info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.
43 views
Skip to first unread message
EdwardDolan
Sep 4, 2014, 2:27:16 AM9/4/14
to
Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of
nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!
Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
by George Wuerthner
George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including, Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He has personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.
I just got back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend, Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my mountain bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling without the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously logged forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or other special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain biking.
The key words here are “appropriate location.”
That is the same qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other “thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when driving in snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s appropriate to drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike can climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.
Although I can’t speak for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and the sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In other words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my cycling experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my biking experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary conflict between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.
This is not to say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to the beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to observe nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would agree. When careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail in front of us, not the natural world around us.
Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe natural systems.
It is clear from a reading of the debate around the creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime rationale for wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational uses or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962, Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated clearly: “Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.” In an essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to establish among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to know the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.”
I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should not be permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that are strong candidates for wilderness designation.
Legal. The Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are deemed acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph, is “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of that growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike technology reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those walking or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.
Ecological. Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than a pack of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The cumulative effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in streams, and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more damage than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only increase impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild nature, not to preserve recreational opportunity.
Sociological. Any mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike – shrinks the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily surpassed by those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other users. On heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the experience for other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in the natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of the way of a bike.
Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The more advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our alienation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no different to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine Chapel or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many mountain bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one reason why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even disrespectful.
For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to protect self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological gadgets available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and self-restraint that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including, Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He has personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.
I just got back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend, Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my mountain bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling without the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously logged forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or other special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain biking.
The key words here are “appropriate location.”
That is the same qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other “thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when driving in snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s appropriate to drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike can climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.
Although I can’t speak for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and the sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In other words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my cycling experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my biking experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary conflict between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.
This is not to say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to the beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to observe nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would agree. When careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail in front of us, not the natural world around us.
Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe natural systems.
It is clear from a reading of the debate around the creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime rationale for wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational uses or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962, Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated clearly: “Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.” In an essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to establish among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to know the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.”
I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should not be permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that are strong candidates for wilderness designation.
Legal. The Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are deemed acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph, is “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of that growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike technology reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those walking or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.
Ecological. Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than a pack of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The cumulative effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in streams, and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more damage than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only increase impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild nature, not to preserve recreational opportunity.
Sociological. Any mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike – shrinks the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily surpassed by those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other users. On heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the experience for other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in the natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of the way of a bike.
Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The more advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our alienation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no different to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine Chapel or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many mountain bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one reason why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even disrespectful.
For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to protect self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological gadgets available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and self-restraint that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.
Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by
hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn fucking bikes and walk like
everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when
they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to
mountain biking!
“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great
Blackblade
Sep 4, 2014, 7:44:08 AM9/4/14
to
> Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of
> nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
> for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
> this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
> also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
> lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!
You keep forgetting that I, too, am also a hiker and, perhaps surprisingly to you, I agree with quite a lot of what is written in the article. I have never advocated for universal access ... I've simply pointed out how ridiculous your ubiquitous assertions are. You don't want mountainbikers on ANY trails ... irrespective of wilderness designation.
> nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
> for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
> this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
> also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
> lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!
And, since you take that view, you do exactly what I warned you about; you create extremism to counter it.
If you were prepared to concede that some of the trails where, clearly, you would prefer that there were no mountainbikers were open then, I suspect, the mountainbikers might be rather more open to accepting that other trails were off limits such as wilderness trails.
Of course, this all presupposes that people don't, as has been the case in the past, mis-use wilderness designation simply to try and get mountainbikers off historic trails. If all could agree a 10-year grandfathered rights clause I think that would resolve that one.
But, no, you take an absolutist position which means that even reasonable mountainbikers like me, who do enjoy hiking and do accept the 'cathedral of nature' proposition, find ourselves resolutely opposed to your selfish and irrational response to anything to do with mountainbikes.
If you want mountainbikers to act reasonably then you have to too. Fight us and, guess what, we fight back. Compromise and you will achieve far more of what you want.
EdwardDolan
Sep 21, 2014, 5:49:15 PM9/21/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message news:7a59b858-39b0-44d0...@googlegroups.com...
My position is that there is an inherent conflict between
hikers and bikers on trails just as there would be between bikers and
motorcyclists on trails. It really has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty
of a trail (although the danger factor is a good argument to use to get bikers
off of trails), but to WHY you are on the trail in the first plaice. Purpose is
everything. Very strange that you can’t see it from this
perspective.
Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am not opposed to bikers having their
own trails. He is more right than I am of course, but that is the only
compromise I am willing to make. Bikers use nature as a playground. With natural
spaces becoming ever more rare, it is a desecration to use natural spaces for
playgrounds for adults with toys.
The most precious resource in the world are natural spaces
where what you can do and what you can’t do is closely regulated. Let everyone
do whatever he wants and the resource is destroyed. Walking a trail is the least
harm that can be done. I am far more right than you are. There is nothing
extreme about my position on how we should use natural spaces. The only
extremist here is you.
Blackblade
Sep 23, 2014, 6:10:52 AM9/23/14
to
> Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am not opposed to bikers having their
> own trails. He is more right than I am of course, but that is the only
> compromise I am willing to make. Bikers use nature as a playground. With natural
> spaces becoming ever more rare, it is a desecration to use natural spaces for
> playgrounds for adults with toys.
> The most precious resource in the world are natural spaces
> where what you can do and what you can't do is closely regulated. Let everyone
> do whatever he wants and the resource is destroyed. Walking a trail is the least
> harm that can be done. I am far more right than you are. There is nothing
> extreme about my position on how we should use natural spaces. The only
> extremist here is you.
EdwardDolan
Sep 25, 2014, 12:31:12 AM9/25/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message news:c93f79ab-ed02-4a00...@googlegroups.com...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:
> My position is that there is an inherent conflict between
> hikers and bikers on trails just as there would be between bikers and
> motorcyclists on trails. It really has nothing to do with the ease or
difficulty
> of a trail (although the danger factor is a good argument to use to
get bikers
> off of trails), but to WHY you are on the trail in the first plaice.
Purpose is
> everything. Very strange that you can't see it from this
> perspective.
>> Your purpose is recreational ... just as mine is. You don't
NEED to be there any more than I do. We both choose to be there because we
enjoy it. You are presuming that your recreation is superior to mine ...
but you have no logical basis for doing so. Hiking and biking have similar
environmental impacts so there is no objective measure for preferring one over
the other.
We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a
trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature, which can
only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don’t mix. You
disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would disturb and
destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are doing -
engaging in a sport - but on a different level. All recreations are NOT
equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the expert on
what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.
> Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am not opposed to bikers having their
> own trails. He is more right than I am of course, but that is the only
> compromise I am willing to make. Bikers use nature as a playground.
With natural
> spaces becoming ever more rare, it is a desecration to use natural
spaces for
> playgrounds for adults with toys.
>> An hiking is what ? A job ? !!! Get off your high
horse and accept that you, too, are pursuing a recreational pastime not doing
anything that benefits nature ... hikers create similar levels of erosion.
You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the natural
scene has not been corrupted by mankind’s constructions and practical
usages.
“All recreations are NOT equal. The expert
on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the expert on what trails are for
based on philosophical considerations.” – Ed Dolan
> The most precious resource in the world are natural spaces
> where what you can do and what you can't do is closely regulated. Let
everyone
> do whatever he wants and the resource is destroyed. Walking a trail is
the least
> harm that can be done. I am far more right than you are. There is
nothing
> extreme about my position on how we should use natural spaces. The
only
> extremist here is you.
>> Ed, you froth at the mouth at the mere mention of mountainbikes
and they cause you "mental torture". If that's not extreme I don't know
what is.
I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is you.
Blackblade
Sep 25, 2014, 5:34:01 AM9/25/14
to
> > My position is that there is an inherent conflict between
>
> > hikers and bikers on trails just as there would be between bikers and
>
>
> > motorcyclists on trails. It really has nothing to do with the ease or
> difficulty
>
> > of a trail (although the danger factor is a good argument to use to
> get bikers
>
> > off of trails), but to WHY you are on the trail in the first plaice.
> Purpose is
>
> > everything. Very strange that you can't see it from this
>
> > perspective.
>
> >> Your purpose is recreational ... just as mine is. You don't
> NEED to be there any more than I do. We both choose to be there because we
> enjoy it. You are presuming that your recreation is superior to mine ...
> but you have no logical basis for doing so. Hiking and biking have similar
> environmental impacts so there is no objective measure for preferring one over
> the other.
>
> We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a
> trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature, which can
> only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't mix.
Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for your own purposes.
