Re: The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- WhyOff-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited

[Pablo Ricardo]

On 7/13/2003 6:18 PM, jazu wrote:

> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
>> Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited
>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> May 31, 1997
>>
>
> Best solution for all of these kind of problems.
> Let's go back to the caves.
>
>

Do you really believe that a Ph.D would end all his rebuttals with "DUH!" ?

Nope, me either. An 8-year-old troll, perhaps...

Let's just put this self-righteous asshole in our killfiles and move on
to bigger and better things -- time to get the signal-to-noise ratio in
this noisegroup back up to decent levels.

Pablo

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:31:50 -0800, Pablo Ricardo >
wrote:

..
..
..On 7/13/2003 6:18 PM, jazu wrote:
..
..> "Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
..> ...
..>
..>> The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
..>> Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited
..>> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
..>> May 31, 1997
..>>
..>
..> Best solution for all of these kind of problems.
..> Let's go back to the caves.
..>
..>
..
..Do you really believe that a Ph.D would end all his rebuttals with "DUH!" ?
..
..Nope, me either. An 8-year-old troll, perhaps...
..
..Let's just put this self-righteous asshole in our killfiles and move on
..to bigger and better things -- time to get the signal-to-noise ratio in
..this noisegroup back up to decent levels.

Impossible, since you are starting below zero. Mountain bikers are afraid to
tell the truth, because then their peers will gang-bang them.

..Pablo

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Stephen Baker]

Doug Haxton says:

>By the way...every time you say "Duh", it makes you look even more
>moronic.
>

And every time somoeone replies to that, it makes him feel even more
intelligent and effective.

Just a helpful hint.......

[Mike Vandeman]

On 10 Aug 2003 12:24:05 GMT, (Stephen Baker) wrote:

..Doug Haxton says:
..
..>By the way...every time you say "Duh", it makes you look even more
..>moronic.
..>
..
..And every time somoeone replies to that, it makes him feel even more
..intelligent and effective.
..
..Just a helpful hint.......

So why aren't you able to follow your own advice, 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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[DaveWV]

Jim Roberts wrote:
> Oh we are back to Tanks in the Backcountry.
> jimbat
> Doug Haxton wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 04:52:43 GMT, Mike Vandeman
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >.1) If the quote accurate ("They aren't human, so they don't have
> > >.rights. QED") then you're contradicting yourself. Is it accurate?
> > >
> > >Yes. I was talking about BICYCLES. Can't you think at all?????
> >
> > I was simply asking a polite question. Can't you respond in kind at
> > all?????
> > >
> > >.2) Why does wildlife have a "right" to kill each other? What's the
> > >.enforcement mechanism for this right?
> > >
> > >They are able to do it. DUH!
> >
> > Humans are able to kill wild animals as well. By your own logic we
> > have therefore have the right to kill them.
> >
> > By the way...every time you say "Duh", it makes you look even more
> > moronic.
> >
> > Just a helpful hint.
> >
> > Doug

Let's say all of the land presently used for outdoor recreation is
closed to all use. What will happen to that land? Well, if no one can
use it and enjoy the "natural" place that it is, people will forget why
we need to save these areas and end up not caring about saving other
wild places.

I believe outdoor recreation is a mojor contributor to the saving of
many areas from development. Hunters, hikers, mountain bikers, climbers,
rafters, on and on. Ducks Unlimited has saved more acres than any so
called environmental group ever has. Why, because they use and enjoy the
land. ( from "Comming out of the Woods" by Wallace Kaufman)

I'll admit I didn't read all of this guy's long winded posts but of the
ones I did read I didn't see any mention of where he got his
"scientific" evidence from.

Just my $.02 worth.----------Dave





--
Come ride in West Virginia!

>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[ireman_1]

Wow. I wish I could be some hypocritical environazi. Makes sense that we
have vast tracts of land no one is allowed to use. You, by the way,
wouldn't be interested in growing "hemp" now would you guys? I hear
there's plenty of nasty gases in the smoke you puff out regularly, or is
that a lie? Go set another forest service building on fire, avoid
another shower, get some more federal money for your foodstamps, move
(back) in with your parents and get offended when someone doesn't
appreciate your intolerance and then cry fowl yourself. How do the
emperor's new clothes look to you? Don't bother trying to impress us by
saying you have advanced degrees in blah, blah, blah. A lot of us went
to grad school and understand where you are really coming from. See you
on the trail. Oh yeah, get a tune up on your Volvo wagon, it seems to be
smoking more than it was designed to.

K.



--
Don't give up, don't ever give up.

>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Johnsben01]

To Mike Vandeman,

I don't claim to be the smartest guy around. Nor do I claim to have
all the answers. However, what I do know is that every person has an
opinion. Some people are very open about their opinions and some are
not. I have enjoyed mountain biking; since I was knee high to a
grasshopper. There is nothing you can ever say or do that will keep me
from mountain biking. Like many Americans, I enjoy the freedoms that
our men and women have died for. You sir, have a freedom and a right
to voice your opinion. And I, a freedom and a right to mountain bike.
"...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...", isn't that true?
What is upsetting to me is that you find your happiness in trying to
prevent people from pursueing that which makes them happy and that you
are concsious of that fact. You're lack of logic in your explanations
and opinions shows your foolishness. It is better to remain silent,
and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
You sir have removed all doubt.

-Benji Johnson



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Sorni]

"Johnsben01" > wrote in message
...
> To Mike Vandeman,
>
> prevent people from pursueing that which
> -- ^^^^^^^^^
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com
> http://www.cyclingforums.com

Now there's a shock.

Bill "yet to see a coherent thought expressed via that entity" S.

[Nick D.]

"Johnsben01" > wrote in message
...
> To Mike Vandeman,
>
> I don't claim to be the smartest guy around. Nor do I claim to have
> all the answers. However, what I do know is that every person has an
> opinion. Some people are very open about their opinions and some are
> not. I have enjoyed mountain biking; since I was knee high to a
> grasshopper. There is nothing you can ever say or do that will keep me
> from mountain biking. Like many Americans, I enjoy the freedoms that
> our men and women have died for. You sir, have a freedom and a right
> to voice your opinion. And I, a freedom and a right to mountain bike.
> "...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...", isn't that true?

> What is upsetting to me is that you find your happiness in trying to
> prevent people from pursueing that which makes them happy and that you
> are concsious of that fact.

First, let me state that I am an avid mountain biker and in no way condone
Mikey's views or actions...But, are you sure you're only upset about him
"trying to prevent people from pursueing that which makes them happy"? I
have a feeling you're really upset about him picking on mountain biking.
After all, if murdering little kids made some people happy, and he was
trying to prevent them from pursueing that, would you be upset?



>You're lack of logic in your explanations
> and opinions shows your foolishness. It is better to remain silent,
> and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
> You sir have removed all doubt.
>
> -Benji Johnson

[Mike Vandeman]

On 3 Nov 2003 10:06:38 +1050, Johnsben01 > wrote:

..To Mike Vandeman,
..
.. I don't claim to be the smartest guy around. Nor do I claim to have
.. all the answers. However, what I do know is that every person has an
.. opinion. Some people are very open about their opinions and some are
.. not. I have enjoyed mountain biking; since I was knee high to a
.. grasshopper. There is nothing you can ever say or do that will keep me
.. from mountain biking. Like many Americans, I enjoy the freedoms that
.. our men and women have died for. You sir, have a freedom and a right
.. to voice your opinion. And I, a freedom and a right to mountain bike.

BS. That was settled in federal court: there IS no right to mountain bike:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm

.. "...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...", isn't that true?
.. What is upsetting to me is that you find your happiness in trying to
.. prevent people from pursueing that which makes them happy

You get your thrills at the expense of wildlife and other people, which is a
crime.

and that you
.. are concsious of that fact. You're lack of logic in your explanations
.. and opinions shows your foolishness. It is better to remain silent,
.. and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
.. You sir have removed all doubt.
..
.. -Benji Johnson

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Bob]

"sittingduck" > wrote in message
9.130...
> Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
> I'm guessing you spent the previous 8 years in the fecking LOONY bin.

Yah, but did you notice that his most recent letter, as per his own postings
here on 3/22/04, was written over 4 years ago. Not much point in this, now
is there :-)

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:12:29 GMT, "Bob" > wrote:

..
.."sittingduck" > wrote in message
.99.130...
..> Mike Vandeman > wrote:
..>
..> > 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.)
..>
..> I'm guessing you spent the previous 8 years in the fecking LOONY bin.
..
..Yah, but did you notice that his most recent letter, as per his own postings
..here on 3/22/04, was written over 4 years ago. Not much point in this, now
..is there :-)

Yes. It's still true.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Michael Paul]

true or not is a matter of your altered perspective.

but by posting these things you still continue to prove that even with your
high and mighty Ph.D., you don't get it. posting something that is more
than a few years old means that the research used to justify the findings
are outdated and can no longer be trusted. Come on now Mikey, you should
know this. I can go back and find a lot of references touting the benefits
of silicone breast implants, asbestos, smoking, and even lead paint and all
of those references will claim how safe these products are. But of course
new research (something you do so very little) has been discovered to
disprove those earlier studies.

Sheesh. How did you ever defend your dissertation with such poor research
and logic skills? It's just a testament that anybody can get an advanced
degree regardless of wheter you actually are smart and/or knowldegable about
the subject

thanks for continuing to prove how wrong you really are

Michael

[Loomer]

"Michael Paul" > wrote in message
...
> true or not is a matter of your altered perspective.
> Sheesh. How did you ever defend your dissertation with such poor research
> and logic skills?

