A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] habitat



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old July 17th 11, 04:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default habitat

On 7/17/2011 10:53 AM, SMS wrote:
On 7/17/2011 1:09 AM, Chalo wrote:

snip

As long as their ways comply with common ethical and legal rules, you
are no more correct than they are in the ways you commune with
nature. Have your own way, and leave others to have theirs.


Well stated. If you believe the rules are wrong, or are not being
enforced, work for changes, don't take the law into your own hands and
physically attack anyone. I expect that jail was not a pleasant experience.

The rules about access are not always logical and sometimes should be
changed. I.e., both hikers and mountain bikers would like to see greatly
reduced access for equestrians, but the equestrians are generally
well-connected and wealthy, and get their way.

The big expansion of mountain biking should take place in national parks
outside the heavily used core area. Let's get kids out from in front of
the video games and out on mountain bikes. Not only will it get them
some exercise, it builds a future constituency for the national parks.

Since all the experts agree that mountain bicycling is no more damaging
to trails or wildlife than hiking, there is no reason to have such
limits on mountain biking in national parks.


I agree with your points, but I think there's a dark side to mountain
biking. I don't think, in most locales, it's a wildlife disruption or
erosion issue, but yahoo bikers disturbing other area visitors. I've
seen trail damage caused by riders treating sensitive areas like
amusement rides, but as you say, I've seen as much impact from other
groups. I don't see the problem of downhill thrill seekers riding lifts
or pedaling up summit roads to bomb downhill ski areas, which are
generally little more than bulldozer created meadows, but the same group
on the hiking trails is a different matter. Mountain bikers have the
potential to at least frighten hikers, if not even injure them in a
collision. Their garish outfits and equipment are also jarring -- an
aesthetic impression sure, but many people seek these areas just for an
aesthetic experience. Peace, quiet and beauty need to be protected, too.

If done responsibly, mountain biking can be no more disruptive to man or
nature that hiking or kayaking, but it often doesn't play out that way.
I'm vehemently opposed to every kind of off-road bicycle racing, as
something of an oxymoron, something that gets me a lot of blank looks
from my MTB brethren. Mountain bikers need to be honest about their
behavior and values and make some necessary changes. With its historical
"gonzo" orientation, people are justified in finding it inappropriate in
many settings and restricting it. It doesn't have to be that way. For
the most part, I like mountain biking well enough, but I, too, don't
care much for mountain bikers.

More than a decade ago, when I used to ride with "the guys", one of the
more perceptive members remarked: "I don't think I'd like to run into us
in the woods". True words, and I changed my style shortly thereafter. We
should all change until we're benign enough that we wouldn't mind
encountering ourselves. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Ads
  #42  
Old July 17th 11, 05:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default habitat

On 7/17/2011 10:54 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]Mountain bikers have the
potential to at least frighten hikers, if not even injure them in a
collision. Their garish outfits and equipment are also jarring -- an
aesthetic impression sure, but many people seek these areas just for an
aesthetic experience. Peace, quiet and beauty need to be protected, too.
[...]


Depends on whether or not the area allows hunting. Wearing clothes that
blend in can get you shot by a trigger-happy nimrod.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #43  
Old July 17th 11, 10:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default habitat

Peter Cole wrote:

If done responsibly, mountain biking can be no more disruptive to man or
nature that hiking or kayaking, but it often doesn't play out that way.


I hate it when, while fly fishing in apparent seclusion, some garish and
loud group of white water thrill seekers goes floating past. The fish
dart for cover too.

Too bad I don't own the river.

--
JS.
  #44  
Old July 17th 11, 11:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default habitat

Mike Vandeman wrote:

There is no right to bring a bike onto a trail.


Correction, Mike Vandeman has no right to use a trail.
  #45  
Old July 18th 11, 01:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Mike Vandeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,755
Default habitat

On Jul 17, 8:54*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 7/17/2011 10:53 AM, SMS wrote:





On 7/17/2011 1:09 AM, Chalo wrote:


snip


As long as their ways comply with common ethical and legal rules, you
are no more correct than they are in the ways you commune with
nature. Have your own way, and leave others to have theirs.


Well stated. If you believe the rules are wrong, or are not being
enforced, work for changes, don't take the law into your own hands and
physically attack anyone. I expect that jail was not a pleasant experience.


The rules about access are not always logical and sometimes should be
changed. I.e., both hikers and mountain bikers would like to see greatly
reduced access for equestrians, but the equestrians are generally
well-connected and wealthy, and get their way.


The big expansion of mountain biking should take place in national parks
outside the heavily used core area. Let's get kids out from in front of
the video games and out on mountain bikes. Not only will it get them
some exercise, it builds a future constituency for the national parks.


Since all the experts agree that mountain bicycling is no more damaging
to trails or wildlife than hiking, there is no reason to have such
limits on mountain biking in national parks.


I agree with your points, but I think there's a dark side to mountain
biking.


BS. It's ALL dark side. There's NOTHING good about mountain biking,
even for the mountain bikers themselves. They are all PRETENDING to be
having fun, as they break bones or even DIE.