>
> > hikers and bikers on trails just as there would be between bikers and
>
>
> > motorcyclists on trails. It really has nothing to do with the ease or
> difficulty
>
> > of a trail (although the danger factor is a good argument to use to
> get bikers
>
> > off of trails), but to WHY you are on the trail in the first plaice.
> Purpose is
>
> > everything. Very strange that you can't see it from this
>
> > perspective.
>
> >> Your purpose is recreational ... just as mine is. You don't
> NEED to be there any more than I do. We both choose to be there because we
> enjoy it. You are presuming that your recreation is superior to mine ...
> but you have no logical basis for doing so. Hiking and biking have similar
> environmental impacts so there is no objective measure for preferring one over
> the other.
>
> We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a
> trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature, which can
> only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't mix.
> You
> disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would disturb and
> destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are doing -
> engaging in a sport - but on a different level.
> All recreations are NOT
> equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the expert on
> what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.
You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand that this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required to share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until you accept that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are not axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.
Vandeman is an expert on internet trolling ... and nothing else.
> > Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am not opposed to bikers having their
>
> > own trails. He is more right than I am of course, but that is the only
>
>
> > compromise I am willing to make. Bikers use nature as a playground.
> With natural
>
> > spaces becoming ever more rare, it is a desecration to use natural
> spaces for
>
> > playgrounds for adults with toys.
>
> horse and accept that you, too, are pursuing a recreational pastime not doing
> anything that benefits nature ... hikers create similar levels of erosion.
>
> You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
> only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the natural
> scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and practical
> usages.
Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of themselves, they are a corruption too.
> anything that benefits nature ... hikers create similar levels of erosion.
>
> You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
> only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the natural
> scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and practical
> usages.
If you really cared about nature that much then you would eschew hiking too.
> > The most precious resource in the world are natural spaces
>
> > where what you can do and what you can't do is closely regulated. Let
> everyone
>
> > do whatever he wants and the resource is destroyed. Walking a trail is
> the least
>
> > harm that can be done. I am far more right than you are. There is
> nothing
>
> > extreme about my position on how we should use natural spaces. The
> only
>
> > extremist here is you.
>
>
>
> >> Ed, you froth at the mouth at the mere mention of mountainbikes
> and they cause you "mental torture". If that's not extreme I don't know
> what is.
>
> I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
> here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is you.
I call you an extremist because you are. You want to never have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ... because, unlike you, I'm not an extremist.
EdwardDolan
Oct 26, 2014, 2:43:02 AM10/26/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message news:2c7dc435-a900-487d...@googlegroups.com...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:
> We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a
> trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature,
which can
> only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't
mix.
>> Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for
your own purposes.
Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
of a brain, we are at an impasse.
> You
> disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would
disturb and
> destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are
doing -
> engaging in a sport - but on a different level.
>> I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of conflict.
So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not at all
averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only trails.
However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the entire
trails network for your recreation only.
Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only
compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails. Walkers and
morons on wheels do not mix.
> All recreations are NOT
> equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the
expert on
> what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.
>> I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think
mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do engage in
both.
>> You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand that
this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required to
share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until you accept
that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are not
axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.
I don’t much care which is better – hiking or biking. But I am
stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport and the
other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.
[...]
> You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
> only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the
natural
> scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and practical
> usages.
>> Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made
constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
themselves, they are a corruption too.
>> If you really cared about nature that much then you would eschew
hiking too.
No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the wildlife than
you or I do.
[...]
> I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
> here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is
you.
>> I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote that
the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental Torture".
It is “mental torture” and it would be for you too if you had
a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.
>> I call you an extremist because you are. You want to never
have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ... because,
unlike you, I'm not an extremist.
I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails. You are
trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your own
grandfather would disown you!
Blackblade
Oct 28, 2014, 5:42:17 AM10/28/14
to
> > We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a
>
> > trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature,
> which can
>
> > only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't
> mix.
>
> >> Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
> until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
> case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
> appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for
> your own purposes.
>
> Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
> of a brain, we are at an impasse.
I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ... that's just your opinion.
>
> > trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of nature,
> which can
>
> > only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They don't
> mix.
>
> >> Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
> until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
> case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
> appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for
> your own purposes.
>
> Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
> of a brain, we are at an impasse.
> > You
> > disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would
> disturb and
> > destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you are
> doing -
> > engaging in a sport - but on a different level.