This is because he is a liar. He doesn't have an education. For god's sake
read his ramblings. I love to because he is really funny. In a Les Nesman
kind of "funny".

Bwaahahahahahahahahahaha

[scottiebaird]

I feel sorry for you that no-one has replied. Interesting point of vie
in a Mtbiking forum that Mtbkining is bad. Seems you should be lobbyin
for government backing rather than writing on a mtbiking forum trying t
convert us. Possibly the situation where you live is worse than it i
here in Australia. Granted you have damage caused by all trail users
walkers that pick rare flowers, drop cigarette butts, leave the trail a
they are more mobile than a bike is...we could go on all day. your view
are scientifically backed, well done. But they fail to provide a
objective, managed solution, that would more likley have gained ou
support than the extremist views you have expressed. There are lesson
we all should take from your post. especially an environmenta
consciousness of what impace we are having and the damage we can do t
sensitive trails. Stay on the trail, don't intentionally scare animals
yield to all other trail users. get out on a trail maintenance day etc
etc. The majority of us have a conscience and take care to say hi t
walkers and stay on the trails. Interested to hear what others have t
say, especially non mtbikers

all the best with your cause to ban offroad cycling and get us all bac
on the road, "where we belong"


-

[BB]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:15:25 GMT, scottiebaird wrote:
> I feel sorry for you that no-one has replied. Interesting point of view
> in a Mtbiking forum that Mtbkining is bad.

Check groups.google.com, and figure out what a troll is. Then you might
be able to stop sounding like such a clueless newbie, and begin to
understand why he would still be posting this ancient nonsense.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

[Mike Vandeman]

On 31 May 2004 01:04:36 GMT, BB > wrote:

..On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:15:25 GMT, scottiebaird wrote:
..> I feel sorry for you that no-one has replied. Interesting point of view
..> in a Mtbiking forum that Mtbkining is bad.
..
..Check groups.google.com, and figure out what a troll is. Then you might
..be able to stop sounding like such a clueless newbie, and begin to
..understand why he would still be posting this ancient nonsense.

Why? You STILL haven't figured it out, because you are unfamiliar with people
who tell the truth.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Slacker]

BB wrote:

> On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:15:25 GMT, scottiebaird wrote:
>
>>I feel sorry for you that no-one has replied. Interesting point of view
>>in a Mtbiking forum that Mtbkining is bad.
>
>
> Check groups.google.com, and figure out what a troll is. Then you might
> be able to stop sounding like such a clueless newbie, and begin to
> understand why he would still be posting this ancient nonsense.
>
>
Dang two plonkers in one day; this is unprecedented.

--
Slacker - on a plonkathon

[Joz]

Mr. Vandeman,

Being an educated person I presume that you are fluent in the ways
of forum etiquette and as such know that spamming is poor form on
any forum.

Based on your persistence it regurgitating the same information here
every few days one would be inclined to believe that you are just
trolling and truly have little interest in advocating the position you
allege to preach.



--

[Stephen Baker]

Joz says:

>Being an educated person I presume that you are fluent in the ways
>of forum etiquette and as such know that spamming is poor form on
>any forum.
>

Being an educated person, you should know that this is not a "forum", it's a
"newsgroup". Further, he is not spamming (has nothing to sell), he is just
being a PITA.

Steve "Netiquette is where it's at..."

[cc]

>
> >Being an educated person I presume that you are fluent in the ways
> >of forum etiquette and as such know that spamming is poor form on
> >any forum.
> >
>
> Being an educated person, you should know that this is not a "forum", it's
a
> "newsgroup". Further, he is not spamming (has nothing to sell), he is
just
> being a PITA.
>

It's just ****ing rude. This is not a newsgroup to discuss whether or not
mountain biking is detrimental to the environment. This is where people who
have made the decision to mountain bike come to talk about the sport they
love. I don't plan on walking into Mike Vandeman's living room, where he may
be talking with his friends (?!) about <insert Vandeman hobby here> and
telling him that he's ****ed up for doing it. It just wouldn't be my place.

Regardless, as someone else mentioned, I think it obvious that a dialogue
would be infinitely more constructive.

[Stephen Baker]

cc says:

>It's just ****ing rude.

And this is an "alt" group. Live with it.

>This is where people who
>have made the decision to mountain bike come to talk about the sport they
>love.

Which makes it a natural place for the anit-MTB twit to post. Thaink about
it....

>dialogue

BWAHAHAHAHA - go for it, but don't hold your breath..

Steve

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:50:19 -0700, "cc" > wrote:

..>
..> >Being an educated person I presume that you are fluent in the ways
..> >of forum etiquette and as such know that spamming is poor form on
..> >any forum.
..> >
..>
..> Being an educated person, you should know that this is not a "forum", it's
..a
..> "newsgroup". Further, he is not spamming (has nothing to sell), he is
..just
..> being a PITA.
..>
..
..It's just ****ing rude. This is not a newsgroup to discuss whether or not
..mountain biking is detrimental to the environment.

alt.mountain-bike: there's no indication of that, nor is there a FAQ dictating
that. You are LYING, as usual. This newsgroup is for discussing mountain biking.
Period. You are all wet.

This is where people who
..have made the decision to mountain bike come to talk about the sport they
..love. I don't plan on walking into Mike Vandeman's living room, where he may
..be talking with his friends (?!) about <insert Vandeman hobby here> and
..telling him that he's ****ed up for doing it. It just wouldn't be my place.
..
..Regardless, as someone else mentioned, I think it obvious that a dialogue
..would be infinitely more constructive.
..

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On 23 Jun 2004 18:06:16 GMT, (Stephen Baker) wrote:

..cc says:
..
..>It's just ****ing rude.
..
..And this is an "alt" group. Live with it.
..
..>This is where people who
..>have made the decision to mountain bike come to talk about the sport they
..>love.
..
..Which makes it a natural place for the anit-MTB twit to post. Thaink about
..it....

God, you guys are SLOW!

..>dialogue
..
..BWAHAHAHAHA - go for it, but don't hold your breath..
..
..Steve

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[bomba]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> God, you guys are SLOW!

We're not slow. We like to travel as fast as possible - it stops us from
taking in the countryside properly and means we don't have to react to
flora and fauna that get in our way.

[Alpha Male]

Mike.

It's rather disappointing the someone with a PhD would have nothing better
to do than stir up trouble in the alt.mountain-bike newsgroup. Considering
you are university educated, you would think that you would understand the
consept of tact. Instead of simply throwing a clump of mud in everyone face
and seeing what they do about it, why didn't you try to stimulate some
dialog on this issue? Instead you simply attack everyone with one broad
sweep. You undermined your own credibility.

Likely everyone will retaliate with defensive attacks and nothing will be
accomplished. Obviously, you are more interested in our reaction than the
actual topic you (apparently) are presenting.

None the less, this is my viewpoint on the matter. Mountain bikers are
law-abiding, mostly conscious people. For myself, at least, I bike only in
areas where mountain biking is clearly allowed. I have never once gone "Off
Roading" in National/Provincial (State) parks. I try to stay on the trail
the best I can, and am always concious of pedestrians on the trail. Anyone
that steps beyond these bounds probably doesn't represent the majority of
mountain bikers.

That being said, you should be approaching the people who regulate access to
natural places, not the people who use these natural areas. What you appear
to be doing is trying to get people to self-monitor their actions, which
they are not equipped to do. I am a mountain biker who enjoys nature, I am
not education in nature presevation and/or conservation. I depend on the
designate authorities to tell me where I should and should not mountain
bike. Since I don't study soil erosion, animal habitats, or plant foliage,
I cannot tell if I am having an overly harmful effect on nature. I do not
understand the total implication of my actions, hence I depend on those
empowered to do so.

If you feel that there are too many people in too many natural places, I
suggest you approach the parks service, or whoever is in a position of
authority, and have them restrict access to natural places. Don't go and
flame the people using those natural places.

Note: If you wanted to prevent accidents on the highway because you felt
that the posted speed limits were too high, you wouldn't go an attack the
people who were driving within those speed limits. No, you would approach
the DOT and ask them to reconsider the legal posted limits, and possibly
lowering that limit.

Throwing mud in here will get you nowhere, and as I stated before, it'll
only make you look bad.

Alpha Male



"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:50:19 -0700, "cc" > wrote:
>
> .>
> .> >Being an educated person I presume that you are fluent in the ways
> .> >of forum etiquette and as such know that spamming is poor form on
> .> >any forum.
> .> >
> .>
> .> Being an educated person, you should know that this is not a "forum",
it's
> .a
> .> "newsgroup". Further, he is not spamming (has nothing to sell), he is
> .just
> .> being a PITA.
> .>
> .
> .It's just ****ing rude. This is not a newsgroup to discuss whether or not
> .mountain biking is detrimental to the environment.
>
> alt.mountain-bike: there's no indication of that, nor is there a FAQ
dictating
> that. You are LYING, as usual. This newsgroup is for discussing mountain
biking.
> Period. You are all wet.
>
> This is where people who
> .have made the decision to mountain bike come to talk about the sport they
> .love. I don't plan on walking into Mike Vandeman's living room, where he
may
> .be talking with his friends (?!) about <insert Vandeman hobby here> and
> .telling him that he's ****ed up for doing it. It just wouldn't be my
place.
> .
> .Regardless, as someone else mentioned, I think it obvious that a dialogue
> .would be infinitely more constructive.
> .
>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Joz]

Stephen Baker wrote:
> Joz says:
> >Being an educated person I presume that you are fluent in the ways
> >of forum etiquette and as such know that spamming is poor form on
> >any forum.
> >
> Being an educated person, you should know that this is not a "forum",
> it's a "newsgroup". Further, he is not spamming (has nothing to sell),
> he is just being a PITA.
> Steve "Netiquette is where it's at..."



Steve, spamming is not limited to commerce. Mr. Vandeman relentlessly
posts and reposts a template form that he has created. It's on this
newsgroup in dozens of places. That is spamming.

Call it a forum or newsgroup, it doesn't matter as it pertains to spam.



--

[bomba]

Joz wrote:

> Steve, spamming is not limited to commerce.

Although there's no official definition of spam, the generally held
conception is that it is unsolicited posts / mails offering products or
services.

> Mr. Vandeman relentlessly posts and reposts a template form that he has
> created. It's on this newsgroup in dozens of places. That is spamming.

No it's not.

Although I don't agree with Mike's style or many of his opinions, I still
believe he has every right to post here.

[Joz]

Bomba wrote:
> Although I don't agree with Mike's style or many of his opinions, I
> still believe he has every right to post here.



Ettiquette and 'Rights' are not synonyms.

Assuming this is not a privately owned newsgroup then he certainly has
the right to post here, but that doesn't mean he isn't showing poor form
by spamming the same mantra over and over again every day.



--

[S o r n i]

Alpha Male wrote (top-posted, of course):

> Mike. {good place for a huge snip if ever there was one}

> None the less, this is my viewpoint on the matter. Mountain bikers
> are law-abiding, mostly conscious people.

Well sure, maybe at the START of the ride.

Bill "have known a few..." S.

[S o r n i]

Joz wrote:
>
> Steve, spamming is not limited to commerce. Mr. Vandeman relentlessly
> posts and reposts a template form that he has created. It's on this
> newsgroup in dozens of places. That is spamming.

No, it's TROLLING.

Bill "not that there's anything /right/ with that" S.

[Joz]

S O R N I wrote:
> No, it's TROLLING.
> Bill "not that there's anything /right/ with that" S.



If his only interest is to incite the riding community (which is very
well may be), then yes it is also trolling, but this is digressing into
a debate on semantics.

I think that no matter how broad or narrow a definition you apply to
'spamming' or 'trolling' we can agree that it is poor form.



