On 9 Jun 2006 23:25:30 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:56:38 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people,
regardless of activity, is the priority.

Well-stated.

BS. You are still pretending not to get it? We have no problem hiking
with mountain bikers, as long as they don't bring a bike with them.
This is not a matter of consideration, but of bike impacts that you
continue to deny.

It's not a question of who was there first. Nor, as some mountain bikers
might desire, a question of which users there are more of.

Since everyone agrees that trail and wildlife impact is no worse for
bicyclists than hikers,

BS. Everyone KNOWLEDGEABLE (i.e., scientists) agree that mountain
biking has much greater impacts than hiking.

As an ardent environmentalist, people need to unifiy.

you cannot argue for access of one group over
another based on impact. You could argue to not allow equestrians, since
they have a much bigger impact on trails and wildlife than hikers and
cyclists.
===
The differences are basically trivial in the big picture. You are on
the same
side in the big picture.

Not if you mountain bike. It's a form of development (habitat
destruction).

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.)

That is really wonderful! But habitat can be shared, if it's not
logged,
roads are built, chemicals are introduced, and developed.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande