|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 16, 11:35*pm, SMS wrote:
On 7/15/2011 10:14 AM, Ronsonic wrote: This whole conversation is absolutely bizarre to this Floridian. Here the greatest threat to our wildlands and their flora and fauna are wild / feral pigs. You can use an army of motorcycles to drive entire herds of horses each dragging a mountain bike through our forests and marshes and it wouldn't cause the damage these hogs do. Seriously. This is paper cuts to chainsaws. Well in many states, including California, they definitely have problems with horses. It's not just the enormous trail damage (it's estimated that one horse does more damage than 50 mountain bikes or 50 hikers), but the mess, the smell, and the pollution. If we could buy each equestrian a mountain bike to ride our parks would be much better off. The problem with MV is that he hasn't studied any science because he knows that the actual science totally contradicts his position. It's called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (argument from ignorance). Every study shows that the impact of mountain bikers on erosion, plants, and wildlife is less than or equal to the damage of hikers, and far less than the damage of horses. Mountain bikers move through an area quickly, minimizing the time that they are disrupting wildlife, compared to hikers. Here's a similar example: today we were kayaking in Elkhorn Slough near Monterey. One of the volunteer docents that travels around by kayak asked us to move more quickly through an area with sea otters (we were stopped watching them). She said that to minimize the disruption to their activities it's better to go through the area quickly. This is the same thing that mountain bikers do. If you knew ANYTHING about the research, you would know that NOT ONE study addresses moving quickly. You are bluffing. The Wisdom et al study proved that mountain bikers have more impact on elk than either hikers or equestrians. Moving quickly didn't help them one bit. Like ALL mountain bikers, you don't know what you are talking about, and substitute LIES instead. No surprize there! |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
Mike Vandeman wrote:
SMS wrote: Ronsonic wrote: This whole conversation is absolutely bizarre to this Floridian. Here the greatest threat to our wildlands and their flora and fauna are wild / feral pigs. You can use an army of motorcycles to drive entire herds of horses each dragging a mountain bike through our forests and marshes and it wouldn't cause the damage these hogs do. Seriously. This is paper cuts to chainsaws. Well in many states, including California, they definitely have problems with horses. It's not just the enormous trail damage (it's estimated that one horse does more damage than 50 mountain bikes or 50 hikers), but the mess, the smell, and the pollution. If we could buy each equestrian a mountain bike to ride our parks would be much better off. The problem with MV is that he hasn't studied any science because he knows that the actual science totally contradicts his position. It's called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (argument from ignorance). Every study shows that the impact of mountain bikers on erosion, plants, and wildlife is less than or equal to the damage of hikers, and far less than the damage of horses. Mountain bikers move through an area quickly, minimizing the time that they are disrupting wildlife, compared to hikers. Here's a similar example: today we were kayaking in Elkhorn Slough near Monterey. One of the volunteer docents that travels around by kayak asked us to move more quickly through an area with sea otters (we were stopped watching them). She said that to minimize the disruption to their activities it's better to go through the area quickly. This is the same thing that mountain bikers do. If you knew ANYTHING about the research, you would know that NOT ONE study addresses moving quickly. You are bluffing. The Wisdom et al study proved that mountain bikers have more impact on elk than either hikers or equestrians. Moving quickly didn't help them one bit. Like ALL mountain bikers, you don't know what you are talking about, and substitute LIES instead. No surprize there! Crazy mother****er, Have you not had your fill of the troubles your craziness causes you? Why don't you leave this stuff to people who can think and act clearly and responsibly? Go do the things that give you joy, and leave quarreling about things to people who can be trusted to observe the rules of social interaction. Having a crackpot stalker in our group is no fun to us, but it's surely even less fun to the crackpot. Win the game. Go commune with nature, instead of hassling other more level-headed folks about it. Find your favorite quiet spot and take some mindful deep breaths. Go out and see if you can't feel the life force in a Genista and try to make contact with it instead of trying to destroy it. Then try to see that all things can find a rapport with the wilderness within their own ability to grasp and appreciate it. Not your ability, but theirs. 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. Chalo |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/17/2011 3:09 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: SMS wrote: Well in many states, including California, they definitely have problems with horses. It's not just the enormous trail damage (it's estimated that one horse does more damage than 50 mountain bikes or 50 hikers), but the mess, the smell, and the pollution. If we could buy each equestrian a mountain bike to ride our parks would be much better off. Not to mention that the mountain bikers are getting to the trail heads in vehicles that typically achieve 20 to 30+ mpg, while a truck or oversize SUV with a gas motor hauling a horse trailer will usually be in the 6 to 9 mpg range. The problem with MV is that he hasn't studied any science because he knows that the actual science totally contradicts his position. It's called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (argument from ignorance). Scary that Vandeman makes Scharf look like a fountain of knowledge and reason. Every study shows that the impact of mountain bikers on erosion, plants, and wildlife is less than or equal to the damage of hikers, and far less than the damage of horses. Mountain bikers move through an area quickly, minimizing the time that they are disrupting wildlife, compared to hikers. Here's a similar example: today we were kayaking in Elkhorn Slough near Monterey. One of the volunteer docents that travels around by kayak asked us to move more quickly through an area with sea otters (we were stopped watching them). She said that to minimize the disruption to their activities it's better to go through the area quickly. This is the same thing that mountain bikers do. If you knew ANYTHING about the research, you would know that NOT ONE study addresses moving quickly. You are bluffing. The Wisdom et al study proved that mountain bikers have more impact on elk than either hikers or equestrians. Moving quickly didn't help them one bit. Like ALL mountain bikers, you don't know what you are talking about, and substitute LIES instead. No surprize there! Yawn Crazy mother****er, Have you not had your fill of the troubles your craziness causes you? Why don't you leave this stuff to people who can think and act clearly and responsibly? Go do the things that give you joy, and leave quarreling about things to people who can be trusted to observe the rules of social interaction. Maybe this *is* what gives Vandeman joy? Having a crackpot stalker in our group is no fun to us, but it's surely even less fun to the crackpot. Win the game. Go commune with nature, instead of hassling other more level-headed folks about it. Find your favorite quiet spot and take some mindful deep breaths. Go out and see if you can't feel the life force in a Genista and try to make contact with it instead of trying to destroy it. Then try to see that all things can find a rapport with the wilderness within their own ability to grasp and appreciate it. Not your ability, but theirs. 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. I think Mikey V. cares more about spoiling mountain biking than preserving nature. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
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. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 17, 9:53*am, SMS 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? |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist Bashed | Craig Strong | Australia | 21 | January 31st 07 03:58 AM |
Bush bashed by bike | Grazza | Australia | 0 | February 28th 06 01:43 AM |
McEwen bashed by thugs at Indy | Shabby | Australia | 14 | October 26th 05 12:23 AM |