in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed
changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail
the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to
enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it
dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or
mining.

"The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act," says Jan Hasselman, a Seattle attorney with
Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, who helped Salon interpret
the proposal. "This is a no-holds-barred end run around one of
America's most popular environmental protections. If these regulations
stand up, the act will no longer provide a safety net for animals and
plants on the brink of extinction."

In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to
extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the
public. All copies of the working document were given a number
corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to
that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional
director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for
comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the
concern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall,
director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this
stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation."

Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not
based on "defensible science," says a federal employee who asked to
remain anonymous. Yet "there is genuine fear of retaliation for
communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs."

Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's
accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under
wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public
about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he
adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review
process.

Administration critics characterize the secrecy as a way to maintain
spin control, says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for
Biological Diversity, a national environmental group. "This
administration will often release a 300-page-long document at a press
conference for a newspaper story that will go to press in two hours,
giving the media or public no opportunity to digest it and figure out
what's going on," Suckling says. "[Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne
will give a feel-good quote about how the new regulations are good for
the environment, and they can win the public relations war."

In some ways, the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act
should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its
fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species
endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a
lawsuit. That's fewer than in any other administration in history --
and far fewer than were listed during the administrations of Reagan
(253), Clinton (521) or Bush I (234). Furthermore, during this
administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been
directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would
result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to
a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and
botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, a nonprofit organization.

"We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to
rubber stamp everything," wrote a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist
as part of the survey. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and
this is the worst it has ever been."

The agency has long seen a need to improve the act, says Tollefson.
"This is a look at what's possible," he says. "Too much of our time as
an agency is spent responding to litigation rather than working on
recovering the species that are most in need. The current way the act
is run creates disincentives for people to get involved with
recovering species."

Kempthorne, boss of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been an
outspoken critic of the act. When he was a U.S. senator from Idaho in
the late 1990s, he championed legislation that would have allowed
government agencies to exempt their actions from Endangered Species
Act regulations, and would have required federal agents to conduct
cost-benefit analyses when considering whether to list a species as
endangered. (The legislation failed.) Last June, in his early days as
interior secretary, Kempthorne told reporters, "I really believe that
we can make improvements to the act itself."

Kempthorne is keeping good on his promise. The proposed draft is
littered with language lifted directly from both Kempthorne's 1998
legislation as well as from a contentious bill by former Rep. Richard
Pombo, R-Calif. (which was also shot down by Congress). It's "a wish
list of regulations that the administration and its industry allies
have been talking about for years," says Suckling.

Written in terse, dry legal language, the proposed draft doesn't make
for easy reading. However, the changes, often seemingly subtle,
generally serve to strip the Fish and Wildlife Service of the power to
do its stated job: to protect wildlife. Some verge on the biologically
ridiculous, say critics, while others are a clear concession to
industry and conservative Western governors who have long complained
that the act degrades the economies of their states by preventing
natural-resource extraction.

One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible
for endangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become
extinct in "the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe
that can stretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act
protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean
either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which
timeline). For certain species with long life spans, such as killer
whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't even one
generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they
would not make the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely
to die out in two decades.

"It makes absolutely no sense biologically," wrote Hasselman in an e-
mail. "One of the Act's weaknesses is that species aren't protected
until they're already in trouble and this proposal puts that flaw on
steroids."

Perhaps the most significant proposed change gives state governors the
opportunity and funding to take over virtually every aspect of the act
from the federal government. This includes not only the right to
create species-recovery plans and the power to veto the reintroduction
of endangered species within state boundaries, but even the authority
to determine what plants and animals get protection. For plants and
animals in Western states, that's bad news: State politicians
throughout the region howled in opposition to the reintroduction of
the Mexican gray wolf into Arizona and the Northern Rockies wolf into
Yellowstone National Park.

"If states are involved, the act would only get minimally enforced,"
says Bob Hallock, a recently retired 34-year veteran of the Fish and
Wildlife Service who, as an endangered species specialist, worked with
state agencies in Idaho, Washington and Montana. "States are, if
anything, closer to special economic interests. They're more
manipulated. The states have not demonstrated the will or interest in
upholding the act. It's why we created a federal law in the first
place."

Additional tweaks in the law would have a major impact. For instance,
the proposal would narrow the definition of a species' geographic
range from the landscape it inhabited historically to the land it
currently occupies. Since the main reason most plants and animals head
toward extinction is due to limited habitat, the change would strongly
hamper the government's ability to protect chunks of land and allow
for a healthy recovery in the wild.

The proposal would also allow both ongoing and planned projects by
such federal agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest
Service to go forward, even when scientific evidence indicates that
the projects may drive a species to extinction. Under the new
regulations, as long as the dam or logging isn't hastening the
previous rate of extinction, it's approved. "This makes recovery of
species impossible," says Suckling. (You can read the entire proposal,
a PDF file, here.)

