Mountain Biking Is Destroying Oakland's Parks!
Jason McCarthy
We haven't heard from you for such a long time. Was worried that you had
been hit by a bus. NOT!!!!!
Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3811061f...@news.pacbell.net...
> October 22, 1999
> Tony Acosta
> Director, Office of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs
> 1520 Lakeside Drive
> Oakland, CA 94612
>
> Re: Mountain Biking Is Destroying Oakland's Parks!
>
> Dear Sir:
>
> In park after park around the world, the pattern is the same:
> mountain bikes are allowed on a few trails, but the bikers are never
> satisfied. They ride off the trails, they build new trails illegally,
> they ignore "No Bikes" signs, or even rip them out of the ground,
> until the public gets fed up and throws them out completely.
>
> Brown's Woods, one of the last stands of native forest in
> central Iowa (southwest of Des Moines), illustrates these issues. It
> was saved from logging and development in 1972 by the S. E. Polk (High
> School) Ecology Club and their sponsor, biology teacher, Kirk Brill,
> for which they won a national award. The students worked hard to earn
> money to build two miles of bike trails through the preserve.
>
> However mountain bikers illegally built 4 1/2 additional miles
> of trail ("bikers have gouged more than six miles of trail, up to 30
> feet wide and a foot or more deep in spots" (Loren Lown, PCCB Natural
> Resources Specialist, 1996)). Wildlife were disappearing, elderly
> hikers were driven out, and vegetation was destroyed. "Already the
> bikers have caused permanent irreparable damage to this pristine area"
> (Ben Van Gundy, PCCB Director). It was called "ecological vandalism".
> Last year, once again, Brill and his students were forced to campaign
> to save the preserve, this time from mountain bikers, and won, getting
> a unanimous vote of the PCCB for a "total and permanent ban on the use
> of mountain bikes" in Brown's Woods.
>
> In Marin County, mountain bikers decided that they didn't have
> enough trails, and secretly built a mountain biking trail on public
> land, which the public then had to remove. The Marin Water District
> decided that it didn't want the additional work and liability of
> managing mountain biking on its watershed lands. When one of their
> rangers told a mountain biker that he couldn't ride there, four
> mountain bikers beat him up!
>
> East Bay Municipal Utility District looked down that road and
> decided that they didn't want to go there, either. They banned bikes
> from their entire watershed. Similar battles have occurred in many
> other areas around the country.
>
> The Golden Gate National Recreation Area gave mountain bike
> access to many of its trails, but that wasn't good enough for the
> mountain bikers. They sued the park in federal court. The court threw
> their suit out on summary judgment, saying that land managers have the
> right to protect the resources under their jurisdiction. In other
> words, there is no "right to mountain bike". (By the way, this puts
> the lie to the mountain bikers' endless whining about being
> "discriminated against". Since everyone is subject to the exact same
> rules, there can be no discrimination. Banning bikes from a park does
> NOT ban bikers, and does not "exclude" them, as they are fond of
> claiming!)
>
> Mountain bikers seem to think that, just because they are able
> to buy a machine that allows them to ride off-road, the public is
> obligated to give them a place to ride it. As these cases
> demonstrated, that is not true!
>
> Mountain bikers cannot be controlled. They say that they will
> educate their peers, and make them obey the rules, but their peers
> ignore them, cursing them and showing them via sign language what they
> think of the rules. Their helmets, goggles, and other gear hide their
> faces and make it impossible to identify them. They travel so fast,
> that they can be caught only by a motorcycle, increasing the expense
> and impact of enforcement. Bike patrols are ineffective, and increase
> impacts still further. One mountain biker told me via email "You
> cannot stop me".
>
> Rampant erosion is only the most visible sign of mountain bike
> damage. Probably their worst harm is caused by the ease with which
> they allow people to get into wildlife habitat areas, greatly
> increasing human presence and human impacts on our precious remaining
> habitat, and driving out most of the wildlife. Mountain bikers have
> also killed many small animals, which they travel too fast to avoid,
> included the federally Threatened Alameda whipsnake. One look at a
> knobby mountain bike tire should tell you that they are up to no good!
> Most discussions of mountain biking ignore wildlife, and pretend that
> the various human user groups are all that matters.
>
> Similarly, mountain bikers intimidate and endanger
> equestrians, children, the elderly, and other hikers, and have already
> driven many of them permanently off of their favorite trails. At the
> very least, meeting a big piece of machinery in the wild, when you are
> there specifically to relax and get away from the headaches of city
> life, destroys your experience.
>
> Mountain bikers must be addicted to their sport (indeed, many
> of them use that word), because they pursue it with the same
> antisocial tenacity of an addict looking for his fix. They attack
> relentlessly anyone who gets in their way. I have been physically
> attacked four times by mountain bikers, for simply informing them
> politely that bikes are not allowed on that trail. I have been
> harassed and threatened by phone, mail, at work, in person, and in
> every other way (including several death threats), for simply telling
> the truth about mountain biking and its effects on wildlife and
> people. They vandalized a car, that they apparently thought belonged
> to me, three times.
>
> The following post to one of their Internet newsgroups is
> typical:
>
> "Subject: Who are our enemies?