>
> >> I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of conflict.
> So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not at all
> averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only trails.
> However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the entire
> trails network for your recreation only.
>
> Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only
> compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails. Walkers and
> morons on wheels do not mix.
> > All recreations are NOT
> > equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am the
> expert on
> > what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.
>
> >> I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think
> mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do engage in
> both.
>
> >> You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand that
> this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required to
> share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until you accept
> that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are not
> axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.
>
> stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport and the
> other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.
So, they are different. I agree. So what ? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that they are both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment, rather than necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited, publicly owned resource.
> other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.
> > You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
> > only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where the
> natural
> > scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and practical
> > usages.
>
> >> Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made
> constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
> themselves, they are a corruption too.
>
> >> If you really cared about nature that much then you would eschew
> hiking too.
>
> No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
> might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the wildlife than
> you or I do.
> > I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
> > here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is
> you.
>
> >> I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote that
> the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental Torture".
>
> It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
> a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.
> >> I call you an extremist because you are. You want to never
> have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
> feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ... because,
> unlike you, I'm not an extremist.
>
> I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
> extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails. You are
> trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your own
> grandfather would disown you!
EdwardDolan
Oct 29, 2014, 5:23:24 AM10/29/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message
news:a99e997d-ea84-467a...@googlegroups.com...
> > We are doing two entirely separate things when we are using a
>
> > trail. You are doing a sport. I am doing an appreciation of
nature,
> which can
>
> > only be accomplished by moving slowly on your own two feet. They
don't
> mix.
>
> >> Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
> until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
> case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
> appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go
there for
> your own purposes.
>
> Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
> of a brain, we are at an impasse.
>>>> I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is
because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ...
that's just your opinion.
I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
that they can‘t be done on the same trails.
> > You
> > disturb and destroy what I am doing just as a motorcyclist would
> disturb and
> > destroy what you are doing, although he is also doing what you
are
> doing -
> > engaging in a sport - but on a different level.
>
> >> I agree that, in your case, there is a degree of
conflict.
> So, we need to find a compromise. As I've already said, I'm not
at all
> averse to having some hiker only trails and some biker only
trails.
> However, what I am vehemently against is your attempt to annexe the
entire
> trails network for your recreation only.
>
> Bikers will have to get their own trails. That is the only
> compromise I am willing to make. There can be no sharing of trails.
Walkers and
> morons on wheels do not mix.
>>>> No, some trails will be shared and some will be hiker or
biker only as suits local conditions. I don't care what compromises you
are willing, or not willing, to make; your opinion counts for nothing because
you are an extremist and I only ever negotiate with reasonable people.
You only negotiate with people who are willing to meet you
half way, even when half way is the wrong way. If it is simply a matter of
opinions, then I AM asserting that my opinion is infinitely superior to yours
and should be given preference due to its sanity and reasonableness.
Checkmate!
> > All recreations are NOT
> > equal. The expert on environmental impacts is Mr. Vandeman. I am
the
> expert on
> > what trails are for based on philosophical considerations.
>
> >> I have never said that all recreations are equal ... I think
> mountainbiking is a better recreation than hiking ... and, yes, I do
engage in
> both.
>
> >> You keep opining that hiking is better but fail to understand
that
> this is simply your opinion which, therefore, no one else is required
to
> share. You are going to keep flailing around unless and until
you accept
> that different people have different opinions and that, no, you are
not
> axiomatically right anymore than anyone else is ether.
>
> I don't much care which is better - hiking or biking. But I am
> stating as clearly as I can that they are DIFFERENT! One is a sport
and the
> other is an appreciation of nature. Like you, I do both.
>>>> So, they are different. I agree. So what
? What are the logical implications thereof ? Given that they are
both recreations undertaken by people for the purposes of enjoyment, rather than
necessity, they have equal status in terms of rights to use a limited, publicly
owned resource.
So What ? So they CONFLICT – you dumb bastard! What is there
about conflict that you don’t understand? I have already told you that not all
recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they cannot be done
together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
Watson!
> > You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
> > only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where
the
> natural
> > scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and
practical
> > usages.
>
> >> Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made
> constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
> themselves, they are a corruption too.
>
> >> If you really cared about nature that much then you would
eschew
> hiking too.
>
> No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
> might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the
wildlife than
> you or I do.
>>>> So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up
hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy it.
Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
of man’s activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.
