X-Apparently-To: mjva...@pacbell.net via 209.191.68.138; Thu, 02 Feb
2012 20:42:27 -0800
Received-SPF: pass (domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as
permitted sender)
X-YMailISG: M2uX6DgWLDtZtVREFmlgj9bOv2Q0WB.oEDcQxHraIC585dbJ
 e31KxubDII2EnrmvUA2RE0bOGeIkfY5y6yIct3rg.dJtCjrf4dI1fYxlHYUn
 VoGFZkEpDQ9Z7GqJlCuEEwfKhE7lkap.cJ6c8hgxcTZD.tg8IcT3YWnOaeK1
 QCmrl2.TVUOPQ.fPgHioj_7YyNk0BHwn7V6OVvEzU2ii_PD2fY6zq1lbatdP
 4fMroY_dezIe99EIc2AFgVFmTOUca3nxeJZ0gllEL9VM23InD26kSJyRO0wK
 3mBKXTPWm8ugYhwJabakx.EYln_KsFF7jJoKJbfO22px5CTiT.L7u_ej7P2i
 zSC3h2vveWDtBcQikx4HJNd069HRc6K0wCydpMbB2P601mUs4QfForVwplfX
 ScsMY0S3Xw--
X-Originating-IP: [209.85.214.170]
Authentication-Results: mta1073.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
from=gmail.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig);  from=gmail.com;
dkim=pass (ok)
Received: from 207.115.20.161  (EHLO flpd244.prodigy.net)
(207.115.20.161)
  by mta1073.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 02 Feb 2012
20:42:27 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [209.85.214.170]
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f170.google.com (mail-tul01m020-
f170.google.com [209.85.214.170])
        by flpd244.prodigy.net (8.14.4 IN/8.14.4) with ESMTP id
q134gP5b028094
        for <mjva...@pacbell.net>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:42:27 -0800
Received: by obbup3 with SMTP id up3so4096880obb.15
        for <mjva...@pacbell.net>; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:42:25 -0800
(PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-
id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=KadS+wE1/SUbtLtxB7APzI2tJSLtQtqX8PDSM5okfUg=;
        b=PTF2/S8F4AdhiAlqe2sqlMF7bhAx6y8UCIKJ2bdXn5zqe
+NU0O7tt47qQn2FacZVqL
         oF/Palfw4zzYPduSLlacxzB27zESrd/G0cHBw/
C6jp6RIVkCeSv1PaCOI4uR66jSt7vM
         1ZUV5JrMl8cEetH9QCtSAZw1qAqsLy05P7DlI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.0.106 with SMTP id 10mr5113132obd.
72.1328244145769; Thu,
 02 Feb 2012 20:42:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.93.132 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:42:25 -0800
(PST)
In-Reply-To:
<1328242571.96828.YahooMail...@web83104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <835792.84432...@smtp110.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

<CADs98TqALhzhMBN4pu5eDfo1XrSB0=uhzPyjVYZG6mOD8gw...@mail.gmail.com>
        <1328242571.96828.YahooMail...@web83104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:42:25 -0800
Message-ID:
<CADs98ToKgjaZm8doNMef2V7xiAxjURSBWLxGwnv=CdiU-1g...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mountain Biking
From: kevin avery <bdcyc...@gmail.com>
To: Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=f46d043c077e7bcb1304b807f09c

You, a criminal asking why mountainbikers mountain bike?! WTF You
must be running for political office, you'd qualify for that.
Fuck of you piece of shit!
Â
<block  mjva...@pacbell.net >
Â
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

Okay. But if you can't defend mountain biking, why do you do it???

Â
-- 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.) Please don't put a
cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/

From: kevin avery <bdcyc...@gmail.com>
To: Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Mountain Biking

I don't know where you got my email address but please remove me from
all correspondence.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

Please share with all appropriate and interested parties.

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate
objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike.
That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm
. It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access
to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as
everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain
bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more
harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that
science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the
matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and
wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven
studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2)
in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to
come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided
mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor
mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al
and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently
incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain
biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them,
but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills
small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and
other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids
that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good
about THAT?

For more information: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtbfaq.htm .

--

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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
are fond of!

http://mjvande.nfshost.com

--
 kevin

--
 kevin