--

[davidmc]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- Why Off-Road
> Bicycling Should be Prohibited Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. May 31, 1997
> Mountain biking is a relatively new sport. According to a mountain
> biking (MTB) web page (http://www.mtb-/http://www.mtb- bike.com),
> "The commercial Mountain Bike evolution didn't start until 1974 and
> its first production bikes didn't appear in stores until about 10
> years later". (Lower gearing, fat, knobby tires, sturdier
> construction, but particularly the sealed bearing -- which could be
> ridden in dirt without getting destroyed -- are what made
> "mountain" (off- road) bicycling possible.) Partly for this reason,
> and partly because the MTB is, from one point of view, just a
> special case of an ORV (off-road vehicle), environmentalists and
> scientists have been slow to study and recognize the special threat
> that the mountain bike represents to wildlife. Although there are
> many studies of ORVs, I am not aware of any solid scientific
> studies specifically on MTBs and their effects on wildlife.
> To most environmentalists, bicycles have always been the epitome
> of good. We are so used to comparing bikes to cars, that it
> never occurred to us that the bicycle would be ever used for
> anything bad. Indeed, replacing motor vehicles with bicycles
> deserves our adoration. But anything can be used for good or
> evil, and using bikes to expand human domination of wildlife
> habitat is clearly harmful.
> Human beings think they own every square inch of the Earth, and
> that they therefore have the right to do what they want with
> it. This is, of course, absurd. It is also the reason that we are losing
> species at an unforgivable rate: we have crowded wildlife out of its
> habitat. Even in our parks, where we have vowed to protect wildlife,
> it is not protected from hikers, equestrians, park "managers",
> firefighters, mountain bikers, airplanes, helicopters, cars, roads,
> concessionaires, or biologists. Thus, the primary reason that
> mountain bikes are harmful to wildlife is that they, like other
> technological aids (cars, skis, rafts, rock- climbing equipment,
> etc.), make it much easier for people to get into wildlife habitat.
> (Sadly, most people have forgotten that the only thing
> that
> makes parks worth visiting is the wildlife that live
> there: it is
> _____
> precisely the wildlife (and paucity of humans) that make a park a
> __________________________________________________ _____-
> __________
> park. Without wildlife (i.e., all nonhuman, nondomesticated species
> ____
> -- plants as well as animals), the parks would be boring piles of
> bare rock.)
> Biology
> _______
> First and most obvious, mountain bikes kill organisms that live on
> and under the soil: "When it comes to pure recreational
> destructiveness, ... off-road vehicles (ORVs) far surpass
> powerboats. ... It is a rare environment indeed where a vehicle can
> be taken off- road without damage. ... Standard ORVs with their
> knobby tires are almost ideal devices for smashing plant life and
> destroying soil. Even driven with extreme care, a dirt bike will
> degrade about an acre of land in a twenty-mile drive. ... Not only
> do the ORVs exterminate animals by exterminating plants, they
> attack them directly as well. Individual animals on the surface and
> in shallow burrows ... are crushed. ... One great problem with ORVs
> _________________-
> __________
> is that they supply easy access to wilderness areas for
> __________________________________________________ _____
> unsupervised people who have ... no conception of the damage they
> __________________________________________________ _____-
> __________
> are doing" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, pp.169-171; emphasis added).
> _________
> (Although mountain bikes were hardly known when this was written, it is
> obvious that the same applies to them.)
> Recently, one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (a California
> threatened species) ever found was killed by a mountain biker in
> Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve near here. Others have been
> killed on other East Bay regional parks. Kathryn Phillips in
> Tracking the Vanishing Frogs described how ORVs crossing creeks
> ____________________________
> crush toads and their eggs (both buried in the sand). Bikes are
> generally ridden too fast to avoid killing small animals. Obviously, the
> animals didn't evolve in the presence of mountain bikes, and can't be
> expected to deal very effectively with such quiet, fast-moving objects.
> Even hikers can kill small animals, if they aren't careful. The one time
> I went to look for an Alameda whipsnake, I almost stepped on one, which
> was lying in grass growing in the trail, and didn't move until I had
> almost stepped on
> iu.
> Soils are extremely complex communities of living organisms. They
> sometimes are very fragile and once destroyed take decades to be
> recreated (e.g. desert cryptogamic soil). Soil destruction is
> hastened by acceleration (braking, speeding up, climbing, and
> turning, which apply horizontal forces to the soil), by tire lugs,
> which break the surface, and by water, which softens the soil and
> makes it easier to demolish.
> In the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), "park
> officials noted serious erosion problems on certain steep narrow
> trails and determined that restricting bicycle use would slow such
> erosion. [They] noted that on narrow trails bicyclists passing
> other users would either leave the trail or force the other users
> off the trail to the detriment of off-trail vegetation and
> wildlife. ... Downhill bicycle travel on steep slopes is usually
> accompanied by braking and often by skidding which tends to push
> dislodged surface gravels into ditches, water bars, and drains.
> Heavy bicycle use on steep trails usually requires that these
> ditches, water bars, and drains be cleared more frequently than
> those used by hikers and equestrians only. ... Park staff and
> visitors reported that bicyclists on these ... trails often skidded
> to control their speed, slid off of trails on sharp turns, or cut
> across off-trail areas at certain 'switch-backs'" (Bicycle Trails
> Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt).
> Mud containing seeds and spores sticks to bike tires, thereby often
> carrying species of plants into areas where they had not existed
> (becoming "exotics"). This is worsened by the fact that bicycles
> travel long distances, and are often carried to distant locations
> (sometimes even foreign countries) by motor vehicle. It is well
> known that such exotic species can cause havoc when introduced into
> new habitats.
> Most of us were raised to believe that "non- consumptive"
> recreation is harmless to wildlife. We are taught to enjoy
> ourselves in nature, guilt-free, as long as we don't directly harm
> wildlife. However, recent research, and the huge scale of current
> recreation activities, have discredited this idea. "Traditionally,
> observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered to
> be 'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of animals from
> their natural habitats did not occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife
> recreation was considered relatively benign in terms of its effects
> on wildlife; today, however, there is a growing recognition that
> wildlife-viewing recreation can have serious negative impacts on
> wildlife" (Knight & Gutzwiller, p.257).
> In other words, the mere presence of people is often harmful
> ________
> to wildlife, and the more, the worse. "The notion that recreation has
> no environmental impacts is no longer tenable. Recreationists often
> degrade the land, water, and wildlife resources that support
> their activities by simplifying plant communities, increasing animal
> mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and distributing
> refuse" (ibid, p.3) "Recreational disturbance has traditionally been
> viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season.
> Recently, it has become apparent that disturbance outside of the
> animal's breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p.73)
> "People have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it,
> no matter what the activity"
> (p.157); "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced wildlife
> populations is through encroachment into wildlife areas"
> (p.158). "Outdoor recreation has been recognized as an important factor
> that can reduce biosphere sustainability.... Indeed,
> recreational activities, including many that may seem innocuous,
> can alter vertebrate behaviour, reproduction, distributions, and
> habitats" (p.169).
> Knight & Gutzwiller's book contains numerous specific examples of
> how these negative effects are created. We may not know what the
> organisms are thinking, but the effect is that they die, are forced
> to expend extra energy that may be in short supply, become more
> susceptible to predation, or are forced to move to less suitable
> habitat, losing access to preferred foods, mates, nesting sites,
> etc. Since most of us live safely in the midst of plenty, it is
> hard for us to understand wildlife's predicament. We are flexible
> enough to survive almost anywhere; they are not. Often they have no
> other place to live. None of the existing "studies" on mountain
> biking evaluate its effects on wildlife. They are usually concerned
> only with visible effects on the trail. In Tilden Regional Park,
> there are three separate, heavily used mountain biking trails
> through the middle of supposedly protected Alameda whipsnake
> habitat areas!
> "Displaced animals are forced out of familiar habitat and must then
> survive and reproduce in areas where they are not familiar with the
> locations of food, shelter, and other vital resources.... Hammitt
> and Cole ... ranked displacement as being more detrimental to
> wildlife than harassment or recreation-induced habitat changes....
> Densities ... of 13 breeding bird species were negatively
> associated with the intensity of recreation activity by park
> visitors, primarily pedestrians and cyclists" (ibid, pp.173-
> 4); "off-road vehicles can collapse burrows of desert mammals and
> reptiles" (p.176).
> Sociology
> _________
> Hikers, especially the elderly, have been abandoning their favorite
> trails, due to bikers that scare them, hit them, harass them, and
> destroy the serenity of the parks. Parks are supposed to be a
> refuge from the crush of humanity and the noise, danger, and
> artificiality of urban areas. Why bring to our parks the very
> _____________________________-
> __
> things that most people go there to escape?! There is absolutely
> ____________________________________________
> nothing wrong with bicycling, in its proper setting (on a road). It is a
> wonderfully healthful activity. But wildlife is already in
> _______
> danger due to loss of habitat (worldwide, one quarter of all animals are
> threatend with extinction, according to the IUCN (International Union
> for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources)). It can't afford
> to lose any more. And people have very similar needs for being in
> nature. Our elderly are like wildlife, in that they have nowhere else to
> go for the experience of nature that they are accustomed to.
> By definition, hiking trails are the minimum size necessary for a
> person to hike (approx. 18 inches wide), since they are supposed to
> have a minimal impact on the environment. They aren't wide enough
> for a bicyclist to safely pass a hiker or another bicyclist. Mixing
> bikers and hikers is dangerous for both. In fact,
> mountain biking is also dangerous for lone riders, since hiking trails
> don't follow a predictable pattern and have very short sight distances
> (the distance that one can see ahead on the trail). Emergency room
> doctors report that a large percentage of mountain bikers incur serious
> accidents.
> "The record includes hundreds of letters from park users recounting
> stories of collisions or near misses with speeding or reckless
> bicyclists on all kinds of trails but particularly on steep and
> narrow trails. Hikers and bird watchers repeatedly told how they
> have been forced off of trails by speeding bicycles and how they
> have had their peace and solitude on the trails interrupted by
> bicycles that -- because they are quiet and fast -- seemed to
> appear out of nowhere and be immediately upon the hikers and other
> users. Equestrians told how their horses have been startled by
> speeding or oncoming bicycles and have become restless, on several
> occasions even throwing and injuring experienced riders. Though
> most users admitted that the great majority of bicyclists were
> polite and safety- conscious, letters from hikers, equestrians,
> bird watchers, joggers, and other users also repeatedly recounted
> incidents of rudeness, threats, and altercations when they have
> complained to an offending bicyclist about dangerous conduct. Park
> staff also reported having received such complaints. ... NPS's
> [National Park Service's] finding that user conflict and visitor
> danger would be reduced by limiting bicycle trail access in GGNRA
> was supported by ample evidence. ... Notwithstanding the
> responsible user, bicycles are often perceived by other users as a
> disruptive influence on park trails. Although most of the few
> reported bicycle accidents in the park involve only single
> individuals, letters and reports from hikers and equestrians tell
> of many close calls and confrontational and unsettling
> experiences". "No single- track trails [in the Marin Headlands]
> were found suitable for bicycle use" (Bicycle Trails Council v.
> Bruce Babbitt).
> Since bicycles require wider trails, parks now often use bulldozers
> to create and maintain those trails, vastly increasing their
> impacts. In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve in Oakland,
> California, a new trail was created by means of a "small" (6 foot
> blade) bulldozer. But it rolled off the trail and had to be rescued
> by a much bigger bulldozer. The existence of bicyclists on trails
> also forces park rangers to police the trails using motor vehicles
> (cars or motorcycles), since it is the only way they can hope to
> catch them! This also increases negative impacts on wildlife.
> Children learn mostly nonverbally (by watching adults and other
> children). Mountain biking is bad role modeling for them, since it
> teaches them that human domination and destruction of wildlife
> habitat is normal and acceptable.
> Mountain bikers like to claim that excluding them from trails
> constitutes "discrimination". They say that other user groups
> (hikers and equestrians) receive better treatment from land
> managers. There is no basis for such a claim, since all users are
> subject to exactly the same rules. For example, on a trail closed
> to bikes, everyone is allowed on the trail -- only the bikes are
> ________ _____ excluded! In spite of what they claim, mountain
> bikers have never
> ______
> been excluded from any trail! Even if my way of "enjoying" the
> wilderness is to race my bulldozer there, I am not allowed to do that.
> And this is not because land managers like hikers more than bulldozer
> racers. I am not being excluded from the wilderness; I can go there
> whenever I want, as long as I don't try to bring my
> _____________________________-
> _____
> bulldozer with me. It is only the bulldozer that is excluded, which
> _________________ _____ is due to its effects on wildlife and people.
> ____________________________________________
> If mountain bikers were actually being discriminated against, they
> could sue park managers for access to every trail that others are
> allowed on. On the contrary, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the
> Ninth Circuit (Bicycle Trails Council v. Bruce Babbitt) concluded
> that the National Park Service has the right to ban bikes from
> trails. "All units of the National Parks [are] to be treated
> consistently, with resource protection the primary goal". "All
> bicycle use of off- road areas [is] prohibited unless local park
> superintendents [designate] particular trails to be open"
> (bicyclists were contesting this rule). "Routes may only be
> designated for bicycle use based on a written determination that
> such use is consistent with the protection of the park area's
> natural, scenic and aesthetic values, safety considerations and
> management objectives and will not disturb wildlife or park
> _________________________
> resources". "The Park Service is empowered with the authority to
> determine what uses of park resources are proper and what proportion of
> the park's resources are available for each use". "The use of bicycles
> is allowed in park areas under the same basic
> __________________________________________________ _____-
> __________
> conditions as are motor vehicles, i.e. on park roads,
> in parking
> __________________________________________________ ____-
> __________
> areas, and on routes designated for their use. ... certain
> ______________________________________________
> limitations on their use are necessary and appropriate in the interest
> of public safety, resource protection, and the avoidance of visitor
> conflict" [emphasis added].
> Clearly, bikes are not being banned from trails because land
> managers like hikers and equestrians more! As people, mountain
> bikers are indistinguishable from other park users. It is the bikes
> _____
> that we object to, and not even the bikes, but their presence in
> ______-
> _____
> natural areas. Banning bikes is simply a humane way of protecting
> _____________
> our natural areas, while allowing all users equal access to enjoy them.
> Thus, whether bikers or hikers or equestrians are more harmful to
> wildlife (they all are, of course) is irrelevant. ___ __________
> Restricting bicycle access is a way of reducing human impacts on
> wildlife and wildlife habitat.
> The Case of Brown's Woods
> _________________________
> Brown's Woods, one of the last stands of native forest in central
> Iowa (southwest of DesMoines), illustrates these issues. It was
> saved from logging and development in 1972 by the S. E. Polk (High
> School) Ecology Club and their sponsor, biology teacher, Kirk
> Brill, for which they won a national award. Motorized vehicles were
> banned, "because of the threat they posed to the environment and to
> persons walking there" (Wayne Bills, Polk County Conservation Board
> (PCCB) Executive Director, 1972). The students worked hard to earn
> money to build two miles of bike trails through the preserve.
> However mountain bikers illegally built 4 1/2 additional miles of
> trail ("bikers have gouged more than six miles of trail, up to 30
> feet wide and a foot or more deep in spots" (Loren Lown, PCCB
> Natural Resources Specialist, 1996)). Wildlife were disappearing,
> elderly hikers were driven out, and vegetation was destroyed.
> "Already the bikers have caused permanent irreparable damage to
> this pristine area" (Ben Van Gundy, PCCB Director). It was called
> "ecological vandalism". Last year, once again, Brill and his
> students were forced to campaign to save the preserve, this time
> from mountain bikers, and won, getting a unanimous vote of the PCCB
> for a "total and permanent ban on the use of mountain bikes" in
> Brown's Woods.
> Millions of mountain bikes are being sold every year around the
> world. Let's not wait till "bikers have caused permanent
> irreparable damage" to our other natural areas! We can't eliminate
> all environmental damage, but we can eliminate frivolous, ___ ___
> unnecessary damage. True civilization is characterized by
> restraint.
> "It is expected that outdoor recreational activity will continue to
> increase, while the amount of wild land where wildlife may seek
> refuge from disturbance will decrease" (Knight and Gutzwiller,
> p.327); "Recreationists are, ironically, destroying the very thing
> they love: the blooming buzzing confusion of nature.... The
> recreation industry deserves to be listed on the
> ________________________________________________-
> ____
> same page with interests that are cutting the last of the old-
> __________________________________________________ _________-
> ___
> growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring
> __________________________________________________ ______-
> __________
> billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (p.340;
> __________________________________________________ ______
> emphasis added); "Tom Birch ... argues that wilderness managers,
> charged with incarcerating wilderness, are more concerned with the
> advancement of their careers through achieving quantifiable goals
> (number of park visitors, total revenues) and developing park and
> forest amenities (roads, 'scenic' turnouts, restrooms, paved trails,
> maps, campgrounds) than with perpetuating the land community of which
> they are a part" (p.344).
> Ideally, we should be working to reduce all human access to
> ___
> wildlife habitat. But at the very least, we should eliminate mechanical
> access (with the exception of small compromises for __________ _____
> wheelchairs).
> References:
> Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt, No.C-93- 0009,slip op.
> (N. Dist. Cal., Sept. 1, 1994) (see also Third Circuit Case 94- 16920,
> http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-
> Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/t/9416920o.htm).
> Ehrlich, Paul and Anne, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of
> ________________________________-
> __________
> the Disappearance of Species. c.1981.
> ____________________________
> Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
> __________-
> __
> Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
> ______________
> Phillips, Kathryn, Tracking the Vanishing Frogs: An Ecological
> ________________________________________-
> ___
> Mystery. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
> ____________________________________________
> Stebbins, Robert, personal communication.
> Vandeman, Michael J., Ph.D. http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mva-
> rticles/http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
> ===
> 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.)
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvandehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


