A stunning victory for mountain bikers

[JP]

In the grand old American tradition of civil disobedience mountain bikers
voted with their feet and showed those in authority what the people wanted.
Now their tenacity is rewarded.

A few trolls muttered darkly of course but the world yawned.

The message is clear.
Persistence in riding these so-called "illegal" trails will oftimes
result in the trails being made legal, particularly if a few biking
taxpayers make their feelings known to their senators and representatives.
Mountain biking is a particularly benign activity to local ecology with
none of the litter, trail damage, fecal mounds, and fires so often
associated with hikers, horses, and campers. Bikers presence in
the wild provides extra eyes to those charged with preserving those areas.

Remember, 1,760 miles of singletrack is the equivalent of only 1 square
mile.

Ride on.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:22:09 GMT, "JP" > wrote:

..In the grand old American tradition of civil disobedience mountain bikers
..voted with their feet and showed those in authority what the people wanted.
..Now their tenacity is rewarded.
..
..A few trolls muttered darkly of course but the world yawned.
..
..The message is clear.
..Persistence in riding these so-called "illegal" trails will oftimes
..result in the trails being made legal,

Nope, it was closed.

particularly if a few biking
..taxpayers make their feelings known to their senators and representatives.
..Mountain biking is a particularly benign activity to local ecology with
..none of the litter, trail damage, fecal mounds, and fires so often
..associated with hikers, horses, and campers. Bikers presence in
..the wild provides extra eyes to those charged with preserving those areas.

Right. One per biker.

..Remember, 1,760 miles of singletrack is the equivalent of only 1 square
..mile.
..
..Ride on.
===
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

[JP]

"On a much less political note, the Forest Service has just begun work on
the
new Hazard County Trail in the La Sal Mountains outside Moab. This replaces
an illegal, user-created route locals had installed a few years ago.

While the new trail will also need a new name--it won't be nearly as
hazardous as its predecessor--it is a big step for the Manti-La Sal
District. This new trail will feature jumps and bermed corners, and some FS
personnel are even pushing to hire one of the original trail builders as a
consultant."


No dumkopf, they're building new sections to accomodate mountain bikers.

Learn to read.

[Per Löwdin]

You are right on, in the US a lot of trails are closed for irrational
reasons, horses should be banned long before mountainbikes if preservation
is the objective.

Per



"JP" > skrev i meddelandet
news:lg4Se.138$tx.76@trndny02...
> In the grand old American tradition of civil disobedience mountain bikers
> voted with their feet and showed those in authority what the people
> wanted.
> Now their tenacity is rewarded.
>
> A few trolls muttered darkly of course but the world yawned.
>
> The message is clear.
> Persistence in riding these so-called "illegal" trails will oftimes
> result in the trails being made legal, particularly if a few biking
> taxpayers make their feelings known to their senators and representatives.
> Mountain biking is a particularly benign activity to local ecology with
> none of the litter, trail damage, fecal mounds, and fires so often
> associated with hikers, horses, and campers. Bikers presence in
> the wild provides extra eyes to those charged with preserving those areas.
>
> Remember, 1,760 miles of singletrack is the equivalent of only 1 square
> mile.
>
> Ride on.
>
>
>

[Gary S.]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:33:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>> But, irrational as usual, no mountain bikers are advocating closing
>> trals to horses.
>
>You're SUCH a moron. 82.6% of mountain bikers wish trails were closed to
>horses; and of those, 11.2% actively advocate it.
>
But Mikie's stated ultimate goal is to ban ALL outdoor recreation.

It serves his interests to have various recreational user groups
fighting each other, while the real damage goes on unabated.

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

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

[Sohn]

"Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:33:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> > wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>> But, irrational as usual, no mountain bikers are advocating closing
>>> trals to horses.
>>
>>You're SUCH a moron. 82.6% of mountain bikers wish trails were closed to
>>horses; and of those, 11.2% actively advocate it.
>>
> But Mikie's stated ultimate goal is to ban ALL outdoor recreation.
>
> It serves his interests to have various recreational user groups
> fighting each other, while the real damage goes on unabated.
>
> Happy trails,
> Gary (net.yogi.bear)
> --
> At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
>
> Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
> Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

If I remember correctly, Mike claims on his blog that he enjoys hiking. I
did see a strange thing he wrote that he wanted to elect endangered species
on the city council where he resides. So there is no telling what his real
adgenda is.
Ron

[Gary S.]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:26:26 -0400, "Sohn" > wrote:

>"Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
...

