[OT] habitat

On 7/17/2011 2:58 PM, James wrote:
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.

LOL, the quiet kayakers also disturb the fish.

I would like to see a lot of access restricted to "under your own power"
types of recreation. No power boats. No snowmobiles. No horses.

On 18/07/2011 11:54 PM, Simon Lewis wrote:
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.

You are not worth the electrons to explain.

--
JS.

On 19/07/2011 6:50 AM, SMS wrote:
On 7/17/2011 2:58 PM, James wrote:
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.

LOL, the quiet kayakers also disturb the fish.

Certainly do. Even those pesky cormorants! I should take a shot gun
when I go fishing. Sink a few kayaks and drop a few cormorants ;-) Oh
but the paperwork and clean up afterwards would be a prick.

Hell, it's annoying to catch up to another fisherman. I strive to fish
the most inaccessible places possible. Virgin fish are so much more fun.

I would like to see a lot of access restricted to "under your own power"
types of recreation. No power boats. No snowmobiles. No horses.

Interesting. Bicycles are obviously accepted.

--
JS.

In rec.bicycles.tech James wrote:

: Virgin fish are so much more fun.

I have nothing to add. I just wanted to see that again.

--
This is not a randomly numbered sig.

On Jul 17, 6:50*pm, James wrote:
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.

I just tell the truth -- something you will never understand.

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.

And a god reason to ban bikes from them.

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.

BS. The physics is the same. It just takes longer to show 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.

Only a mountain biker would say that.

BS. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY irresponsible.

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

The science says otherwise.

And your use of capitalisation is both rude and ignorant.

It's simple emphasis, netnews nazi.

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."

They do if they are HONEST, because that's exactly what bikes are. I
have yet to meet even ONE mountain biker who could tell the truth.

On Jul 17, 6:56*pm, "T°m Sherm@n" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
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.

Your libel is duly noted. I said I don't have a PO, liar.

Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Jul 18, 1:45*pm, SMS wrote:
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.

BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
"scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
dishonest.

On Jul 18, 6:54*am, Simon Lewis wrote:
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.

Because their form of recreation is destructive. Like mountain biking.
DUH!

On 19/07/2011 12:57 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:50 pm, wrote:
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.

I just tell the truth -- something you will never understand.

Yes, something the religious zealots think they do too. Nicely confirmed.

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.

And a god reason to ban bikes from them.

There you go, bringing religion into it again.

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.

BS. The physics is the same. It just takes longer to show a rut.

And by that time another year has passed, the fire fighters have been up
and down several times and either maintained the track or considered it
fit for purpose - which does not exclude mountain bikes. The bush on
either side is unaffected.

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.

Only a mountain biker would say that.

Only the true messiah denies his divinity.

BS. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY irresponsible.

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

The science says otherwise.

Your science is your religion.

And your use of capitalisation is both rude and ignorant.

It's simple emphasis, netnews nazi.

Suck it up, Princess.

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."

They do if they are HONEST, because that's exactly what bikes are. I
have yet to meet even ONE mountain biker who could tell the truth.

You are tarred with the same brush.

--
JS.

On 19/07/2011 1:00 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:45 pm, wrote:
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.

BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
"scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
dishonest.

Correction: Mikey wrote the only religious paper on the subject.

--
JS.