unfortunately, brevity is not your "strong suit". R U saying that U R
against mountainbiking? Sacriledge!!! Surely U jest, am i right? You may
have thought this was the Sierra Club forum ( a good org. which i
support, by the way ) but this is hardly the forum 4 this kind of
preaching, if i'm not mistaken. I wonder how many mountainbikes it would
take 2 match the footprint of a Hummer- the governors. I think he has
more than one.:mad:



--

[davidmc]

Chris wrote:
> > Vandeman, Michael J., Ph.D. http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/m-
> > varticles/http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
> >
> > ===
> > 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.)
> I am working on greating a newsgroup that is off limits to Mike
> Vandeman. Want to help?


Bravo!!!, that guy is a "bombthrower" & he probably can't get
anybodyelse 2 read his exhaustive thesis besides his professor, who is;
incidentally paid 2 read it, so he foists it on us unwittingly. I feel
sorry 4 the webhosters who have 2 swt aside all of those Kbytes 4 his
multiple postings:p



--

[S o r n i]

davidmc wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:

{I will snip it now -- see how that works?!??!?!?#(*&#$@*@!)}

> unfortunately, brevity is not your "strong suit". R U saying that U R
> against mountainbiking? Sacriledge!!! Surely U jest, am i right? You
> may have thought this was the Sierra Club forum ( a good org. which i
> support, by the way ) but this is hardly the forum 4 this kind of
> preaching, if i'm not mistaken. I wonder how many mountainbikes it
> would take 2 match the footprint of a Hummer- the governors. I think
> he has
> more than one.:mad:

OK, let me get this straight: you RE-POST the eco-nut's ENTIRE DRIBBLY
DIATRIBE, and then comment on his BREVITY?!?!?

You, McSir, are an even bigger idiot than he.

Bill "impressed, mightily" S.

[tcmedara]

S o r n i > wrote:
> davidmc wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> {I will snip it now -- see how that works?!??!?!?#(*&#$@*@!)}
>
>> unfortunately, brevity is not your "strong suit". R U saying that U R
>> against mountainbiking? Sacriledge!!! Surely U jest, am i right? You
>> may have thought this was the Sierra Club forum ( a good org. which i
>> support, by the way ) but this is hardly the forum 4 this kind of
>> preaching, if i'm not mistaken. I wonder how many mountainbikes it
>> would take 2 match the footprint of a Hummer- the governors. I think
>> he has
>> more than one.:mad:
>
> OK, let me get this straight: you RE-POST the eco-nut's ENTIRE
> DRIBBLY DIATRIBE, and then comment on his BREVITY?!?!?
>
> You, McSir, are an even bigger idiot than he.
>
> Bill "impressed, mightily" S.

I was gonna comment on the same thing earlier, but I knew I had to live this
one for you, Bill. I'm not even sure why I even look at these MV threads
anymore, sorta like not being able to look away from the car wreck, even
after you've seen all you care to see.

Tom

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:14:30 +0200, bomba > wrote:

..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> God, you guys are SLOW!
..
..We're not slow. We like to travel as fast as possible - it stops us from
..taking in the countryside properly and means we don't have to react to
..flora and fauna that get in our way.

Thanks for proving my point.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:21:05 -0400, "tcmedara" >
wrote:

..S o r n i > wrote:
..> davidmc wrote:
..>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
..>
..> {I will snip it now -- see how that works?!??!?!?#(*&#$@*@!)}
..>
..>> unfortunately, brevity is not your "strong suit". R U saying that U R
..>> against mountainbiking? Sacriledge!!! Surely U jest, am i right? You
..>> may have thought this was the Sierra Club forum ( a good org. which i
..>> support, by the way ) but this is hardly the forum 4 this kind of
..>> preaching, if i'm not mistaken. I wonder how many mountainbikes it
..>> would take 2 match the footprint of a Hummer- the governors. I think
..>> he has
..>> more than one.:mad:
..>
..> OK, let me get this straight: you RE-POST the eco-nut's ENTIRE
..> DRIBBLY DIATRIBE, and then comment on his BREVITY?!?!?
..>
..> You, McSir, are an even bigger idiot than he.
..>
..> Bill "impressed, mightily" S.
..
..I was gonna comment on the same thing earlier, but I knew I had to live this
..one for you, Bill. I'm not even sure why I even look at these MV threads
..anymore, sorta like not being able to look away from the car wreck, even
..after you've seen all you care to see.

Mountain bikers havd no self-control, or they wouldn't be addicted.

..Tom
..

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[cc]

"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:21:05 -0400, "tcmedara"
>
> wrote:
>
> .S o r n i > wrote:
> .> davidmc wrote:
> .>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .>
> .> {I will snip it now -- see how that works?!??!?!?#(*&#$@*@!)}
> .>
> .>> unfortunately, brevity is not your "strong suit". R U saying that U R
> .>> against mountainbiking? Sacriledge!!! Surely U jest, am i right? You
> .>> may have thought this was the Sierra Club forum ( a good org. which i
> .>> support, by the way ) but this is hardly the forum 4 this kind of
> .>> preaching, if i'm not mistaken. I wonder how many mountainbikes it
> .>> would take 2 match the footprint of a Hummer- the governors. I think
> .>> he has
> .>> more than one.:mad:
> .>
> .> OK, let me get this straight: you RE-POST the eco-nut's ENTIRE
> .> DRIBBLY DIATRIBE, and then comment on his BREVITY?!?!?
> .>
> .> You, McSir, are an even bigger idiot than he.
> .>
> .> Bill "impressed, mightily" S.
> .
> .I was gonna comment on the same thing earlier, but I knew I had to live
this
> .one for you, Bill. I'm not even sure why I even look at these MV threads
> .anymore, sorta like not being able to look away from the car wreck, even
> .after you've seen all you care to see.
>
> Mountain bikers havd no self-control, or they wouldn't be addicted.
>

I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but it must hard to make friends
when you are clearly so superior to everybody.

It's too bad, Mike. Not just for you. I mean, you obviously are in a bad
place if you continue to post here. You must realize that you're not
reaching anybody, yet you continue. Which means that you really don't have
anything better to do, enjoy the abuse, or like patronizing others to make
yourself feel better.

I think the worst part, though, is that your ilk give environmental
advocates a bad name. I am a very green person, and believe you are truly
destructive to the goals of those who seek positive reform through the
promotion of awareness. It's amazing that this is (supposedly) what you care
about, yet your actions are free of understanding or compassion. Being a
reactionary (or fascist, more like it) clearly isn't progressive.

Have you ever tried responding to any of these emails (aka "opening a
dialogue") rather than just deriding them?

cc

[Trekkie Dad]

In article >,
"cc" > wrote (referring to "mikey":

> I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but it must hard to make friends
> when you are clearly so superior to everybody.

It's a wonder mikey can get his head through the doorway, his head is so
inflated!

>
> It's too bad, Mike. Not just for you. I mean, you obviously are in a bad
> place if you continue to post here. You must realize that you're not
> reaching anybody, yet you continue. Which means that you really don't have
> anything better to do, enjoy the abuse, or like patronizing others to make
> yourself feel better.
>
Maybe that's an old habit from playing "the game" when mikey was a
member of the Synanon cult.

> I think the worst part, though, is that your ilk give environmental
> advocates a bad name. I am a very green person, and believe you are truly
> destructive to the goals of those who seek positive reform through the
> promotion of awareness. It's amazing that this is (supposedly) what you care
> about, yet your actions are free of understanding or compassion. Being a
> reactionary (or fascist, more like it) clearly isn't progressive.
>
It's absurd. Take a moment to read the WWC dictionary referenced in my
sig.

> Have you ever tried responding to any of these emails (aka "opening a
> dialogue") rather than just deriding them?

Uh, no. Opening a dialog would involve opening his mind. If you observe
mikey long enough, you come to realize his mind is not only closed, but
the lock is rusted, and the key has long ago been discarded.

TD

--

World Without Cars Dictionary of Vandemisms (2001) is available at:
http://trekkiedad.freeservers.com/wwc.html
ICQ# available on request

[S o r n i]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:14:30 +0200, bomba >
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> God, you guys are SLOW!
> .
> .We're not slow. We like to travel as fast as possible - it stops us
> from .taking in the countryside properly and means we don't have to
> react to .flora and fauna that get in our way.
>
> Thanks for proving my point.

Dammit, Bomba, now you've done it. We had him on the ropes before that...

Bill "wonder which 'Whoosh!' is louder: our flying knobbies or Mike not
getting sarcams?" S.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:42:38 GMT, Trekkie Dad > wrote:

..In article >,
.. "cc" > wrote (referring to "mikey":
..
..> I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but it must hard to make friends
..> when you are clearly so superior to everybody.
..
..It's a wonder mikey can get his head through the doorway, his head is so
..inflated!
..
..>
..> It's too bad, Mike. Not just for you. I mean, you obviously are in a bad
..> place if you continue to post here. You must realize that you're not
..> reaching anybody, yet you continue. Which means that you really don't have
..> anything better to do, enjoy the abuse, or like patronizing others to make
..> yourself feel better.
..>
..Maybe that's an old habit from playing "the game" when mikey was a
..member of the Synanon cult.
..
..> I think the worst part, though, is that your ilk give environmental
..> advocates a bad name. I am a very green person, and believe you are truly
..> destructive to the goals of those who seek positive reform through the
..> promotion of awareness. It's amazing that this is (supposedly) what you care
..> about, yet your actions are free of understanding or compassion. Being a
..> reactionary (or fascist, more like it) clearly isn't progressive.
..>
..It's absurd. Take a moment to read the WWC dictionary referenced in my
..sig.
..
..> Have you ever tried responding to any of these emails (aka "opening a
..> dialogue") rather than just deriding them?
..
..Uh, no. Opening a dialog would involve opening his mind. If you observe
..mikey long enough, you come to realize his mind is not only closed, but
..the lock is rusted, and the key has long ago been discarded.

We psychologists call that "Projection".

..TD

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Trekkie Dad]

In article >,
Mike Vandeman > wrote:

> .Uh, no. Opening a dialog would involve opening his mind. If you observe
> .mikey long enough, you come to realize his mind is not only closed, but
> .the lock is rusted, and the key has long ago been discarded.
>
> We psychologists call that "Projection".

Yet another predictable response--so far gone you don't recognize the
trait in yourself. (Maybe it's an aftereffect from the brainwashing.)

And while we're on the subject of psychology--despite the degree you
hold, you are not licensed to practice psychology (at least not in the
state of California where you reside). Don't pretend to be something
that you're not.

TD--not going to play "the game"

--

World Without Cars Dictionary of Vandemisms (2001) is available at:
http://trekkiedad.freeservers.com/wwc.html
ICQ# available on request

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 01:47:57 GMT, Trekkie Dad > wrote:

..In article >,
.. Mike Vandeman > wrote:
..
..> .Uh, no. Opening a dialog would involve opening his mind. If you observe
..> .mikey long enough, you come to realize his mind is not only closed, but
..> .the lock is rusted, and the key has long ago been discarded.
..>
..> We psychologists call that "Projection".
..
..Yet another predictable response--so far gone you don't recognize the
..trait in yourself. (Maybe it's an aftereffect from the brainwashing.)
..
..And while we're on the subject of psychology--despite the degree you
..hold, you are not licensed to practice psychology (at least not in the
..state of California where you reside). Don't pretend to be something
..that you're not.
..
..TD--not going to play "the game"

Last I looked, one doesn't need a license to tell the truth. You should try it
some time.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Stephen Baker]

MV blurts:

>Last I looked, one doesn't need a license to tell the truth.

Lucky for you - they'd have pulled your license years ago.

[Trekkie Dad]

In article >,
(Stephen Baker) wrote:

> MV blurts:
>
> >Last I looked, one doesn't need a license to tell the truth.
>
> Lucky for you - they'd have pulled your license years ago.
>
>

Good shot, Stephen!

TD

--

World Without Cars Dictionary of Vandemisms (2001) is available at:
http://trekkiedad.freeservers.com/wwc.html
ICQ# available on request

[S o r n i]

Stephen Baker wrote:
> MV blurts:
>
>> Last I looked, one doesn't need a license to tell the truth.
>
> Lucky for you - they'd have pulled your license years ago.

M^V is no more a "psychologist" than someone with a degree in History who
works at 7-11 is an historian.

Bill "of course, the chemists work the Slurpy machine" S.

[Joz]

wrote:
> Originally posted by Mike Vandeman I'm being a Pd.D. in Psychology. I
> don't need a license for that.



Doctor of Pedagogy in Psychology. You profess to teach that which you
admittedly do not understand yourself.

Nice.

Just nice.



--

[Joz]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Yes it does. Expertise in scientific method and interpreting mountain
> bikers' pseudo-scientific "studies". But it takes ZERO scientific
> knowledge to report on the OBVIOUS damage done by mountain biking.
> Anyone can do it, as long as they are HONEST (that rules out all
> mountain bikers).



All mountain bikers are dishonest. Sounds like a pretty stand-up
hypothesis.

I'm going to go ahead and step out on a limb and divine that you in fact
have no higher degree than a B.S. tops.

I wouldn't even be surprised if you were a high school student with the
maturity of your debating skills.

Thats the joy of the internet, though. We all can try to pretend to be
whatever we want.

If you'll excuse me I've got to go pick up my Congressional Medal
of Honor before heading down to Cape Canaveral for my moon walk
this evening.



--

[BB]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:01:05 GMT, Joz wrote:

> I'm going to go ahead and step out on a limb and divine that you in fact
> have no higher degree than a B.S. tops.

I'm going to go out on a limb and divine that I'm not the only one who's
putting you in my killfile. If you continue to bite on every hook that the
troll tosses to you, you might find someday (if you ever want to post
something actually bike-related) that no one is listening. Bye!

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

[Joz]

Bb wrote:
> -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at
> least)



1) If you want to kill file me, then go nuts. It's no skin of my nose.

2) I didn't realize you could set up a kill file without having
an account

3) What attitude?



--

[Joz]

Joz wrote:
> 2) I didn't realize you could set up a kill file without having
> an account?



Hrm, I always forget that I'm in the minority viewing this through a
forum and not a news browsing tool.

Bb - Even if I wanted to be off your kill file, I wouldn't have your
email addy to do so.



--

[Stephen Baker]

Joz says:

>Hrm, I always forget that I'm in the minority viewing this through a
>forum and not a news browsing tool.

That could explain a lot..... Those cyclingforums guys would like you to think
this is a moderated group (HAH!), and I suppose for you poor saps, it is.

>Bb - Even if I wanted to be off your kill file, I wouldn't have your
>email addy to do so.

Don't need an addie to killfile, just whatever name is stuck on your posts.
You can't take yourself "off" anyone's killfile - that's the whole point ;-)

Steve

[S o r n i]

Joz wrote:
> Bb wrote:
> > -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at
> > least)
>

> 1) If you want to kill file me, then go nuts. It's no skin of my nose.

WTF are you talking about?!? (Hint: QUOTE!!!)

> 2) I didn't realize you could set up a kill file without having
> an account

No skin of our noses. (Sic -- or whatever the proper term would be in this
case.)

> 3) What attitude?

If you try really hard, I bet you can figure this one out. (Hint: it's
BB's sig file; wasn't directed at you.)

Bill "j/k Jozzie; we're really pussycats (bit of a stretch for that one)" S.

[Stephen Baker]

Mikey -baby starts out with :

> Mountain biking is a relatively new sport.

and instantly no-one with any brains reads further.

As though they would anyway....

[Gary S.]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:10:31 GMT, Trekkie Dad >
wrote:

>This "article" was first posted to eight newsgroups in June 1997, and
>has been repeated unchanged since then (see headers below):
>
Don't most other PhDs publish the same paper over and over and over
again?

Isn't one definition of insanity as being when someone repeats the
exact same thing over and over, but expects a different result each
time?

The guy hasn't had a single new thought on the topic in _seven_ years?

And is it still accurate to call mountain biking "new"?

In 1997 he called it "new", having gone mass market in 1984. Assuming
that is accurate, that would mean it was 13 years old as a mass
activity at that point. Now it is 20 years old. Is it still new?

I could list at least 6 other popular outdoor activities much newer
today than mountain biking was seven years ago. Are any of them more
harmful to the environment?

How many other statements in that article are similarly dated?

Instead of QED, Mikey should use SBO.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 23:04:44 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:10:31 GMT, Trekkie Dad >
..wrote:
..
..>This "article" was first posted to eight newsgroups in June 1997, and
..>has been repeated unchanged since then (see headers below):
..>
..Don't most other PhDs publish the same paper over and over and over
..again?
..
..Isn't one definition of insanity as being when someone repeats the
..exact same thing over and over, but expects a different result each
..time?
..
..The guy hasn't had a single new thought on the topic in _seven_ years?

When you're right, what's there to change? Can you name even ONE statement
that's wrong????

..And is it still accurate to call mountain biking "new"?
..
..In 1997 he called it "new", having gone mass market in 1984. Assuming
..that is accurate, that would mean it was 13 years old as a mass
..activity at that point. Now it is 20 years old. Is it still new?

Of course, compared to most other sports. Maybe snowboarding is newer?

..I could list at least 6 other popular outdoor activities much newer
..today than mountain biking was seven years ago.

You "could". But you DON'T! Why are you wasting our time?