>> But Mikie's stated ultimate goal is to ban ALL outdoor recreation.
>>
>> It serves his interests to have various recreational user groups
>> fighting each other, while the real damage goes on unabated.
>>
>> Happy trails,
>> Gary (net.yogi.bear)
>
>If I remember correctly, Mike claims on his blog that he enjoys hiking. I
>did see a strange thing he wrote that he wanted to elect endangered species
>on the city council where he resides. So there is no telling what his real
>adgenda is.
>Ron
>
He has said as much on more than one occasion, part of his "human
free" habitat.

Also, what Mikie describes doing is more in the realm of walking in a
local park than the sort of hiking more common with others.

His limited experience really shows when he gives hiking advice, such
as his mandating the use of smooth soled shoes for hiking.

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

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

[Michael Halliwell]

Gary S. wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:33:04 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But, irrational as usual, no mountain bikers are advocating closing
>>>trals to horses.
>>
>>You're SUCH a moron. 82.6% of mountain bikers wish trails were closed to
>>horses; and of those, 11.2% actively advocate it.
>>
>
> But Mikie's stated ultimate goal is to ban ALL outdoor recreation.
>
> It serves his interests to have various recreational user groups
> fighting each other, while the real damage goes on unabated.
>
> Happy trails,
> Gary (net.yogi.bear)

Right on, Gary.

It seems to me that MV has forgotten that humans are *part* of the
environment. It is people like him who have forced hunting (note: *NOT*
recreational booze drinking and animal slaying, but
put-meat-in-the-freezer hunting) to the endangered list and then get
upset when a) bambi chews on his bushes in his front yard, b) babmi
comes through his windshield while driving home to the suburbs or
c)protests loudly that the overcrowded deer population in his area are
starving to death because there is no food for them.

Sure, as an environmental engineer, I am all for conservation and
treading lightly...but I'm also a realist. Nuking all humans off the
face of the earth so we don't impact the world forgets the simple fact
that we're part of that very same world. Removing people from nature is
not the answer...getting humans back in touch with it/understanding
it/understanding our place in it is a far better option.

Psycho Mike

[[email protected]]

JP wrote:
> In the grand old American tradition of civil disobedience mountain bikers
> voted with their feet and showed those in authority what the people wanted.
> Now their tenacity is rewarded.

Where was this?

> The message is clear.
> Persistence in riding these so-called "illegal" trails will oftimes
> result in the trails being made legal, particularly if a few biking
> taxpayers make their feelings known to their senators and representatives.
> Mountain biking is a particularly benign activity to local ecology with
> none of the litter, trail damage, fecal mounds, and fires so often
> associated with hikers, horses, and campers. Bikers presence in
> the wild provides extra eyes to those charged with preserving those areas.

All true. It's really insane how there are so many trails closed to
mountain bikers that are open to equestrians.

There was a stunning victory in Santa Cruz County recently too.

> Remember, 1,760 miles of singletrack is the equivalent of only 1 square
> mile.
>
> Ride on.

[Eugene Miya]

"Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
...
>>> But Mikie's stated ultimate goal is to ban ALL outdoor recreation.
>>> It serves his interests to have various recreational user groups
>>> fighting each other, while the real damage goes on unabated.

Off road motorcycles cause far more damage.
And lots of photos exist what what they do.
Additionally they are burning gas.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:26:26 -0400, "Sohn" > wrote:
>>If I remember correctly, Mike claims on his blog that he enjoys hiking. I
>>did see a strange thing he wrote that he wanted to elect endangered species
>>on the city council where he resides. So there is no telling what his real
>>adgenda is.
>>Ron

In article >,
Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>He has said as much on more than one occasion, part of his "human
>free" habitat.
>
>Also, what Mikie describes doing is more in the realm of walking in a
>local park than the sort of hiking more common with others.