I don't think, in most locales, it's a wildlife disruption or
erosion issue,


BS. Mountain bikers like to ride in natural areas, i.e., wildlife
habitat. Bike tires ALWAYS create V-shaped ruts. Sometimes faster,
sometimes slower.

but yahoo bikers disturbing other area visitors. I've
seen trail damage caused by riders treating sensitive areas like
amusement rides, but as you say, I've seen as much impact from other
groups. I don't see the problem of downhill thrill seekers riding lifts
or pedaling up summit roads to bomb downhill ski areas, which are
generally little more than bulldozer created meadows, but the same group
on the hiking trails is a different matter. Mountain bikers have the
potential to at least frighten hikers, if not even injure them in a
collision. Their garish outfits and equipment are also jarring -- an
aesthetic impression sure, but many people seek these areas just for an
aesthetic experience. Peace, quiet and beauty need to be protected, too.


You are talking about stuff that mountain bikers neither understand
nor care about.

If done responsibly, mountain biking can be no more disruptive to man or
nature that hiking or kayaking,


BS. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY irresponsible.

but it often doesn't play out that way.
I'm vehemently opposed to every kind of off-road bicycle racing, as
something of an oxymoron, something that gets me a lot of blank looks
from my MTB brethren. Mountain bikers need to be honest about their
behavior and values and make some necessary changes. With its historical
"gonzo" orientation, people are justified in finding it inappropriate in
many settings and restricting it. It doesn't have to be that way. For
the most part, I like mountain biking well enough, but I, too, don't
care much for mountain bikers.

More than a decade ago, when I used to ride with "the guys", one of the
more perceptive members remarked: "I don't think I'd like to run into us
in the woods". True words, and I changed my style shortly thereafter.


No one in their right mind wants to encounter a bike in the woods. If
we wanted to be around bikes & other big, fast-moving pieces of
MACHINERY, we would stay in the ciity! DUH!

We
should all change until we're benign enough that we wouldn't mind
encountering ourselves. I don't think that's too much to ask.


You are right. So don't allow bikes off-road. QED
  #46  
Old July 18th 11, 02:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default habitat

Mike Vandeman wrote:
BS. It's ALL dark side. There's NOTHING good about mountain biking,
even for the mountain bikers themselves. They are all PRETENDING to be
having fun, as they break bones or even DIE.


Religious fanaticism is the cause of many of the worlds problems. You
are right there with them.

BS. Mountain bikers like to ride in natural areas, i.e., wildlife
habitat.


Yes, many of the fire trails I mountain bike on are surrounded by
nature. That is typical of fire trail location.

Bike tires ALWAYS create V-shaped ruts. Sometimes faster,
sometimes slower.


You are full of BS. Any indent depends on the surface being ridden on.
A hard gravel surface leaves little if any detectable indent, let
alone a rut.

You are talking about stuff that mountain bikers neither understand
nor care about.


You have generalised in every post to the point of insanity. No wonder
people don't take you seriously. You are the laughing stock.

BS. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY irresponsible.


People enjoying the bush on a bicycle is no more irresponsible than your
false religious propaganda.

And your use of capitalisation is both rude and ignorant.

No one in their right mind wants to encounter a bike in the woods.


And neither do they want to encounter you.

If
we wanted to be around bikes & other big, fast-moving pieces of
MACHINERY, we would stay in the ciity! DUH!


Most sane, sensible and reasonable folks, do not lump bicycles with "big
fast-moving pieces of MACHINERY."

You are obviously neither sane, nor sensible nor reasonable.

You are right. So don't allow bikes off-road. QED


Corrected - Feel sorry for Mike V., who is obviously delusional and in
need of mental care and possibly a straight jacket.

--
JS.
  #47  
Old July 18th 11, 02:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default habitat

On 7/17/2011 8:50 PM, James wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]
No one in their right mind wants to encounter a bike in the woods.


And neither do they want to encounter you.

Especially if Mikey V. is armed with a HANDSAW.

If
we wanted to be around bikes & other big, fast-moving pieces of
MACHINERY, we would stay in the ciity! DUH!


Most sane, sensible and reasonable folks, do not lump bicycles with "big
fast-moving pieces of MACHINERY."

You are obviously neither sane, nor sensible nor reasonable.

Stating the obvious.

You are right. So don't allow bikes off-road. QED


Corrected - Feel sorry for Mike V., who is obviously delusional and in
need of mental care and possibly a straight jacket.

Mikey V. is so delusional, he will not admit to being on probation.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #49  
Old July 18th 11, 02:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Simon Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default habitat

James writes:

Peter Cole wrote:

If done responsibly, mountain biking can be no more disruptive to man or
nature that hiking or kayaking, but it often doesn't play out that way.


I hate it when, while fly fishing in apparent seclusion, some garish and loud
group of white water thrill seekers goes floating past. The fish dart for cover
too.

Too bad I don't own the river.


Just as well you miserable arse. Why should others not enjoy the beauty
too.
  #50  
Old July 18th 11, 09:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default habitat

On 7/17/2011 8:36 AM, Opus wrote:
On Jul 17, 9:53 am, wrote:
snipity
Since all the experts agree that mountain bicycling is no more damaging
to trails or wildlife than hiking, there is no reason to have such
limits on mountain biking in national parks.


"Experts" other than Mikey, you mean?


Yes, I'm referring to those that have done a scientific analysis of the
impact of each type of trail user. That explicitly excludes our favorite
troll.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BIKE HABITAT kolldata Techniques 2 March 7th 11 12:52 AM
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! Mike Vandeman Social Issues 7 August 31st 08 05:15 AM
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 17 July 31st 08 02:15 AM
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! Mike Vandeman Social Issues 17 July 31st 08 02:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.