>
> On 7 Jul 1997 22:09:53 GMT, in rec.bicycles.off-road robs...@aol.com
> (RobStory) wrote:
>
> We at Bike Magazine are doing an article on mountain biking's worst
> enemies. We know about Mike V., but who are the others? The list would
> include airlines that rip us off to fly bikes, politicians that give
> national forests to logging companies, and whatnot. Any other ideas?
> They can be general or very specific, i.e. someone who prevents bike
> access at a local park.
>
> Let us know who they are and we'll make sure they get their
> comeuppance.
>
> Thanks,
>
> RobS...@aol.com
> Bik...@aol.com"
>
> (I am still waiting for my "comeuppance".)
>
> The conditions in Dimond Canyon Open Space and Joaquin Miller
> Park constitute an emergency. The damage being done by mountain biking
> must be stopped. Immediately! Then we will have the time to assess the
> situation rationally, and, hopefully, repair it. Let's keep bikes on
> roads (preferably paved roads), where they belong, and where they can
> do a lot less harm.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>
> References:
>
> "When they claim that we are cutting illegal trails into the park, a
> destructive, minority of cyclists is sadly guilty as charged." Eric
> Muhler, President, Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay
>
> Mountain Biking Symposium Proceedings. Vancouver, BC: Outdoor
> Recreation Council of British Columbia, c.1990.
>
> Photos of mountain bikers destroying Joaquin Miller Park:
> http://www.photographyreview.com/viewfinder/messages/260.html
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande (including photos of mountain bike
> damage at Mammoth Ski Resort)
>
> ===
> 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
> More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Mike Vandeman
Me
Did you escape from the psychiatric ward again? Just a matter of time before
they track you down again Mikey.
In article <3811061f...@news.pacbell.net>, mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:
> October 22, 1999
>Tony Acosta
>Director, Office of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs
>1520 Lakeside Drive
>Oakland, CA 94612
>
>Re: Mountain Biking Is Destroying Oakland's Parks!
>
>Dear Sir:
>
> In park after park around the world, the pattern is the same:
>mountain bikes are allowed on a few trails, but the bikers are never
>satisfied. They ride off the trails, they build new trails illegally,
>they ignore "No Bikes" signs, or even rip them out of the ground,
>until the public gets fed up and throws them out completely.
<SNIP>
mr ozio
but the old dumb fuck mike vandeman is still here.
glad i live at least 20,000 miles away from anywhere this
shit-for-brains_lefty_treehugging fuck is
i wish somebody would shove cow shit in your face
Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3811061f...@news.pacbell.net...
David Kershaw
mr ozio <dh_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7us15u$9p1qr$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz...
> wow i have not been to this newsgroup for 8 months
> but the old dumb fuck mike vandeman is still here.
> glad i live at least 20,000 miles away from anywhere this
> shit-for-brains_lefty_treehugging fuck is
> i wish somebody would shove cow shit in your face
>
Wilst I tend to agree that Mike has ideas that belong on another planet, I
fail to see why you need to express your own opinions with such bad
language. His offerings are entertaining if nothing else, yours are just
offensive and just show a lack of intelect. Please try and moderate your
output!
Regards David
Peter Witteveen
wrote:
> October 22, 1999
>Tony Acosta
>Director, Office of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs
>1520 Lakeside Drive
>Oakland, CA 94612
>
>Re: Mountain Biking Is Destroying Oakland's Parks!
>
>Dear Sir:
>
> In park after park around the world, the pattern is the same:
>mountain bikes are allowed on a few trails, but the bikers are never
>satisfied. They ride off the trails, they build new trails illegally,
>they ignore "No Bikes" signs, or even rip them out of the ground,
>until the public gets fed up and throws them out completely.
>SNIP
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>
>References:
>
>"When they claim that we are cutting illegal trails into the park, a
>destructive, minority of cyclists is sadly guilty as charged." Eric
>Muhler, President, Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay
>
>Mountain Biking Symposium Proceedings. Vancouver, BC: Outdoor
>Recreation Council of British Columbia, c.1990.
>
>Photos of mountain bikers destroying Joaquin Miller Park:
>http://www.photographyreview.com/viewfinder/messages/260.html
>
>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande (including photos of mountain bike
>damage at Mammoth Ski Resort)
>
>===
>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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
>More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Hey Mike, have you been on holiday?
Haven't seen you here for some time.
lets say welcome back.
Peter,
www.xs4all.nl/~pwitteve/animals.htm
130 species of mammals, birds, fish and insects
Bill Tyner
Me wrote
> He's Back.
> >
> >Re: Mountain Biking Is Destroying Oakland's Parks!
> >
It seems to me that in a complex and populous society there are
few "problems" that can be resolved by means of "simple
solutions". More and more I see managers attempting to use "one
size fits all" solutions when meeting critical problems.
Banning things is one such simple answer. While applying Occams
Razor ideology "looks good" on paper, in our diverse society the
easy and simple answer IMO may never be the right answer. To
ban mountain bikes to save the trails for hikers, and to ban
hikers to save the wildlands for animals are fine examples of
simple but erroneous "answers". Another is banning handguns to
stop murders when only 7% of murders are accomplished with
handguns. Ban dogs from trails for what reason? Ban kids from
trails for the same reason?