> > I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
> > here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is
> you.
>
> >> I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote
that
> the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental
Torture".
>
> It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
> a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.
>>>> You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself !
“Hiking with its trails has the least impact on
nature of any of man’s activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.” –
Ed Dolan
> >> I call you an extremist because you are. You want to
never
> have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
> feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ...
because,
> unlike you, I'm not an extremist.
>
> I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
> extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails.
You are
> trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your
own
> grandfather would disown you!
>>>> If it were your church then you'd have a point ... but
it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public land.
Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are now
objecting because others want to use them for different activities.
I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to
walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for does not
fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other hikers. The
origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for hiking, the
most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a barbarian
not to understand this.
Blackblade
Oct 29, 2014, 7:39:23 AM10/29/14
to
> > >> Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS ! Unless and
> > until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
> > case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
> > appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go
> there for
> > your own purposes.
>
> > Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
>
> > of a brain, we are at an impasse.
>
> >>>> I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is
> because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
> asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ...
> that's just your opinion.
>
> I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
> that they can't be done on the same trails.
Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your opinion of difference is extreme.
> > until you can show that you NEED to be there this is axiomatically the
> > case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your
> > appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go
> there for
> > your own purposes.
>
> > Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
>
> > of a brain, we are at an impasse.
>
> >>>> I have never said they are all equal. The impasse is
> because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on
> asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It isn't ...
> that's just your opinion.
>
> I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
> that they can't be done on the same trails.
> about conflict that you don't understand? I have already told you that not all
> recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they cannot be done
> together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
> Watson!
Again with the hubris. Given that a huge number of trails ARE shared I can dispose of your assertion in five seconds. In most locations it works fine. The conflict, for the most part, exists in your head ... a location I don't care about.
> recreations are equal, They most especially are not equal if they cannot be done
> together on the same trail. One has got to go. Elementary, my dear
> Watson!
> > > You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
> > > only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth where
> the
> > natural
> > > scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and
> practical
>
> > > usages.
>
> > >> Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are man-made
> > constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in and of
> > themselves, they are a corruption too.
>
> > >> If you really cared about nature that much then you would
> eschew
>
> > hiking too.
>
> > No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
> > might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about the
> wildlife than
> > you or I do.
>
> >>>> So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up
> hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy it.
>
> Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
> of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.
> > > I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
> > > here in Nobles County, Minnesota. The only extremist here is
> > you.
>
> > >> I didn't put the words in your mouth ... it was you who wrote
> that
> > the presence of a mountainbike on a trail caused you "Mental
> Torture".
>
> > It is "mental torture" and it would be for you too if you had
> > a decent regard for nature relatively undisturbed by mankind.
>
> >>>> You're doing the exact same disturbing yourself !
>
> "Hiking with its trails has the least impact on
> Ed Dolan
You can say the same thing again ... woop de do. Doesn't make it correct though.
> > >> I call you an extremist because you are. You want to
> never
> > have to share a trail with a mountainbiker. That's just not
> > feasible. I'm not saying you have to share them all though ...
> because,
> > unlike you, I'm not an extremist.
>
> > I repeat myself endlessly on this, but you are the only
> > extremist here with your rank disregard for the sacredness of trails.
> You are
> > trespassing in my church. You are a desecrator and a barbarian. Your
> own
> > grandfather would disown you!
>
> >>>> If it were your church then you'd have a point ... but
> it's not. You're trying to build your 'church' on public land.
> Trails are not sacred; most of them arose as transport in previous
> centuries. You've simply adopted them for your activity and are now
> objecting because others want to use them for different activities.
>
> I welcome others into my church provided they are willing to
> walk. All others can go to Hell! What bikers want to use nature for does not
> fall into my realm, nor does it fall into the realm of any other hikers. The
> origin of trails does not matter, They are now being preserved for hiking, the
> most human and simple of means of connecting with nature. You are a barbarian
> not to understand this.
Message has been deleted
John B. Slocomb
Oct 30, 2014, 8:17:35 PM10/30/14
to
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:08:47 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>Blackblade <mcole...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 29 Oct 2014
>As drooling (along with his false idol vandal man) has shown himself
>repeatedly to be neither sane or reasonable, it is indeed checkmate.
>He's lost.
>
On the other hand, his fantasy has resulted in him having someone
(Blackblade) to talk with. Without his constant bemoaning the use of
"trails" by multiple types of users he would be totally alone.