The Mtn. biking issue came up at the Sierra Summit meeting.
And it was not Mike.

It went into the wording of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the choice of
the the word "mechanized" which is and was decades old. It had to do
with the writings of a couple of guys in the New England area who did
long bike rides to reach wilderness areas to start hikes.
And the quote ended with "and we left our bikes behind."
And they left the session at that.


>His limited experience really shows when he gives hiking advice, such
>as his mandating the use of smooth soled shoes for hiking.

That was a movement attempted in the latter mid-70s by East Coasters.

--

[Gary S.]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:04:42 GMT, Mike Vandeman >
wrote:

>On 15 Sep 2005 18:59:34 -0700, (Eugene Miya) wrote:
>
>.In article >,
>.Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>.>He has said as much on more than one occasion, part of his "human
>.>free" habitat.
>.>
>.>Also, what Mikie describes doing is more in the realm of walking in a
>.>local park than the sort of hiking more common with others.
>.
>.>His limited experience really shows when he gives hiking advice, such
>.>as his mandating the use of smooth soled shoes for hiking.
>.
>.That was a movement attempted in the latter mid-70s by East Coasters.
>
Tried, and did not catch on in the real world. What _has_ happened
since then is that lugged hiking boot soles have been redesigned
significantly to minimize the tearing up of soft soil, while still
providing traction with reshaped lugs.

>It's just common sense. You don't need lugs to have traction. Anyone who has
>hiked knows that.

Like I said Mike, your limited hiking experience shows. Strange that
not a single other person here in your crossposts to rec.backcountry
agrees with you. At least some of them hike.

A smooth soled hiking boot is extremely dangerous in some conditions
commonly experienced by hikers. All of the people who replace their
boots when the soles are worn smooth, or have them resoled if
possible, seem to be aware that smmoth soles are not good for many
types of hiking.

Please reference a single hiking boot model that comes with a smooth
lugless sole, and find a real hiker who would touch it for hiking on
anything but sand or graded paths in a park.

If you were experienced in hiking on the wide variety of terrain and
seasons that others do, you would know that. But all you care about is
pretending that people think you are right about something.

You will likely ignore the point of this, and call people names, or
change the subject. Which just proves the point that many here are
making about the validity of anything you say.

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

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

[Gary S.]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:05:57 GMT, Mike Vandeman >
wrote:

>On 16 Sep 2005 08:27:48 -0700, "Coyoteboy" > wrote:
>
>.So please forgive my ignorance of this matter, its not my 'area', but
>.at what point does one define the time where a species becomes
>.'non-exotic' - there must be some standard time assumed in that
>.definition or it would make the definition a pointless and vague moment
>.in time.
>
>I suggested 1 million years. The past president of the Society for Conservation
>Biology agreed with me.
>
Because he agrees with you, that automatically makes him right?

Is there a widespread consensus among scientists in that field as to
what abritrary number is "right"?

On what basis does your PhD in Psychology gives you the background to
make a definitve opinion in a different field?

Any scientist in that field who disagrees with your casually suggested
number is automatically wrong, even after years spent acquiring a PhD
in that field?

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 Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:20:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:04:42 GMT, Mike Vandeman >
..wrote:
..
..>On 15 Sep 2005 18:59:34 -0700, (Eugene Miya) wrote:
..>
..>.In article >,
..>.Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
..>.>He has said as much on more than one occasion, part of his "human
..>.>free" habitat.
..>.>
..>.>Also, what Mikie describes doing is more in the realm of walking in a
..>.>local park than the sort of hiking more common with others.
..>.
..>.>His limited experience really shows when he gives hiking advice, such
..>.>as his mandating the use of smooth soled shoes for hiking.
..>.
..>.That was a movement attempted in the latter mid-70s by East Coasters.
..>
..Tried, and did not catch on in the real world. What _has_ happened
..since then is that lugged hiking boot soles have been redesigned
..significantly to minimize the tearing up of soft soil, while still
..providing traction with reshaped lugs.

How? This should be good! BS.

..>It's just common sense. You don't need lugs to have traction. Anyone who has
..>hiked knows that.
..
..Like I said Mike, your limited hiking experience shows. Strange that
..not a single other person here in your crossposts to rec.backcountry
..agrees with you. At least some of them hike.
..
..A smooth soled hiking boot is extremely dangerous in some conditions
..commonly experienced by hikers. All of the people who replace their
..boots when the soles are worn smooth, or have them resoled if
..possible, seem to be aware that smmoth soles are not good for many
..types of hiking.

What types? I have been hiking longer than you have been alive, and have never
run across such a situation.

..Please reference a single hiking boot model that comes with a smooth
..lugless sole, and find a real hiker who would touch it for hiking on
..anything but sand or graded paths in a park.
..
..If you were experienced in hiking on the wide variety of terrain and
..seasons that others do, you would know that. But all you care about is
..pretending that people think you are right about something.
..
..You will likely ignore the point of this, and call people names, or
..change the subject. Which just proves the point that many here are
..making about the validity of anything you say.

Luga on hiking shoes are for show. They are actually counterproductive.

..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)

===
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 Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:26:28 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:05:57 GMT, Mike Vandeman >
..wrote:
..
..>On 16 Sep 2005 08:27:48 -0700, "Coyoteboy" > wrote:
..>
..>.So please forgive my ignorance of this matter, its not my 'area', but
..>.at what point does one define the time where a species becomes
..>.'non-exotic' - there must be some standard time assumed in that
..>.definition or it would make the definition a pointless and vague moment
..>.in time.
..>
..>I suggested 1 million years. The past president of the Society for Conservation
..>Biology agreed with me.
..>
..Because he agrees with you, that automatically makes him right?

I didn't say that. YOU did.

..Is there a widespread consensus among scientists in that field as to
..what abritrary number is "right"?

No one has ever addressed it, as far as I can tell.

..On what basis does your PhD in Psychology gives you the background to
..make a definitve opinion in a different field?

I can read.

..Any scientist in that field who disagrees with your casually suggested
..number is automatically wrong, even after years spent acquiring a PhD
..in that field?

Even "scientists" aren't always honest, when it comes to things that might make
irritate other humans -- like calling us an "exotic species".

..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)

===
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

[Coyoteboy]

> Luga on hiking shoes are for show. They are actually counterproductive.

PMSL - theres no end to the BS. Its like discussing something with a 14
year old and hoping to get a sensible answer when they refuse to
believe you.

Lugless hiking shoes indeed.

J

[Mike Vandeman]

On 19 Sep 2005 15:56:34 -0700, (Eugene Miya) wrote:

..In article >,
..Mike Vandeman > wrote:
..>On 15 Sep 2005 18:59:34 -0700, (Eugene Miya) wrote:
..>."Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
.. .
..>.>>> It serves his interests to have various recreational user groups
..>.>>> fighting each other, while the real damage goes on unabated.
..>.
..>.Off road motorcycles cause far more damage.
..>.And lots of photos exist what what they do.
..>.Additionally they are burning gas.
..>.
..>.>Also, what Mikie describes doing is more in the realm of walking in a
..>.>local park than the sort of hiking more common with others.
..>.
..>.The Mtn. biking issue came up at the Sierra Summit meeting.
..>.And it was not Mike.
..>.
..>.It went into the wording of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the choice of
..>.the the word "mechanized" which is and was decades old. It had to do
..>.with the writings of a couple of guys in the New England area who did
..>.long bike rides to reach wilderness areas to start hikes.
..>.And the quote ended with "and we left our bikes behind."
..>.And they left the session at that.
..>
..>Good. They have some sense.
..
..Had. They have long since passed on.
..
..>.>His limited experience really shows when he gives hiking advice, such
..>.>as his mandating the use of smooth soled shoes for hiking.
..>.That was a movement attempted in the latter mid-70s by East Coasters.
..>
..>It's just common sense. You don't need lugs to have traction. Anyone who has
..>hiked knows that.
..
..Well, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
..
..I have a rock you can slip on near Pt. Reyes.

Oh, sure, on the beach, where (1) no one should be hiking and (2) lugs on your
soles won't help you.
===
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