I think that the first step in solving problems is to promote
civility. The next is accuracy. I think that customized
solutions are the only way to address genuine problems and that
takes a lot of work (and that will always meet the greatest
resistance). I reject cookbook solutions to problems as well as
sweeping indictments of classes of people (users) while managers
attempt to impose simpleminded edicts (like mass bans of some
activities). It almost seems like a game of justification in
which case all solutions are based more on ideology than common
needs. These are not true solutions. They only cause more
problems.
Bill
Ed Huesers
Rob Gray
Bill Tyner wrote:
>
> Me wrote
> > He's Back.
> > >
> > >Re: Mountain Biking Is Destroying Oakland's Parks!
> > >
>
> It seems to me that in a complex and populous society there are
> few "problems" that can be resolved by means of "simple
> solutions". More and more I see managers attempting to use "one
> size fits all" solutions when meeting critical problems.
> Banning things is one such simple answer. While applying Occams
> Razor ideology "looks good" on paper, in our diverse society the
> easy and simple answer IMO may never be the right answer. To
> ban mountain bikes to save the trails for hikers, and to ban
> hikers to save the wildlands for animals are fine examples of
> simple but erroneous "answers".
While I'm not anti-mountain biking, I do think that MBing should not be
permitted on mountainous trails that are not maintained with gravel,
pavement or wood chips, or some other covering to help prevent erosion.
If the trails were being destroyed quickly by other vehicles such as
SUVs, mini-bikes or ATVs there would be no big argument against banning
such vehicles by most objective folks. I'm not sure why so many people
can't agree to keep mountain bikes off of such trails. I've seen the
tremendous damage that MBs do to steep trails, and it is not pretty. And
no, hiking did not cause the damage that I have seen, these trails were
heavily used for years before anyone ever heard of a mountain bike.
Another is banning handguns to
> stop murders when only 7% of murders are accomplished with
> handguns. Ban dogs from trails for what reason? Ban kids from
> trails for the same reason?
I agree with your general comment regarding the propensity to ban things
nowadays, but people should not expect to be able to invent an "X Game"
type sport such as MBing that is tremendously damaging to steep terrain
and not expect a call to stop such a reckless sport in mountainous
areas. I think the only good solution is to ban MB'ing on steep
public/park land. Instead, private recreational parks could open that
would charge sufficient entry fees to cover the full and complete
maintenance of the trails with gravel or other coverings to prevent
erosion. Public parks simply do not have the resources to repair the
tremendous trail damage done by mountain biking from what I have seen.
>
> I think that the first step in solving problems is to promote
> civility. The next is accuracy. I think that customized
> solutions are the only way to address genuine problems and that
> takes a lot of work (and that will always meet the greatest
> resistance). I reject cookbook solutions to problems as well as
> sweeping indictments of classes of people (users) while managers
> attempt to impose simpleminded edicts (like mass bans of some
> activities). It almost seems like a game of justification in
> which case all solutions are based more on ideology than common
> needs. These are not true solutions. They only cause more
> problems.
> Bill
Well said. There does not have to be a "one size fits all solution" to
any problem. Specific parks and public lands need to be evaluated. If
the landscape is too steep to maintain large numbers of wheeled
vehicles, then there is little else that can be done but to ban the
activity in that location. Other locations with certain soil types that
are not steep terrain may be able to accomodate some MBing. The same
would go for offroad ATV use, SUV use and mini-bike use. There may be
places that such vehicles can be used off road, but my gut tells me that
all wheeled vehicles belong on pavement or gravel. In the end, it comes
down to conservation of our natural resources. If a person cares nothing
for the land, and only wants to ride his bike or ATV, then he won't take
care of the land and heed the effect of his activity on the land. Also,
to all of those mountain bikers, I would ask them a simple question, if
the land that you ride on was your own private land, would you allow
heavy mountain biking traffic on your land? Would you enjoy the
errosion? If the answer to these questions is no, then why are you
riding on the parkland? Do you care about the effect of your recreation
on the land? If not, why not?
Regards,
Rob
--
Rob Gray
http://nj5.injersey.com/~alpha/
Scott Alan Cox
>knobby mountain bike tire should tell you that they are up to no good!
One look at your boot sole would reveal a similar pattern.
This year it's bike tires to outlaw, next year it's hiking boots, the next
year it's your human presence. You're regulating yourself (and everyone
else) right out of nature, Mike. We don't need new laws. We have far too
many already.
Why don't you start a bear-repopulation effort in areas with abused bike
trails?
--
Scott A. Cox
sc...@coxnet.com
The ATM Connection
(512) 626-8286 Austin
(830) 935-3088 Phone
Canyon Lake, Texas
__________________
\|||/
(($)($))
_ooO_(_)_Ooo__
| AUTOMATED |
| TELLER | WWW.COXNET.COM
| MACHINES |
|____$$$$______|
Mike Vandeman wrote in message <3811061f...@news.pacbell.net>...
John Musielewicz
> Why don't you start a bear-repopulation effort in areas with abused bike
> trails?
<snip>
Yeah!! Grizzly bears..