Gutting the Endangered Species Act will only thicken the pall that has
hung over the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past six years,
Hallock says. "They [the Bush administration] don't want the
regulations to be effective. People in the agency are like a bunch of
whipped dogs," he says. "I think it's just unacceptable to go around
squashing other species; they're of incalculable benefit to us. The
optimism we had when this agency started has absolutely been dashed."


http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/bush-administration-rewrite-of-endangered-species-act-regulations-would-gut-protections.html
Bush Administration Rewrite of Endangered Species Act Regulations
Would Gut Protections

Hush-hush proposal "a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's
most popular laws"

Washington, DC -- A secret draft of regulations that fundamentally
rewrite the Endangered Species Act was leaked to two environmental
organizations, which provided them to the press last night An article
in Salon quotes Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman saying, "The
proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act."

The changes are fiercely technical and complicated, but make future
listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts to the detriment
of protected species, virtually hand over administration of the act to
hostile states, and severely restrict habitat protections.

Many of the changes -- lifted from unsuccessful legislative proposals
from then-Senator (now Interior Secretary) Dirk Kempthorne and the
recently defeated congressman Richard Pombo -- are reactions to
policies and practices established as a result of litigation filed by
environmental organizations including Earthjustice.

"After the failure of these legislative proposals in the last
Congress, the Bush administration has opted to gut the Endangered
Species Act through the only avenue left open: administrative
regulations," said Hasselman. "This end-run around the will of
Congress and the American people will not succeed."

A major change would make it more difficult for a species to gain
protection, by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in
which to consider whether a species is likely to become extinct.
Instead of looking far enough ahead to be able to reasonably determine
whether a species could be heading for extinction, the new regulations
would drastically shorten the timeframe to either 20 years or 10
generations at the agency's discretion. For species with long
generations like killer whales and grizzly bears, this truncated view
of the future isn't nearly enough time to accurately predict whether
they are at-risk now.

"These draft regulations represent a total rejection of the values
held by the vast majority Americans: that we have a responsibility to
protect imperiled species and the special places they call home," said
Kate Freund, Legislative Associate at Earthjustice.

According to several sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service
quoted by Salon, hostility to the law within the agency has never been
so intense. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is
the worst it has ever been," one unnamed source is quoted as saying.

In addition, the proposal would allow projects by the Forest Service
and other agencies to proceed even if scientific evidence suggests
that the projects might drive species to extinction so long as the
rate of decline doesn't accelerate owing to the project.

The Bush administration's antipathy to the law is shown by the numbers
of species it has protected, in each case as the result of litigation
-- 57. By comparison, 253 species were listed during the Reagan
administration, 521 under Clinton, and 234 under Bush I.

The administration reportedly had expected to reveal the new
regulations in a few weeks. The draft regulations must be published in
the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final,
which is likely to be at least a year off.

Contact:

Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Apr 2007 18:02:50 GMT, Chris > wrote:

>"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in
>news:HjeJh.1867$Bi2.1326@trnddc01:
>
>>
>> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:11:30 +0000, Simon Wyndham >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mike, most of what you said in that FAQ is of course rubbish. However
>>>>if you want to win people over to your way of thinking you won't
>>>>achieve it by insulting other peoples hobbies. I could give you a
>>>>diatribe on how walkers and horses erode pathways much more than
>>>>bikes.
>>>
>>> A diatribe is irrelevant. Conveniently, you provide no examples of my
>>> alleged "rubbish".
>>>
>>> Provide some science, as I do, or shut up. There is no science
>>> showing that walkers cause more erosion than mountain bikers. I don't
>>> think there's ANY reliable science on horses vs. mountain bikers. Put
>>> up or shut up.
>>>
>>
>> There are LOTS of examples of where hikers and horses do all of the
>> erosion. Well, not ALL erosion, just trail erosion, which is the kind
>> of erosion you are against.
>>
>> Trail erosion is problematic in every national forest and park,
>> Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone to name a few, where bikes are
>> not used. Since trail erosion is problematic for these areas, then
>> they are examples of where hikers and horses do all of the erosion.
>>
>> Once again, logic and fact trumps your "science."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Hey Mike,
> Where is your response to this ??