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>Blackblade <mcole...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 29 Oct 2014
>repeatedly to be neither sane or reasonable, it is indeed checkmate.
>He's lost.
>
On the other hand, his fantasy has resulted in him having someone
(Blackblade) to talk with. Without his constant bemoaning the use of
"trails" by multiple types of users he would be totally alone.
--
Cheers,
John B.
EdwardDolan
Oct 30, 2014, 9:05:38 PM10/30/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message
news:d0893568-0dfa-44bf...@googlegroups.com...
> > >> Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS !
Unless and
> > until you can show that you NEED to be there this is
axiomatically the
> > case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact,
your
> > appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to
go
> there for
> > your own purposes.
>
> > Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog
>
> > of a brain, we are at an impasse.
>
> >>>> I have never said they are all equal. The
impasse is
> because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you
insist on
> asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It
isn't ...
> that's just your opinion.
>
> I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
> that they can't be done on the same trails.
>>>>> Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never
proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails
which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not
working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your
opinion of difference is extreme.
It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same
trail. If you weren’t such a moron, you would understand that simple
fact.
The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment,
they are almost as dumb as you are.
There is just no way around the conflicts. Just as there is no
way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails
--- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to
bikes. Too bad you can’t grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you
might as well be whistling Dixie!
> > > You can do what you do in a million different places. I can
> > > only do what I do in a few rare places left on this earth
where
> the
> > natural
> > > scene has not been corrupted by mankind's constructions and
> practical
>
> > > usages.
>
> > >> Ed, we are talking about trails ! They are
man-made
> > constructions to allow people to get to natural places but, in
and of
> > themselves, they are a corruption too.
>
> > >> If you really cared about nature that much then you
would
> eschew
>
> > hiking too.
>
> > No, that would be taking things too far. However, Mr. Vandeman
> > might find some sense in that proposition. He cares more about
the
> wildlife than
> > you or I do.
>
> >>>> So, you just admitted that you don't want to give up
> hiking ... irrespective of the impact on nature ... because you enjoy
it.
>
> Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
> of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.
>>>>> The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking
have similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ...
one human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint
or a tyre print. Same impact.
Nope, not true because of mechanical advantage, but I leave
the impact on trails to Mr. Vandeman who is the world expert on that
issue.
For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not relevant. Public
lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church
and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it
as a church, but as a race track for your fucking sport of mountain biking. You
are even leading your own children to your fucked-up sport. You will rue that if
and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are
none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.
I must admit I am sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers
on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in
cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on
trails I would piss on their graves.
Blackblade
Nov 3, 2014, 8:36:34 AM11/3/14
to
> > > >> Yes, we're doing different ... RECREATIONS !
> Unless and until you can show that you NEED to be there this is
> axiomatically the case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for your own purposes.
> > > Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog of a brain, we are at an impasse.
>
> > >>>> I have never said they are all equal. The
> impasse is because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It
> isn't ... that's just your opinion.
>
> > I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
> > that they can't be done on the same trails.
>
> >>>>> Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never
> proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails
> which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not
> working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your
> opinion of difference is extreme.
>
> It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same
> trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand that simple
> fact.
Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.
> Unless and until you can show that you NEED to be there this is
> axiomatically the case. Nature doesn't need you to appreciate it ... in fact, your appreciation creates erosion and disturbs nature ... you WANT to go there for your own purposes.
> > > Not all recreations are equal. Until this sinks into your bog of a brain, we are at an impasse.
>
> > >>>> I have never said they are all equal. The
> impasse is because, despite your inability to prove it in any objective way, you insist on asserting that hiking is axiomatically a better recreation. It
> isn't ... that's just your opinion.
>
> > I am asserting that they are different, so different in fact
> > that they can't be done on the same trails.
>
> >>>>> Indeed you are asserting it ... but you've never
> proved it because it's not the case. There are thousands of shared trails
> which work fine. Not all, but most. Your definition of 'not
> working' includes the fact of a bike simply being there so, axiomatically, your
> opinion of difference is extreme.
>
> It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the same
> trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand that simple
> fact.
The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world it has to be the preferred option.
You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone care about you and your wants ?
> massively hubristic. As such, I will negotiate, if I need to do so, with
> the land managers. You can do whatever you wish ... I don't care because
> you don't own the trails and have no power to determine how they're used.
>
> The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment,
> they are almost as dumb as you are.
