|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: "SMS" wrote in message . .. Edward Dolan wrote: My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails. Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails. Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for hikers. I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles. I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness. The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact. I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness. I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his "experience" that is his determining factor. You have to sidestep that and try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than whining about a few bikes. That is the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of secondary importance. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota === 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 |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:57:22 -0700, SMS wrote: S Curtiss wrote: Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in reality! That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits. At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV. I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough, and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? It obviously hasn't worked for you. You've been doing it for over 10 years. Your OPINION of information different from your presentations is not a filter for the validity of that information or the character of the researchers. === |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:06:34 -0700, SMS wrote: Jason wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough, and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it often enough it much be true. Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable! You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference. Your OPINION of the activity is not a valid filter for determing the validity of the science or data that may show different conclusions than your OPINIONS. === 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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:57:49 GMT, jason wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference. Yes many of us can which is why you're science always gets slammed down hard. It's junk science, And how would you know? Qualifications, please! This should be good for a laugh. And do not point us back to your own website. heck even calling it science is a stretch. === 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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:21:04 -0400, "S Curtiss" wrote: We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain bikers who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for their desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and general uncouthness. Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you "eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not so great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so great", "faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries" Your cheap imitation of Ed The Great is just that: a cheap, ineffective imitation. You are the master of cheap imitation, so maybe you have something. You have been imitating and stealing the work of real reserchers for years only to take it apart and put it together to fit your OPINIONS. Your entire body of "work" has been an ineffective imitation. As far as imitating Dolan goes...? Maybe I'm imitating the person that was imitated by the person Dolan copied... Maybe you are just ****ing on whipsnakes. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:2rydnSfA1oyMTQzZnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@prairiewave. com... We hikers will stick together because we have souls unlike mountain bikers who are soulless. And we will eternally condemn mountain bikers for their desecration of the wilderness and for their overall all slobbiness and general uncouthness. Still can't resist a response to "such drivel"...? And... LOL, you "eternally condemn mountain bikers" who are "soulless"...? Another "not so great" response from Conan the Librarian, aka "ed dolan, the not so great", "faint edward the grating - order of the curly fries" As long as Curtiss does not come up with anything new, all he will get from me is my drivel. Since my drivel is better than his drivel, he will lose. And which eye opening revelation have you put forth...? That you are "great"...? I think I heard that one. FYI - It doesnt't get funnier the more you tell it. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: "SMS" wrote in message .. . Edward Dolan wrote: My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails. Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails. Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for hikers. I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles. I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness. The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact. I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness. I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his "experience" that is his determining factor. It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife. You have to sidestep that and try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building than whining about a few bikes. People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that issue? That is the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of secondary importance. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota === 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 === 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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
S Curtiss wrote:
At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his "experience" that is his determining factor. Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't also like the "experience" of solitude. You have to sidestep that and try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the disruption of his hiking enjoyment. Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife, or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his arguments against mountain bikes. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:37:28 GMT, jason
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: And how would you know? Qualifications, please! This should be good for a laugh. My qualifications are just as good as yours are. Ah, I see that you hesitate to state your qualifications.... We know what that means: they are BS. Come on, tell us what they are, oh Shifty One. Oh by the way refresh my memory what is your phd in again? Something to do with how Asians and black people taste things as I recall. Ya your qualified to speak on the environment with that one. Isn't that the equilivent of underwater basket weaving? === 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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:55:35 -0700, SMS
wrote: S Curtiss wrote: At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his "experience" that is his determining factor. Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't also like the "experience" of solitude. You have to sidestep that and try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure. Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the disruption of his hiking enjoyment. Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife, or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his arguments against mountain bikes. I AM being honest. That's exactly what drives mountain bikers so crazy! They can't believe that anyone could be less selfish than they are! === 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 |
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 |