Are any of them more
..harmful to the environment?
..
..How many other statements in that article are similarly dated?
..
..Instead of QED, Mikey should use SBO.
..
..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)
..------------------------------------------------
..at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
..
..Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
..Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:15:22 GMT, Joz > wrote:

.. wrote:
.. > Originally posted by Mike Vandeman I'm being a Pd.D. in Psychology. I
.. > don't need a license for that.
..
..
..
..Doctor of Pedagogy in Psychology. You profess to teach that which you
..admittedly do not understand yourself.

Of course. Everyone does that. It's called "science".

..Nice.
..
..Just nice.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

[Stephen Baker]

MV blathers big time:

>.You profess to teach that which you
>.admittedly do not understand yourself.
>
>Of course. Everyone does that. It's called "science".

Wrong as usual - the word "science" means "knowledge", not guesswork

Steve "look it up"

[jem]

Stephen Baker wrote:
> MV blathers big time:
>
>
>>.You profess to teach that which you
>>.admittedly do not understand yourself.
>>
>>Of course. Everyone does that. It's called "science".
>
>
> Wrong as usual - the word "science" means "knowledge", not guesswork

Actually I think a big part of science IS guesswork, followed by trying
to prove that the guess is correct.

[Stephen Baker]

Jim Messick says:

>Actually I think a big part of science IS guesswork, followed by trying
>to prove that the guess is correct.
>

Whoooooossshshhhh....... ;-)

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman > wrote:


>===
>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.)


No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My dog feels
that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about humans.

Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?

Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to make it more
suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny themselves this ability. It
is unique among those species in setting land aside from itself, which is yet
another manifestation of altering the environment to suit itself.

Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you feel better
somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't this be read to indicate
that perhaps more land should be off-limits to humans, and if making more land
off-limits is good wouldn't making all land off-limits be better? It's the only
way to make all land "pure."

This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Ron

[S o r n i]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman >
> wrote:
>
>
>> ===
>> 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.)
>
>
> No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My
> dog feels that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about
> humans.
>
> Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?
>
> Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to
> make it more suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny
> themselves this ability. It is unique among those species in setting
> land aside from itself, which is yet another manifestation of
> altering the environment to suit itself.
>
> Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you
> feel better somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't
> this be read to indicate that perhaps more land should be off-limits
> to humans, and if making more land off-limits is good wouldn't making
> all land off-limits be better? It's the only way to make all land
> "pure."
>
> This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Milkey is on record as saying his "pure habitat" would only be 10-by-10 in
size.

10-by-10 /acres/ you ask?

Miles??

Or certainly at least 10 by 10 yards, right???

No, it's 10 by 10 FEET! Hell, I live on a canyon with a jillion
10-by-10-foot areas that have never been affected by human contact. (And,
to the best of my knowledge, no one spent ANY previous 8 years doing a
damned thing to achieve it.)

Bill "a big fan of the man(ic), really" S.

[Alex Horvath]

There are plenty of places designated off limits to humans, usually
where particularly sensitive species reside. I'm not saying there
should be more or less off-limit areas but this is not really a new
concept.



RonSonic > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
> >===
> >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.)
>
>
> No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My dog feels
> that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about humans.
>
> Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?
>
> Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to make it more
> suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny themselves this ability. It
> is unique among those species in setting land aside from itself, which is yet
> another manifestation of altering the environment to suit itself.
>
> Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you feel better
> somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't this be read to indicate
> that perhaps more land should be off-limits to humans, and if making more land
> off-limits is good wouldn't making all land off-limits be better? It's the only
> way to make all land "pure."
>
> This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.
>
> Ron

[Mike Vandeman]

(Alex Horvath) wrote in message >...
> There are plenty of places designated off limits to humans, usually
> where particularly sensitive species reside.

Name even ONE area that is off-limits to ALL humans. ALL humans.

I'm not saying there
> should be more or less off-limit areas but this is not really a new
> concept.

Your point being?

> RonSonic > wrote in message >...
> > On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >===
> > >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.)
> >
> >
> > No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?" My dog feels
> > that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about humans.
> >
> > Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?
> >
> > Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to make it more
> > suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny themselves this ability. It
> > is unique among those species in setting land aside from itself, which is yet
> > another manifestation of altering the environment to suit itself.
> >
> > Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you feel better
> > somehow? Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't this be read to indicate
> > that perhaps more land should be off-limits to humans, and if making more land
> > off-limits is good wouldn't making all land off-limits be better? It's the only
> > way to make all land "pure."
> >
> > This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.
> >
> > Ron

[Mike Vandeman]

RonSonic > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:40:50 GMT, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
> >===
> >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.)
>
>
> No I don't. Why does the absence of humans make a habitat "pure?"

It's pure(ly) wildlife habitat. No humans.

My dog feels
> that way about squirrels, why would you feel that way about humans.
>
> Are humans somehow impure? Is this some sort of greenist original sin?
>
> Of the tens of thousands of species that alter their environment to make it more
> suitable for themselves are humans to somehow deny themselves this ability.

Humans are BY FAR the most destructive of all species.

It
> is unique among those species in setting land aside from itself, which is yet
> another manifestation of altering the environment to suit itself.
>
> Does knowing that some parcel of land is banned to humans make you feel better
> somehow?

Of course. But more important, it makes the WILDLIFE feel better.

Because it is pure and they are not? Shouldn't this be read to indicate
> that perhaps more land should be off-limits to humans, and if making more land
> off-limits is good wouldn't making all land off-limits be better? It's the only
> way to make all land "pure."
>
> This is looking like a very strange belief system you've got there.

Learn to read. English. DUH! You guys are amazing.

> Ron

[aTmSpectre]

Rabble rabble rabble rabble


--
aTmSpectre

[Stephen Baker]

MV blathers as usual:

>Humans are BY FAR the most destructive of all species.

Tell that to the waterhole AFTER the elephants have wallowed....

Steve

[Mike1]

(Mike Vandeman) wrote:

>Humans are BY FAR the most destructive of all species.


Not only are they BAR FAR the most *creative* of all species, they're
the only creative species.

What's your point?

--
Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick

[Aurawolf]