What's there to respond to? Hiker-caused erosion is much less sthan
mountain biker-caused erosion, and is totally unrelated.
===
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

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Apr 2007 18:04:41 GMT, Chris > wrote:

>Mike Vandeman > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:18:06 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:08:43 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>>>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> Updated March 8, 2007
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Frequently asked by whom?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are a lying sack of **** Michael. You purport to have been a
>>>>>>>chair of
>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>SC committee for the past decade, and this is a flat out lie. You
>>>>>>>may have
>>>>>>>been a chair at some point in the past decade, but stating that
>>>>>>>you have been FOR the past decade demands an ongoing chairmanship.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the time I wrote that, I had been the chair for a decade. So
>>>>>> where's the lie? Missing in action, as usual. That makes YOU the
>>>>>> liar. No surprize there!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>YOU updated the article on March 8, 2007, by your own admission.
>>>>>This was 3
>>>>>days ago. You have not been chair of anything having to do with the
>>>>>SC for the past decade. Indeed, you are persona non grata at the SC
>>>>>for as long as
>>>>>I have been visiting ca.environment, which is about 7 years.
>>>>
>>>> And YOU are a bald-faced LIAR. You know NOTHING.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I know that you have not been chair of any SC committee for the past
>>>decade.
>>
>> No, you don't, liar, because it isn't true. You were discredited long
>> ago, and have continued lying ever since.
>
>Yeah and nanner nanner boo - boo on you

Stop trying to raise the level of discourse.

>>
>>>For you to continue to assert that you have been a chair of anything
>>>for the past decade makes you the liar, my friend.
>>>
>>>PS
>>>You also have not spent the "previous 8 years fighting auto dependence
>>>and road construction."
>>
>> Yes, I did, previous to what I'm doing now (wildlife activism). Learn
>> to read.
>> ===
>> 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

[Crooked Corporations, Political Crooks]

Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action :: Unequivocal, Mike Vandeman,
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2007/03/27/coal_interests.html
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action

An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to
make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed
listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species.

"This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers
to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide
emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail.

To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of
Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider
whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the
bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

"This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and
power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell,
president of Clean Air Watch.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/27/endangered_species/?source=whitelist

Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act

Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the
"safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say
environmentalists.

March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to
fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out
in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed
changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail
the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to
enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it
dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or
mining.

"The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act," says Jan Hasselman, a Seattle attorney with
Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, who helped Salon interpret
the proposal. "This is a no-holds-barred end run around one of
America's most popular environmental protections. If these regulations
stand up, the act will no longer provide a safety net for animals and
plants on the brink of extinction."

In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to
extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the
public. All copies of the working document were given a number
corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to
that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional
director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for
comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the
concern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall,
director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this
stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation."

Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not
based on "defensible science," says a federal employee who asked to
remain anonymous. Yet "there is genuine fear of retaliation for
communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs."

Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's
accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under
wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public
about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he
adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review
process.

Administration critics characterize the secrecy as a way to maintain
spin control, says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for
Biological Diversity, a national environmental group. "This
administration will often release a 300-page-long document at a press
conference for a newspaper story that will go to press in two hours,
giving the media or public no opportunity to digest it and figure out
what's going on," Suckling says. "[Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne
will give a feel-good quote about how the new regulations are good for
the environment, and they can win the public relations war."

In some ways, the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act
should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its
fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species
endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a
lawsuit. That's fewer than in any other administration in history --
and far fewer than were listed during the administrations of Reagan
(253), Clinton (521) or Bush I (234). Furthermore, during this
administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been
directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would
result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to
a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and
botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, a nonprofit organization.

"We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to
rubber stamp everything," wrote a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist
as part of the survey. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and
this is the worst it has ever been."

The agency has long seen a need to improve the act, says Tollefson.
"This is a look at what's possible," he says. "Too much of our time as
an agency is spent responding to litigation rather than working on
recovering the species that are most in need. The current way the act
is run creates disincentives for people to get involved with
recovering species."

Kempthorne, boss of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been an
outspoken critic of the act. When he was a U.S. senator from Idaho in
the late 1990s, he championed legislation that would have allowed
government agencies to exempt their actions from Endangered Species
Act regulations, and would have required federal agents to conduct
cost-benefit analyses when considering whether to list a species as
endangered. (The legislation failed.) Last June, in his early days as
interior secretary, Kempthorne told reporters, "I really believe that
we can make improvements to the act itself."

Kempthorne is keeping good on his promise. The proposed draft is
littered with language lifted directly from both Kempthorne's 1998
legislation as well as from a contentious bill by former Rep. Richard
Pombo, R-Calif. (which was also shot down by Congress). It's "a wish
list of regulations that the administration and its industry allies
have been talking about for years," says Suckling.

Written in terse, dry legal language, the proposed draft doesn't make
for easy reading. However, the changes, often seemingly subtle,
generally serve to strip the Fish and Wildlife Service of the power to
do its stated job: to protect wildlife. Some verge on the biologically
ridiculous, say critics, while others are a clear concession to
industry and conservative Western governors who have long complained
that the act degrades the economies of their states by preventing
natural-resource extraction.

