|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"SMS" wrote in message ... [newsgroups restored] Chris Foster wrote: SMS wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953 : http://www.americantrails.org/resour...ngImpacts.html WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying. All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing real Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles. The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain bikers will never understand. However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers. Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers - period! I'd like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th. DUH! Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why don't you? I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact. While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts. Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there. Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle. Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher. I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil. By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for Great Ones like Myself. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "SMS" wrote in message ... [newsgroups restored] Chris Foster wrote: SMS wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953 : http://www.americantrails.org/resour...ngImpacts.html WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying. All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing real Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles. The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain bikers will never understand. Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others on the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what we are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude is not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of hiking in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there. However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers. Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers - period! In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and techniques are in place. And enforced. I'd like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th. DUH! Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why don't you? Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you... I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact. While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts. Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there. If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles. You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call. Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle. Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher. You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do with actual information. I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil. Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get picked up by the Mother Ship? By the way, I take great pride in my many posts to the various newsgroups being almost entirely content free. That is for lesser minds, not for Great Ones like Myself. The gauntlet of wisdom thrown as like an angry monkey, again, from Conan the Librarian . |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Edward Dolan wrote:
Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers - period! They are not "hiking" trails, they are simply trails. I may not like equestrians messing up the trails, and while hiking I may not like bicycles on the trails, but hikers have no claim to exclusive use of the trails, at least not based on impact to the trail or wildlife. Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why don't you? It works very well for water sports. Personally I don't think it's all that big a deal, but some hikers like MV have lost all connection with reality when it comes to mountain bikes on trails. Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. Oh please. If he's the expert, he would certainly have at least _one_ study, _one_ reference to support his position. He doesn't have anything. He's good at ranting, but he has no facts or logic to support his position. I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there. Yet in case after case, mountain bikers have prevailed in defending their right to be on the trails, and parks continue to open more trails to bicyclists. In most cases, the park management has done a good job in their trail designations. I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary results to his. Of course you will. Facts and logic have no meaning to you. You base everything on emotion. "You can't have a debate with someone who is willing to make up the facts." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
S Curtiss wrote:
In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and techniques are in place. And enforced. In reality, hikers are allied strongly with other human-powered users (XC skiers, mountain bikers, etc), in trying to prevent motorized intrusion (snow-mobiles, off-road vehicles, etc.). There are very few hikers that are as clueless as MV or Ed, when it comes to addressing the real threats to trails and to the back-country. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"S Curtiss" wrote in message news:hSZgg.19924$B42.8297@dukeread05... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "SMS" wrote in message ... [newsgroups restored] Chris Foster wrote: SMS wrote in news:447df1d2$0$96953 : http://www.americantrails.org/resour...ngImpacts.html WOW Nice article. Pretty much contradicts what MV has been saying. All on these peer reviewed articles diwsagree with you Mike, while you have been wasting your time arguing here with us, real people are doing real Well, I hike a helluva lot more than I mountain bike, and I've got to tell you that despite the fact that mountain biking is no worse than hiking in terms of trail erosion and effect on wildlife, it really isn't pleasant to have to be constantly on the alert for bicycles. The last phrase of the sentence above says it all. Something that mountain bikers will never understand. Wrong. Of course we understand it. Just as we have to be aware of others on the trail. It is not possible to be absolutely sure there are no other people around. Hikers, equestrians, other cyclists... Of course we are constantly aware. Of our surroundings, of where we are going, who or what we are approaching... Recreation lands require this awareness. Solitude is not necessarily the goal for all persons, especially in multi-use and recreation areas. "Wilderness" is far more suitable for your type of hiking in which solidtude and reflection are your reasons for being there. However I accept that trail use should not be limited to hikers. Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers - period! In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and techniques are in place. And enforced. I'd like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th. DUH! Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why don't you? Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you... I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact. While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts. Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there. If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles. You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call. The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based on who was there first. Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle. Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher. You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do with actual information. Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares about the mountain biker's point of view. I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil. Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get picked up by the Mother Ship? I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things. [...] Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"SMS" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers - period! They are not "hiking" trails, they are simply trails. I may not like equestrians messing up the trails, and while hiking I may not like bicycles on the trails, but hikers have no claim to exclusive use of the trails, at least not based on impact to the trail or wildlife. Nope, the trails were originally constructed for hikers and equestrians, not for mountain bikers. If they had been constructed for cyclists, they would be far different than what they are. Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why don't you? It works very well for water sports. Personally I don't think it's all that big a deal, but some hikers like MV have lost all connection with reality when it comes to mountain bikes on trails. Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. Oh please. If he's the expert, he would certainly have at least _one_ study, _one_ reference to support his position. He doesn't have anything. He's good at ranting, but he has no facts or logic to support his position. It is common sense that cyclists and hikers have very different impacts on trails. Frankly, I do not need any studies to show me anything in that regard. My own observations are sufficient. I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there. Yet in case after case, mountain bikers have prevailed in defending their right to be on the trails, and parks continue to open more trails to bicyclists. In most cases, the park management has done a good job in their trail designations. It is nothing but pure politics, but that does not make it right. Very many trails are not suited at all for cyclists, and it will send me into a rage to see a cyclist trying to negotiate such a trail. However, many lowland trails will work for cyclists, but still it would be better if they were walking those trails. It is a matter of philosophy more than anything else. I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary results to his. Of course you will. Facts and logic have no meaning to you. You base everything on emotion. "You can't have a debate with someone who is willing to make up the facts." My contempt for facts is boundless. I do not worship them like you do. Facts are for me to play with. I can make of them what I will. Never confuse facts with logic. They are not the same at all. Philosophy 101 anyone? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
Let's deal with priorities. 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests. 2: Stop roads. 3: Stop motorized vehicles. 4: Protect wildlife. 5: Prevent polutants and runoff. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Beach Runner" wrote in message ups.com... Let's deal with priorities. 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests. 2: Stop roads. 3: Stop motorized vehicles. 4: Protect wildlife. 5: Prevent polutants and runoff. Yes, Beach Runner has got it exactly right. The whole issue of mountain bikes on hiking trails is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Perspective is everything - and the broader the perspective, the better. When I get too narrowly focused on something I have a tendency to go to extremes. I blame it all on Curtiss. He is a genius at driving me to distraction. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:y_idndsQZYQCxxvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@prairiewave. com... Here is where SMS goes off the rails. Hiking trails are for hikers - period! In "wilderness" perhaps. In many closer areas, recreation lands, some areas of National Forests, and public lands not designated "wilderness", multi-use is necessary and has proven effective while cooperative efforts and techniques are in place. And enforced. I'd like to see something similar to what is done on some lakes and reservoirs with regard to powered versus non-powered water-craft. They only allow powered water-craft on alternate weekends. Maybe it's impractical for trail use, I don't know. Maybe bicycles-only on odd-weekend days, hikers only on even-weekend days, hikers and bicyclists during the week, and equestrians every February 30th. DUH! Nope, the above would never work in a million years. Try to get real why don't you? Wow... obvious sarcasm and humor flies right by you... I think that it's very telling that MV has never been able to post a reference that contradicts any of the articles regarding trail impact. While he obviously doesn't like the articles from IMBA, there are plenty of others that are not from an organization that has a self-interest angle, such as the one posted above. I think the reason he posts content-free posts so often, is that he hopes that he can make up for the lack of evidence with the sheer volume of his posts. Vandeman is heavily into the impact on trails (erosion,etc.) from mountain biking. I think he is probably the expert on that subject. I am not that concerned with that particular aspect of it. I am concerned about mountain bikers being on the trails without any right to be there. If you see a bicycle in "wilderness", report it. If you choose to hike in an area known as a recreation destination, then expect to see bicycles. You do have a choice. You can hike in places where bikes can not, or are not allowed to, go. If you want to keep whining because a bicycle is on a trail that you would not hike anyway, that is your call. The hiking trails were there from time immemorial for hikers and equestrians. Mountain bikers are very late comers and as such have less right to the trails than hikers and equestrians. You need to adjust to us being on the trails and not vice versa. It is matter of priorities based on who was there first. People need to adjust to other people. Consideration for other people, regardless of activity, is the priority. Besides, if you took a moment and read the "rules of the trails" you would see that cyclists should give yield to hikers / equestrians. But the facts are unimportant as long as you can inflame with silly blanket statements only to see your own comments. Frankly, hiking trails are for hikers only regardless of other factors. It has become a philosophical issue with me. But can I win this battle. Probably not, which is why Vandeman is so valuable. He takes the mountain bikers on on their own turf. I am so far above the fray that I can only converse with other philosophers. I do not think SMS is a philosopher. You again have it backwards. We have taken Vandeman on his own turf. We have shown his opinions and writings do not have the credibility or foundation in "fact" he claims. If you choose to believe or support his opinions, that is up to you. However, when you do so all we all see is a major contradiction: You proclaiming support for MV's unfounded opinion then proclaiming yourself to be "the Great" is hysterical. Then again, it is also your statement that your persistance on usenet has little to do with actual information. Nope, Vandeman is the expert from the hiker's point of view. Who cares about the mountain biker's point of view. Which half of the above statement is true? Based on your own comments about usenet, how can we take the word of an idiot about anything? Below - your statement from another thread "Usenet is by and for idiots, that is why! Half the time I do not even believe any of what I am saying, let alone fools like you" - Ed Dolan I will side with Vandeman no matter how many so-called studies show contrary results to his. Why? Because Vandeman is on the side of Angels and slobs like SMS are on the side of the Devil. Again with the "faith"...? When do you two drink the Kool-Aid and get picked up by the Mother Ship? I believe the Devil is making Curtiss do and say bad things. I believe "the great" needs his little pills..... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Beach Runner wrote:
Let's deal with priorities. 1: Stop sales and logging of our National Forests. 2: Stop roads. 3: Stop motorized vehicles. 4: Protect wildlife. 5: Prevent polutants and runoff. People like Vandeman and Dolan play right into the hands of the real enemies of recreation that are many of the logging companies, and the manufacturers of snow-mobiles, and ATVs. If they can get the self-powered recreation users fighting among themselves, then there is no unified constituency to go after the real abusers of the land. You'd think that by now MV would have given up, in all these years he's never been able to supply a single source that backs up his position. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking." | Edward Dolan | General | 147 | July 24th 06 07:03 PM |
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 18 | July 16th 04 04:28 AM |
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking | BB | Mountain Biking | 31 | July 4th 04 02:35 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 1 | May 5th 04 03:40 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | BB | Mountain Biking | 1 | April 27th 04 07:05 AM |