Mike Vandeman Wrote:
> The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
> Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> May 31, 1997
>
> Mountain biking is a relatively new sport. According to a
> mountain biking (MTB) web page (http://www.mtb-bike.com), "The
> commercial Mountain Bike evolution didn't start until 1974 and its
> first production bikes didn't appear in stores until about 10 years
> later". (Lower gearing, fat, knobby tires, sturdier construction,
> but particularly the sealed bearing -- which could be ridden in
> dirt without getting destroyed -- are what made "mountain" (off-
> road) bicycling possible.) Partly for this reason, and partly
> because the MTB is, from one point of view, just a special case of
> an ORV (off-road vehicle), environmentalists and scientists have
> been slow to study and recognize the special threat that the
> mountain bike represents to wildlife. Although there are many
> studies of ORVs, I am not aware of any solid scientific studies
> specifically on MTBs and their effects on wildlife.
>
> To most environmentalists, bicycles have always been the
> epitome of good. We are so used to comparing bikes to cars, that it
> never occurred to us that the bicycle would be ever used for
> anything bad. Indeed, replacing motor vehicles with bicycles
> deserves our adoration. But anything can be used for good or evil,
> and using bikes to expand human domination of wildlife habitat is
> clearly harmful.
>
> Human beings think they own every square inch of the Earth,
> and that they therefore have the right to do what they want with
> it. This is, of course, absurd. It is also the reason that we are
> losing species at an unforgivable rate: we have crowded wildlife
> out of its habitat. Even in our parks, where we have vowed to
> protect wildlife, it is not protected from hikers, equestrians,
> park "managers", firefighters, mountain bikers, airplanes,
> helicopters, cars, roads, concessionaires, or biologists. Thus, the
> primary reason that mountain bikes are harmful to wildlife is that
> they, like other technological aids (cars, skis, rafts, rock-
> climbing equipment, etc.), make it much easier for people to get
> into wildlife habitat.
>
> (Sadly, most people have forgotten that the only thing that
> makes parks worth visiting is the wildlife that live there: it is
> _____
> precisely the wildlife (and paucity of humans) that make a park a
> __________________________________________________ _______________
> park. Without wildlife (i.e., all nonhuman, nondomesticated species
> ____
> -- plants as well as animals), the parks would be boring piles of
> bare rock.)
>
> Biology
> _______
>
> First and most obvious, mountain bikes kill organisms that
> live on and under the soil: "When it comes to pure recreational
> destructiveness, ... off-road vehicles (ORVs) far surpass
> powerboats. ... It is a rare environment indeed where a vehicle can
> be taken off-road without damage. ... Standard ORVs with their
> knobby tires are almost ideal devices for smashing plant life and
> destroying soil. Even driven with extreme care, a dirt bike will
> degrade about an acre of land in a twenty-mile drive. ... Not only
> do the ORVs exterminate animals by exterminating plants, they
> attack them directly as well. Individual animals on the surface and
> in shallow burrows ... are crushed. ... One great problem with ORVs
> ___________________________
> is that they supply easy access to wilderness areas for
> __________________________________________________ _____
> unsupervised people who have ... no conception of the damage they
> __________________________________________________ _______________
> are doing" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, pp.169-171; emphasis added).
> _________
> (Although mountain bikes were hardly known when this was written,
> it is obvious that the same applies to them.)
>
>
> Recently, one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (a California
> threatened species) ever found was killed by a mountain biker in
> Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve near here. Others have been
> killed on other East Bay regional parks. Kathryn Phillips in
> Tracking the Vanishing Frogs described how ORVs crossing creeks
> ____________________________
> crush toads and their eggs (both buried in the sand). Bikes are
> generally ridden too fast to avoid killing small animals.
> Obviously, the animals didn't evolve in the presence of mountain
> bikes, and can't be expected to deal very effectively with such
> quiet, fast-moving objects. Even hikers can kill small animals, if
> they aren't careful. The one time I went to look for an Alameda
> whipsnake, I almost stepped on one, which was lying in grass
> growing in the trail, and didn't move until I had almost stepped on
> it.
>
> Soils are extremely complex communities of living organisms.
> They sometimes are very fragile and once destroyed take decades to
> be recreated (e.g. desert cryptogamic soil). Soil destruction is
> hastened by acceleration (braking, speeding up, climbing, and
> turning, which apply horizontal forces to the soil), by tire lugs,
> which break the surface, and by water, which softens the soil and
> makes it easier to demolish.
>
> In the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), "park
> officials noted serious erosion problems on certain steep narrow
> trails and determined that restricting bicycle use would slow such
> erosion. [They] noted that on narrow trails bicyclists passing
> other users would either leave the trail or force the other users
> off the trail to the detriment of off-trail vegetation and
> wildlife. ... Downhill bicycle travel on steep slopes is usually
> accompanied by braking and often by skidding which tends to push
> dislodged surface gravels into ditches, water bars, and drains.
> Heavy bicycle use on steep trails usually requires that these
> ditches, water bars, and drains be cleared more frequently than
> those used by hikers and equestrians only. ... Park staff and
> visitors reported that bicyclists on these ... trails often skidded
> to control their speed, slid off of trails on sharp turns, or cut
> across off-trail areas at certain 'switch-backs'" (Bicycle Trails
> Council of Marin v. Bruce Babbitt).
>
> Mud containing seeds and spores sticks to bike tires, thereby
> often carrying species of plants into areas where they had not
> existed (becoming "exotics"). This is worsened by the fact that
> bicycles travel long distances, and are often carried to distant
> locations (sometimes even foreign countries) by motor vehicle. It
> is well known that such exotic species can cause havoc when
> introduced into new habitats.
>
> Most of us were raised to believe that "non-consumptive"
> recreation is harmless to wildlife. We are taught to enjoy
> ourselves in nature, guilt-free, as long as we don't directly harm
> wildlife. However, recent research, and the huge scale of current
> recreation activities, have discredited this idea. "Traditionally,
> observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered to
> be 'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of animals from
> their natural habitats did not occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife
> recreation was considered relatively benign in terms of its effects
> on wildlife; today, however, there is a growing recognition that
> wildlife-viewing recreation can have serious negative impacts on
> wildlife" (Knight & Gutzwiller, p.257).
>
> In other words, the mere presence of people is often harmful
> ________
> to wildlife, and the more, the worse. "The notion that recreation
> has no environmental impacts is no longer tenable. Recreationists
> often degrade the land, water, and wildlife resources that support
>
> their activities by simplifying plant communities, increasing
> animal mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and
> distributing refuse" (ibid, p.3) "Recreational disturbance has
> traditionally been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during
> the breeding season. Recently, it has become apparent that
> disturbance outside of the animal's breeding season may have
> equally severe effects" (p.73) "People have an impact on wildlife
> habitat and all that depends on it, no matter what the activity"
> (p.157); "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced
> wildlife populations is through encroachment into wildlife areas"
> (p.160). "Outdoor recreation has been recognized as an important
> factor that can reduce biosphere sustainability.... Indeed,
> recreational activities, including many that may seem innocuous,
> can alter vertebrate behaviour, reproduction, distributions, and
> habitats" (p.169).
>
> Knight & Gutzwiller's book contains numerous specific examples
> of how these negative effects are created. We may not know what the
> organisms are thinking, but the effect is that they die, are forced
> to expend extra energy that may be in short supply, become more
> susceptible to predation, or are forced to move to less suitable
> habitat, losing access to preferred foods, mates, nesting sites,
> etc. Since most of us live safely in the midst of plenty, it is
> hard for us to understand wildlife's predicament. We are flexible
> enough to survive almost anywhere; they are not. Often they have no
> other place to live. None of the existing "studies" on mountain
> biking evaluate its effects on wildlife. They are usually concerned
> only with visible effects on the trail. In Tilden Regional Park,
> there are three separate, heavily used mountain biking trails
> through the middle of supposedly protected Alameda whipsnake
> habitat areas!
>
> "Displaced animals are forced out of familiar habitat and must
> then survive and reproduce in areas where they are not familiar
> with the locations of food, shelter, and other vital resources....
> Hammitt and Cole ... ranked displacement as being more detrimental
> to wildlife than harassment or recreation-induced habitat
> changes.... Densities ... of 13 breeding bird species were
> negatively associated with the intensity of recreation activity by
> park visitors, primarily pedestrians and cyclists" (ibid, pp.173-
> 4); "off-road vehicles can collapse burrows of desert mammals and
> reptiles" (p.176).
>
> Sociology
> _________
>
> Hikers, especially the elderly, have been abandoning their
> favorite trails, due to bikers that scare them, hit them, harass
> them, and destroy the serenity of the parks. Parks are supposed to
> be a refuge from the crush of humanity and the noise, danger, and
> artificiality of urban areas. Why bring to our parks the very
> _______________________________
> things that most people go there to escape?! There is absolutely
> ____________________________________________
> nothing wrong with bicycling, in its proper setting (on a road). It
> is a wonderfully healthful activity. But wildlife is already in
> _______
> danger due to loss of habitat (worldwide, one quarter of all
> animals are threatend with extinction, according to the IUCN
> (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
> Resources)). It can't afford to lose any more. And people have very
> similar needs for being in nature. Our elderly are like wildlife,
> in that they have nowhere else to go for the experience of nature
> that they are accustomed to.
>
> By definition, hiking trails are the minimum size necessary
> for a person to hike (approx. 18 inches wide), since they are
> supposed to have a minimal impact on the environment. They aren't
> wide enough for a bicyclist to safely pass a hiker or another
> bicyclist. Mixing bikers and hikers is dangerous for both. In fact,
>
> mountain biking is also dangerous for lone riders, since hiking
> trails don't follow a predictable pattern and have very short sight
> distances (the distance that one can see ahead on the trail).
> Emergency room doctors report that a large percentage of mountain
> bikers incur serious accidents.
>
> "The record includes hundreds of letters from park users
> recounting stories of collisions or near misses with speeding or
> reckless bicyclists on all kinds of trails but particularly on
> steep and narrow trails. Hikers and bird watchers repeatedly told
> how they have been forced off of trails by speeding bicycles and
> how they have had their peace and solitude on the trails
> interrupted by bicycles that -- because they are quiet and fast --
> seemed to appear out of nowhere and be immediately upon the hikers
> and other users. Equestrians told how their horses have been
> startled by speeding or oncoming bicycles and have become restless,
> on several occasions even throwing and injuring experienced riders.
> Though most users admitted that the great majority of bicyclists
> were polite and safety-conscious, letters from hikers, equestrians,
> bird watchers, joggers, and other users also repeatedly recounted
> incidents of rudeness, threats, and altercations when they have
> complained to an offending bicyclist about dangerous conduct. Park
> staff also reported having received such complaints. ... NPS's
> [National Park Service's] finding that user conflict and visitor
> danger would be reduced by limiting bicycle trail access in GGNRA
> was supported by ample evidence. ... Notwithstanding the
> responsible user, bicycles are often perceived by other users as a
> disruptive influence on park trails. Although most of the few
> reported bicycle accidents in the park involve only single
> individuals, letters and reports from hikers and equestrians tell
> of many close calls and confrontational and unsettling
> experiences". "No single-track trails [in the Marin Headlands] were
> found suitable for bicycle use" (Bicycle Trails Council v. Bruce
> Babbitt).
>
> Since bicycles require wider trails, parks now often use
> bulldozers to create and maintain those trails, vastly increasing
> their impacts. In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve in Oakland,
> California, a new trail was created by means of a "small" (6 foot
> blade) bulldozer. But it rolled off the trail and had to be rescued
> by a much bigger bulldozer. The existence of bicyclists on trails
> also forces park rangers to police the trails using motor vehicles
> (cars or motorcycles), since it is the only way they can hope to
> catch them! This also increases negative impacts on wildlife.
>
> Children learn mostly nonverbally (by watching adults and
> other children). Mountain biking is bad role modeling for them,
> since it teaches them that human domination and destruction of
> wildlife habitat is normal and acceptable.
>
> Mountain bikers like to claim that excluding them from trails
> constitutes "discrimination". They say that other user groups
> (hikers and equestrians) receive better treatment from land
> managers. There is no basis for such a claim, since all users are
> subject to exactly the same rules. For example, on a trail closed
> to bikes, everyone is allowed on the trail -- only the bikes are
> ________ _____
> excluded! In spite of what they claim, mountain bikers have never
> ______
> been excluded from any trail! Even if my way of "enjoying" the
> wilderness is to race my bulldozer there, I am not allowed to do
> that. And this is not because land managers like hikers more than
> bulldozer racers. I am not being excluded from the wilderness; I
> can go there whenever I want, as long as I don't try to bring my
> __________________________________
I just have one question, do you really like arguing with people cause
that is about all your going to accomplish here. I seriously doubt
anything posted here from you is going to change anyones mind or even
make them thank twice about it. My advice if you so dedicated to this
is to start trying to get a law passed in whatever state you live in
for this wilflife refuge you want to make so bad. Just my 2 cents have
fun pasting duhs behind this messages qoute.


--
Aurawolf