Mike Vandeman
>> > In park after park around the world, the pattern is the
same:
>> >mountain
>> >bikes are allowed on a few trails, but the bikers are never
satisfied.
>> >They
>> >ride off the trails, they build new trails illegally, they ignore
"No
>> >Bikes" signs, or even rip them out of the ground, until the public
>> >gets fed
>> >up and throws them out completely.
>
>This is not an easy cure, but it will work, if people are concerned
for the
>park. On the other hand, it's more likely that they are dealing with
this in
>the same manner the dealt with it here in Eugene. You put up a park,
then
>someone comes out some time later and notices all these trails,
screams
>"murder," the papers pick it up and turn it into a scandal, and they
throw
>everyone out of the park.
>
>As I said, this happened here. This "park" was an old landfill, that
is good
>for nothing much of anything. It's not a wildlife preserve... just a
weed
>covered field... and isn't even covered by indigenous plants. These
kids must
>have spent hundreds of hours, since they had nothing bigger than a
wheel
>barrow and shovels, but they managed to move hundreds of yards of
dirt, and
>built a radical park for their type of riding. Rather than incourage
this
>type of spontaneous work, the authorities were immediately
challanged, so it
>had to be stopped. The fact that no tax money went into this
development, and
>the land had no useful purpose (as shown by the fact that the
modifications
>were done over a several year period), can't change that fact.
>
>Now, if you want to keep the park "safe," then someone must keep a
watch on
>it. At the front of the park, you post a board showing the
registered, legal
>trails. Anyone off these trails is in violation. (This has been
used as a
>defense in some parks, that the trails were not "marked" because
marker signs
>had been torn down. Posting legal paths eliminates this defense.)
>
>Then, as the best deterrent, you confiscate bikes of any violators.
>Preferrably, any that are permenantly confiscated will be shipped an
>uncormfortable distance for resale. This last is the only deterrant
to this
>group. The kids will gladly let mom or dad pay the normal small
fine, but are
>"hurt" when their hot set of wheels is taken away, even if only until
the
>trial.
>
>Best is to set aside an area and let them be creative. This could be
a few
>acres of land that are not being used for other purposes. As
creative as your
>HS was in saving this park, they could use this same creativity to
build
>themselves the park they want, perhaps with the help of some adults.
In a
>short time, a bulldozer or a couple tractors can easily build all the
jumps
>and ramps these kids desire, without allowing for the destruction of
this
>valuable stand of woods.
>
>That, in the end, is the only permenant solution... give them a legal
>alternative. Personally, I'd rather see kids out cycling, than doing
the
>other things that an inactive juvenile can think up, when he has
nothing else
>to do.
I don't agree that there is any worthless land. ALL land was once
valuable habitat. But what you point out has become an oft-used
rationalization for more destruction: "It is already messed up, so
THAT makes it okay to mess it up some more"! That is not logic. It
seems to me that it would make even more sense to say "It is messed
up, so let's RESTORE it to useful habitat", or something else useful.
It sounds logical that they would be satisfied, building their own
mountain biking "park". But it's not true, for two reasons: (1) most
of them enjoy being in nature. It's a MAJOR component of the sport.
Especially, exploring NEW territory. (2) Due to the speed at which
they ride, they don't really experience the land that they travel
through, in more than a superficial way. Consequently, they are soon
bored with any given trail, and are hankering for another one. They
CONSUME nature.
They ALREADY have a legal alternative: ride on existing roads! I don't
see why the public (and NATURE) should be obliged to provide a
continually expanding arena for people to play whatever destructive
game they can think up. Do you?
Bill Tyner
Rob Gray wrote
... I've seen the
> tremendous damage that MBs do to steep trails, and it is not
pretty. And
> no, hiking did not cause the damage that I have seen, these
trails were
> heavily used for years before anyone ever heard of a mountain
bike....
Thank you for your very considered reply Rob.
I have no problem with applying common sense to high use areas.
As to the notion of protection and preservation versus "use" is
where the rubber hits the road. It will always be a nightmare
to determine "how much use is too much". This is one of those
moving target arguments where we get yelled at regardless of the
choices that are made. I think your idea of suitable surfaces
for mtn bikes is functional.
>
>
> I agree with your general comment regarding the propensity to
ban things
> nowadays, but people should not expect to be able to invent an
"X Game"
> type sport such as MBing that is tremendously damaging to
steep terrain
> and not expect a call to stop such a reckless sport in
mountainous
> areas. I think the only good solution is to ban MB'ing on
steep
> public/park land. Instead, private recreational parks could
open that
> would charge sufficient entry fees to cover the full and
complete
> maintenance of the trails with gravel or other coverings to
prevent
> erosion. Public parks simply do not have the resources to
repair the
> tremendous trail damage done by mountain biking from what I
have seen.
Lots of things that people do for sport are "reckless" but
that's not a reason to ban bikes from steep terrain. I think
it's important to concentrate on keeping the discussion at the
level of surface erosion and in some cases perhaps public safety
(protection from bikes on downhill runs). Extreme sports are
all around us. The genie is out of the bottle. Extremists are
getting killed everywhere and the common thread that binds them
is "they were doing what they wanted to do".