One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible
for endangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become
extinct in "the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe
that can stretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act
protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean
either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which
timeline). For certain species with long life spans, such as killer
whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't even one
generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they
would not make the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely
to die out in two decades.

"It makes absolutely no sense biologically," wrote Hasselman in an e-
mail. "One of the Act's weaknesses is that species aren't protected
until they're already in trouble and this proposal puts that flaw on
steroids."

Perhaps the most significant proposed change gives state governors the
opportunity and funding to take over virtually every aspect of the act
from the federal government. This includes not only the right to
create species-recovery plans and the power to veto the reintroduction
of endangered species within state boundaries, but even the authority
to determine what plants and animals get protection. For plants and
animals in Western states, that's bad news: State politicians
throughout the region howled in opposition to the reintroduction of
the Mexican gray wolf into Arizona and the Northern Rockies wolf into
Yellowstone National Park.

"If states are involved, the act would only get minimally enforced,"
says Bob Hallock, a recently retired 34-year veteran of the Fish and
Wildlife Service who, as an endangered species specialist, worked with
state agencies in Idaho, Washington and Montana. "States are, if
anything, closer to special economic interests. They're more
manipulated. The states have not demonstrated the will or interest in
upholding the act. It's why we created a federal law in the first
place."

Additional tweaks in the law would have a major impact. For instance,
the proposal would narrow the definition of a species' geographic
range from the landscape it inhabited historically to the land it
currently occupies. Since the main reason most plants and animals head
toward extinction is due to limited habitat, the change would strongly
hamper the government's ability to protect chunks of land and allow
for a healthy recovery in the wild.

The proposal would also allow both ongoing and planned projects by
such federal agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest
Service to go forward, even when scientific evidence indicates that
the projects may drive a species to extinction. Under the new
regulations, as long as the dam or logging isn't hastening the
previous rate of extinction, it's approved. "This makes recovery of
species impossible," says Suckling. (You can read the entire proposal,
a PDF file, here.)

Gutting the Endangered Species Act will only thicken the pall that has
hung over the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past six years,
Hallock says. "They [the Bush administration] don't want the
regulations to be effective. People in the agency are like a bunch of
whipped dogs," he says. "I think it's just unacceptable to go around
squashing other species; they're of incalculable benefit to us. The
optimism we had when this agency started has absolutely been dashed."


http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/bush-administration-rewrite-of-endangered-species-act-regulations-would-gut-protections.html
Bush Administration Rewrite of Endangered Species Act Regulations
Would Gut Protections

Hush-hush proposal "a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's
most popular laws"

Washington, DC -- A secret draft of regulations that fundamentally
rewrite the Endangered Species Act was leaked to two environmental
organizations, which provided them to the press last night An article
in Salon quotes Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman saying, "The
proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act."

The changes are fiercely technical and complicated, but make future
listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts to the detriment
of protected species, virtually hand over administration of the act to
hostile states, and severely restrict habitat protections.

Many of the changes -- lifted from unsuccessful legislative proposals
from then-Senator (now Interior Secretary) Dirk Kempthorne and the
recently defeated congressman Richard Pombo -- are reactions to
policies and practices established as a result of litigation filed by
environmental organizations including Earthjustice.

"After the failure of these legislative proposals in the last
Congress, the Bush administration has opted to gut the Endangered
Species Act through the only avenue left open: administrative
regulations," said Hasselman. "This end-run around the will of
Congress and the American people will not succeed."

A major change would make it more difficult for a species to gain
protection, by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in
which to consider whether a species is likely to become extinct.
Instead of looking far enough ahead to be able to reasonably determine
whether a species could be heading for extinction, the new regulations
would drastically shorten the timeframe to either 20 years or 10
generations at the agency's discretion. For species with long
generations like killer whales and grizzly bears, this truncated view
of the future isn't nearly enough time to accurately predict whether
they are at-risk now.

"These draft regulations represent a total rejection of the values
held by the vast majority Americans: that we have a responsibility to
protect imperiled species and the special places they call home," said
Kate Freund, Legislative Associate at Earthjustice.

According to several sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service
quoted by Salon, hostility to the law within the agency has never been
so intense. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is
the worst it has ever been," one unnamed source is quoted as saying.

In addition, the proposal would allow projects by the Forest Service
and other agencies to proceed even if scientific evidence suggests
that the projects might drive species to extinction so long as the
rate of decline doesn't accelerate owing to the project.

The Bush administration's antipathy to the law is shown by the numbers
of species it has protected, in each case as the result of litigation
-- 57. By comparison, 253 species were listed during the Reagan
administration, 521 under Clinton, and 234 under Bush I.

The administration reportedly had expected to reveal the new
regulations in a few weeks. The draft regulations must be published in
the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final,
which is likely to be at least a year off.

Contact:

Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25