Your idea of special areas is a good one. I think that for some
parts of the country it is a must. In high foot traffic areas
it doesn't bother me to regulate the flow. In areas that become
mud holes may be mandatory to prevent that surface degradation
from happening. Give and take is good IMO and I can't
personally see anyone having a problem with designated areas
especially if their user group gained "new" almost unbridled
freedom there.
>
>There may be
> places that such vehicles can be used off road, but my gut
tells me that
> all wheeled vehicles belong on pavement or gravel. In the end,
it comes
> down to conservation of our natural resources. If a person
cares nothing
> for the land, and only wants to ride his bike or ATV, then he
won't take
> care of the land and heed the effect of his activity on the
land. Also,
> to all of those mountain bikers, I would ask them a simple
question, if
> the land that you ride on was your own private land, would you
allow
> heavy mountain biking traffic on your land? Would you enjoy
the
> errosion? If the answer to these questions is no, then why are
you
> riding on the parkland? Do you care about the effect of your
recreation
> on the land? If not, why not?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
Rob, I think we live in far different areas where the needs are
more definitive. I think your thoughtful reply shows that you
see a problem in your domain that I frankly cannot. I live in
So. Or. where there are few people and many virgin wildlands.
There are tons of trails that cannot be biked. Some are hard
enough just to hike!!! I can't walk a mile in your mocs and
therein is one of the problems that managers face when making
decisions with nationwide ramifications let alone common hikers
like me. One thing being tried in my area are "permits", $25.
charged for a yearly parking permit at managed trailheads. I
gladly pay this US Forest Service fee used for trail
maintenance. It's the best deal around. It this year old "test
area" is successful then expect to see it nationwide. Everyone
pays for the maintenance. No one is singled out.
Horses and open range are subjects of heated debate around here.
Horses, most particularly commercial size packing operations
are enormous agents of trail wear. The thing is, they stick
with certain trails and do not become a big problem. Where they
go, I wouldn't recommend to hikers with highly strung esthetic
concerns! In some cases, I've seen trails like the PCT broken
down by hooves stepping off of steep paths. Maintainance is the
key here and it is accomplished with little fanfare. Should
only the esthetes make the rulings? I don't think so.
I guess what it comes down to (with me alone) is that I don't
expect to be the only hiker out there, don't expect an
undisturbed pine needle pathway, don't mind seeing tire tracks,
don't mind seeing hoof prints, don't mind dogs and children. I
go where they aren't or can't go. This place has the room for
all of it to exist with relatively few constraints and maximized
enjoyment for all. There are places where pressure demands more
giving from all sides. To avoid horses and bikes, I go where
they don't go. That's my personal choice. But if I see a bike
20 miles into the puckerbrush, I'll not screw up my face at it,
I'll marvel at it and go back to paying attention to my own
business, tending to my passage through the wilderness.
Respectfully,
Bill
Grants Pass, Or.
James M. Lane
Categories: fruit, dessert , vegetarian
3 large bananas
5 tbs butter
1/4 cup sugar
1/2 cup heavy sweet cream
1/4 cup dry sherry
1 tsp vanilla
Directions:
Sliced peeled bananas lenghthwise.
Sautee in butter until light brown (they will smell wonderful).
Drain and set in shallow cake pan.
Spread a thin layer of sugar (not all!) evenly over bananas.
Whip cream together with remaining ingredients.
Spread cream on bananas.
Chill at least one hour.
Serve cold.
Rob Gray
Bill,
I enjoyed your post, and agree with many of your points. You are correct
that we see different things where we live. When I hike in the larger
natural areas and parks, I see less damage cause by humans. When I hike
in smaller, state parks near where I live that allow mountain biking,
that is where I see alot of errosion damage. One of the problems that I
see where I hike is that the individual cannot ascertain the damage that
he is doing to the land himself, but collectively the people who use the
land have greatly damaged the land by pursuing certain recreational
activities. It really comes down to the overseers of the land coming up
with more innovative solutions such as higher user fees, banning of
certain activities in certain areas, etc..
SCHeckler
to people who owe me money here too? As far as I know, the folks this is
addressed to don't read this newsgroup. You might be better off printing
it, addressing and stamping an envelope, and sending it that way.
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:52:08 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<d/G'd>
Mount N Biker
Btw, what is Vanderboy's Phd. in? Gay and Lesbian studies?
Me
>X-no-archive: yes
>
>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Mount N Biker wrote:
>
>> Btw, what is Vanderboy's Phd. in? Gay and Lesbian studies?
>
>
>*******************************************
>PhD DISSERTATION, at UCLA
>Vandeman, Michael Joseph, 1943-
>Chemical description of food taste preferences among Black-, Japanese-,
>and Mexican-Americans derived by means of nonmetric multidimensional
>scaling
>by Michael Joseph Vandeman. 1973
Now I can understand why he's such an expert on the environment, NOT!
Alan Sasson
Vlar Schreidlocke
O.k., tell the tractor trailer driver to start it up and go ahead and
pull the pin out of your ass.
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:44:18 +0100, "David Kershaw"
<da...@kershaw.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>mr ozio said;-
>
>mr ozio <dh_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7us15u$9p1qr$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz...
>> wow i have not been to this newsgroup for 8 months
>> but the old dumb fuck mike vandeman is still here.
>> glad i live at least 20,000 miles away from anywhere this
>> shit-for-brains_lefty_treehugging fuck is
>> i wish somebody would shove cow shit in your face
>>
Vlar Schreidlocke
developments, buildings, etc. They do far more "damage" than mountain
biking could ever hope to. You could organize a movement against
bulldozers. If you ran a bulldozer down a mountain bike trail just
once it would be trashed, brother. I think in most cities the
bulldozers, dynamite, and various other development techniques are far
outpacing the effects of mountain biking. You may need to focus your
energy where you could really make a difference. Your arguments here
do nothing more than fan the flames. Have you persuaded ONE person to
change over to your point of view? If not, then you may be wasting
your time. It may seem like the right thing to do, but if you arent
actually converting people to your point of view then you may need to
focus on an area where you can actually make a difference. Perhaps you
could start at the root of the problem: birth control. If fewer people
are born then there won't be as much of a need for new development,
therefore more forest, etc.
Do you even consider humans to be a part of nature? It may be that
everything else besides humans is nature and we are really something
else, outside of nature, and whatever humans do is inherently
unnatural. Perhaps we should just step aside and let "nature" exist on
it's own without our help or hindrance. Perhaps some kind of
extermination program is in order. Maybe Hitler had the right idea.
The people who "know best" about the environment could regulate or
exterminate the other "unnatural" humans out of existence.
I live right down the street from a mountain biking course that is
about 4-5 miles in a loop. It has a few side trails and it has
remained in pretty much the same condition for the last 12 years.
Bikers have kept it up nicely. Another greenbelt area in our city has
a trail has been shared by hikers and mountain bikers for at least
twelve years with few complaints or incidents. As you probably already
know, there are countless counter-examples to your postings. It is
fairly easy to adopt any particular point of view and then sort
through the various media channels to assemble only the items that
support your point of view. The people that own the media companies
know this very well. There is no way they have programmed you with
their agenda now, is there? Do a little research into how your point
of view was custom designed for you. It's there if you can focus
closely enough and not get distracted by all of the fluff.
Have you noticed the bulldozers yet, Mike?
Perhaps all of us bikers should trade in our mountain bikes for
bulldozers and other heavy machinery. Then we could really make some
cool trails.
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:04:23 GMT, mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman)
wrote:
>At 08:14 PM 10/23/1999 -0700, Michael A Perry wrote:
>
>>> > In park after park around the world, the pattern is the
>same:
>>> >mountain
>>> >bikes are allowed on a few trails, but the bikers are never
>satisfied.
>>> >They
>>> >ride off the trails, they build new trails illegally, they ignore
>"No
>>> >Bikes" signs, or even rip them out of the ground, until the public
>>> >gets fed
>>> >up and throws them out completely.
>>
Vlar Schreidlocke
burn it. I heard this from someone in a twelve step program as a way
of dealing with unresolved guilt. He seems much better now.
Or, he could send letters to Clinton. He feels your pain and he loves
coming up with new legislation to limit people's behavior. If Congress
won't go for it he can just write out a secret executive order and
have all these damn mountain bikers put in a concentration camp where
they belong.
fleece
I've ridden Brown's Woods and your story is BULL SHIT!!! Those illegal
trails all over the park were made by MOTORCYCLES in the 70's...before
Gary F changing cycling as we know it. And they are there to stay! Now
that mtn biking is illegal there, it still does not keep the
motorcycles out. Last time I went hiking there, there were fresh
tracks...much too wide for mtn bikes. So since they have the speed,
they can get away from whomever is patrolling. Brown's was made for
biking (except the flood plain and mud part) and it should have stayed
that way.
From what I've read so far about Vandeman...this is typical uninformed
crap.
fleece
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Vlar Schreidlocke
very easy to program them with a "cause" and then they filter reality
such that everything fits their particular model of the world. Then
they go out and figure out all these problems that must have new laws
and other government action to solve them. Talk about leverage. It's
sad how many of these preprogrammed "robots" are walking around in
society today. If you watch t.v., tread the paper, listen to the
radio, go to school you get someone else's agenda prepackaged for you
and guess who owns or funds all of these input channels? A relatively
small group of people that are accumulating more and more wealth and
power and are rapidly gaining control of how we even know what reality
is. Is it any wonder that there are people like Mike Vandemann? The
guy is plagued with custom designed thought virii.
Mary Ann Wallenfang
environmental issues. My daily commute on the paved Oak Leaf trail in
Milwuakee takes me past an area along the Milwaukee River three miles
north of downtown that is frequented by MTBs. Some hundreds of square
feet of ground are stripped of undergrowth, though the mature trees have
survived. The clay is so hard from all the riding, it doesn't even erode
much in heavy rain. The area is less sightly than the rest of a very
beautiful trail. But.......I just don't see it as a big time problem.
Sometimes I'm slightly annoyed about it, but there's no material there for
a crusade. Perhaps the problems are worse elsewhere. But I can only
relate to what I see - a problem that is more molehill than mountain.
Ron Wallenfang
Bill Zaumen
Biker) wrote:
> While perusing the M. Vanderman FAQ it dawned on me that Scott Adams, the
> creator of Dilbert used to work at PacBell, the same company Vanderman works
> for. Adams was in the IS department as is Vanderman so it's not too
much of a
> stretch to believe Adams knew Vanderman. M.V. is such a character there's no
> way Adams could resist basing a Dilbert character on him. I think he's Loud
> Howard or perhaps the incompetent boss. What do you think?
I think you've never visited the PacBell facility as I have. It is
big enough that you'd have as much trouble finding MV in it as you'd
have finding his whipsnake in a forest! OK, I'm exaggerating a little,
but ....
Bill
--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
Tom Kenney
>While perusing the M. Vanderman FAQ it dawned on me that Scott Adams, the
>creator of Dilbert used to work at PacBell, the same company Vanderman works
>for. Adams was in the IS department as is Vanderman so it's not too much of a
>stretch to believe Adams knew Vanderman. M.V. is such a character there's no
>way Adams could resist basing a Dilbert character on him. I think he's Loud
>Howard or perhaps the incompetent boss. What do you think?
HaHaHaHaHa!!!!! Loud Howard would have been my guess, too.
Tom Kenney
tke...@bearcomp.com
t...@fluxtech.com
Marc
of a dyed in the wool "eco-fascist".
I'm from Australia, and let me tell you we have had our fair share of people
like Mike Vandemann. However, they have not yet reached the depths of sheer
stupidity and mindless ecological psycho-babble as him. Just take a look at
some of the papers and dissertations he has posted on his web page (I can't
remember the URL, but it is in some earlier postings to this NG).
Mike Vandemann and others of his ilk remind me of a news article I once saw
about a small American religious movement called the Church of Euthanasia
whose slogan was "Save the Planet, Kill Yourself". I believe this is exactly
what Vandemann would have us do judging by the so called "scholarly"
articles he has on his site.
Vlar Schreidlocke <vla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3819b220....@news.texas.net...
Mount N Biker
Austin Chalk
Mount N Biker wrote in message ...
How about Phil?
yoyodog
the main complex and went to the 'general information' desk to ask for MV...
The response was "oh no... not another one looking for that bunghole"
--
Yoyodog
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures", so now,
"Go take a Hike!!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------
yoy...@pouch.com
Bill Zaumen <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nobody-2910...@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net...
> In article <s1kevb...@news.supernews.com>, Mou...@Biker.com (Mount N
> Biker) wrote:
>
> > While perusing the M. Vanderman FAQ it dawned on me that Scott Adams,
the
> > creator of Dilbert used to work at PacBell, the same company Vanderman
works
> > for. Adams was in the IS department as is Vanderman so it's not too
> much of a
> > stretch to believe Adams knew Vanderman. M.V. is such a character
there's no
> > way Adams could resist basing a Dilbert character on him. I think he's
Loud
> > Howard or perhaps the incompetent boss. What do you think?
>
Me
>I dunno about that... I walked in to the main lobby of the main building in
>the main complex and went to the 'general information' desk to ask for MV...
>
>The response was "oh no... not another one looking for that bunghole"
>
Did the receptionist *really* say this? LOL
yoyodog
But it was good to provide you a LOL...
Actually, someone sent me a LMAOWROTF..... over it.
-
Yoyodog
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures", so now,
"Go take a Hike!!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------
yoy...@pouch.com
Me <M...@Nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:s1m0vu...@news.supernews.com...
Bill Zaumen
> I dunno about that... I walked in to the main lobby of the main building in
> the main complex and went to the 'general information' desk to ask for MV...
>
> The response was "oh no... not another one looking for that bunghole"
He is *that* well known to the receptionist ??? Wow !!!
But I was going there on an official, work-related visit, and
actually had to find someone we really wanted to talk to! We probably
didn't find the main lobby, the complex being that large (and we did have
the building number of the person we were visiting, so we just looked
for that).
You can see where Scott Adams got the cubicles from, but I'm not sure
about the cast of characters in his comic strip, not that cubicles are
unique to Pacific Bell.
Bill
>
> --
> Yoyodog
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures", so now,
> "Go take a Hike!!!"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> yoy...@pouch.com
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
>You have a lot of good points, and yes, I do agree that mountain
biking
>has impact. That is why I only stick to well established trails, and
do
>trail maintainance, as I believe that little further harm can be done
in
>the way of erosion, etc. if we all followed this practice.
I don't agree, because of (1) knobby tires, (2) increased distance of
travel, (3) increased speed of travel, and (4) bad role modelling
(making people who see you, or even just your bike) that rough
treatment of wildlife habitat is acceptable. But I have yet to meet a
mountain biker who stopped doing it because of logic. It is very
addicting.
>Of course that is wishful thinking, but that's my stand. As far as
human
>impacts, I agree that ANY human activity can be an adverse event (and
then
>there's mountaintop mining, which is a whole other story, and I am
involved
>in that litigation), but the problem I see is that without hikers,
birders,
>botanists, etc. traversing into wildlands, you would have no one
interested
>in preserving it.
(1) I think that's a myth; where is the proof? (2) It is not an
argument for mountain biking, because you can WALK.
>I will agree that minimal impact protocol is a good thing, and that
>mountain biking accelerated impacts, but that there is a place for
mountain
>biking in todays world, as there is for other activities.
WHY??? If that is true, then why not my sport of bulldozer racing? Or
any other destructive "sport" that someone can think of???
>In reality, I fight battles more on paper, as an activist and law
student,
>and this actually keeps me from going out on my mountain bike and
>participating in the degredation you cite. But were it not for my
years of
>backpacking, mountain biking, rafting, canoeing, etc. I would not
have the
>appreciation and desire that I possess now.
Nonsense. You could WALK, like most true environmentalists do.
>As in all things, what we have here is a delicate balancing act,
which,
>unfortunately, presently have the scales tipped tremendously in favor
of
>humans, to the detriment of millions of other species.
>
>The biggest problem I see though, past those you correctly cite
(roads,
>wildlife use impacts, and adding urban spraw, non-renewable natural
>resource use (coal, oil, emmissions, pollution, and yes, renewable
such
>timber also is a problem), is the human overpoplation problem.
I agree, which is why I have a vasectomy & no kids. But that has
nothing to do with mountain biking.
>We must be realists however, for as we likely would see eye to eye
more
>than we would differ, touting plans that exclude humans from anything
would
>label us radicals and thus no one would listen.
You would be surprized at how many people are not only listening, but
coming up with the same idea independently. "Radical" is relative.
Today's "radical" idea is tomorrow's "common sense" (paraphrasing
Schopenhauer).
Paul
Paul from denver
samurai
> I agree, which is why I have a vasectomy & no kids.
Hey, looks like Darwin was right!!
samuri.
Sean
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> I don't agree, because of (1) knobby tires,
irrelevant
> (2) increased distance of travel,
irrelevant (opinion)
> (3) increased speed of travel,
opinion as well as irrelevant
> and (4) bad role modelling
far fetched opinion and conjecture
>
> (making people who see you, or even just your bike) that rough
> treatment of wildlife habitat is acceptable. But I have yet to meet a
> mountain biker who stopped doing it because of logic. It is very
> addicting.
>
No, because your "facts" and "studies" are nothing more than a pipe dream
into your delusional fantasy of environmental protection.
Vlar Schreidlocke
>
>
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't agree, because of (1) knobby tires,
>
>irrelevant
>
>> (2) increased distance of travel,
>
>irrelevant (opinion)
>
>> (3) increased speed of travel,
>
>opinion as well as irrelevant
>
>> and (4) bad role modelling
>
>far fetched opinion and conjecture
>
>>
>> (making people who see you, or even just your bike) that rough
>> treatment of wildlife habitat is acceptable. But I have yet to meet a
>> mountain biker who stopped doing it because of logic. It is very
>> addicting.
>>
>
What would you say Vandemann is addicted to?
Mike Edgar
<Mou...@Biker.com> writes
>While perusing the M. Vanderman FAQ it dawned on me that Scott Adams, the
>creator of Dilbert used to work at PacBell, the same company Vanderman works
>for. Adams was in the IS department as is Vanderman so it's not too much of a
>stretch to believe Adams knew Vanderman. M.V. is such a character there's no
>way Adams could resist basing a Dilbert character on him. I think he's Loud
>Howard or perhaps the incompetent boss. What do you think?
If this is this the best you can come up with as a posting to a wildlife
ng, I must conclude that you are based upon a character from "One flew
over the Cuckoo's Nest", or perhaps "Conan The Barbarian" ... ?? (the
lead role in the latter of course).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike (ICQ No = 4262003)"the line between human and nonhuman is, like all
lines, one that should be drawn in pencil, so that it can be moved to
accommodate moral evolution and the realization of moral reality."
Prof Gary L Francione. (Threatening Email will be publicly posted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mount N Biker
>In article <s1kevb...@news.supernews.com>, Mount N Biker
><Mou...@Biker.com> writes
>>While perusing the M. Vanderman FAQ it dawned on me that Scott Adams, the
>>creator of Dilbert used to work at PacBell, the same company Vanderman works
>>for. Adams was in the IS department as is Vanderman so it's not too much of a
>>stretch to believe Adams knew Vanderman. M.V. is such a character there's no
>>way Adams could resist basing a Dilbert character on him. I think he's Loud
>>Howard or perhaps the incompetent boss. What do you think?
>
>If this is this the best you can come up with as a posting to a wildlife
>ng, I must conclude that you are based upon a character from "One flew
>over the Cuckoo's Nest", or perhaps "Conan The Barbarian" ... ?? (the
>lead role in the latter of course).
While I'm flattered that you think I resemble a muscle-bound, steroid popping
Austrian with a funny accent I take exception to your implication that my
posting is inappropriate to this group. Any posting that belittles Vanderman
(the King of Spam) and maybe, just maybe, makes it more likely that he
takes his off topic cr*p out of the newsgroups is, in my opinion, completely
warranted.
Mike Edgar
The significant text in the foregoing being "in my (ie your) opinion". A
suggestion for your new Millenium resolution: .. "An open mind and a
closed mouth".
Mount N Biker
In other words your Mikey's comrade in spam.