You know something ? When everyone you're speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.
> the land managers. You can do whatever you wish ... I don't care because
> you don't own the trails and have no power to determine how they're used.
>
> The land managers will have to be educated. For the moment,
> they are almost as dumb as you are.
As I have said, and provided locations to back it up, sharing works fine in a lot of places.
> Just as there is no
> way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be permitted on hiking trails
> --- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose which applies equally to
> bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary rationale. Until you do, you
> might as well be whistling Dixie!
> Public
> lands with its trails must be managed for best use. Trails are indeed my church
> and the church of all hikers. It is not your church because you do not regard it
> as a church, but as a race track for your fucking sport of mountain biking.
If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own land. On public lands, you have to share.
> You
> are even leading your own children to your fucked-up sport. You will rue that if
> and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have warned you. There are
> none so stupid as those who will not heed a warning.
I find your references to children totally and utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't, because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone else.
> I must admit I am sociopath when it comes to mountain bikers
> on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead and rotting in
> cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on
> trails I would piss on their graves.
EdwardDolan
Nov 8, 2014, 12:22:46 AM11/8/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message news:7a952b25-fb94-4a2e...@googlegroups.com...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:
> It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the
same
> trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand
that simple
> fact.
>> Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for
one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.
But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
other words, your opinion ain’t worth shit!
>> The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open
more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing
creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world
it has to be the preferred option.
The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off of ALL
trails used by hikers.
>> You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't
possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you
should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given
that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone
care about you and your wants ?
The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere, most
especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a Fucking Dumb Asshole
you are!
[...]
> The land managers will have to be educated. For the
moment,
> they are almost as dumb as you are.
>> You know something ? When everyone you're
speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong
and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a
redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner
who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.
The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but they are
also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power to bear despite
whatever their original mission might have been. It is why even our National
Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools like you.
[...]
> Just as there is no
> way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be
permitted on hiking trails
> --- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose
which applies equally to
> bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary
rationale. Until you do, you
> might as well be whistling Dixie!
>> I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing
certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed.
However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should
be.
Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as motorcycles
and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for walkers.
[...]
> For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not
relevant.
>> Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own
something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am
not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous
minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their
agenda.
The public lands are being managed by governmental agencies
which have very specific missions which are written into law. National Parks and
Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than National Forests and BLM
areas because of their different missions. The only idiot here, as usual, is
yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding their lawful
missions.
> Public
> lands with its trails must be managed for best use.
Trails are indeed my church
> and the church of all hikers. It is not your church
because you do not regard it
> as a church, but as a race track for your fucking sport
of mountain biking.
>> The land managers are doing their best to manage for
genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks
service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include
satisfying one Ed Dolan !
>> If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own
land. On public lands, you have to share.
If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the very
first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails used by hikers. You can’t
share what can’t be shared.
> You
> are even leading your own children to your fucked-up
sport. You will rue that if
> and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have
warned you. There are
> none so stupid as those who will not heed a
warning.
>> I will take no lessons from you in terms of
safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still
displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in
solitude.
Some roads are dangerous, others aren’t. Young people who ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads regardless of your nutty
ideas.
>> I find your references to children totally and
utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or
serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity
preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't,
because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone
else.
The only pathology being presented here is yours. You don’t
even care enough about the safety of your own children to prevent them from
riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever happens.
Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
contemplate:
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/11568462.12_year_old_boy_airlifted_to_hospital_with_spinal_injuries_after_Darwen_Moors_accident/
12-year-old boy airlifted to hospital with spinal injuries after
Darwen Moors accident
The teenage boy was flown to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital in
the air ambulance
share on Facebook
First published Thursday 30 October 2014 in News
Last updated 07:23 Thursday 30 October 2014 by Lawrence Dunhill,
Health Reporter
MOUNTAIN bikers have been urged to take care on slippery gravel track
on Darwen Moors after a 12-year-old boy was airlifted to hospital.
The boy was knocked unconscious and suffered suspected head, spinal
and pelvic injuries after falling in an area known as 'Lyon's Den' on
Tuesday afternoon.
It comes after a similar accident on the track earlier this month, in
which a 34-year-old man suffered an open fracture to his elbow.
MORE TOP STORIES:
Bolton Mountain Rescue Team attended Tuesday's incident at about 3pm,
where they stretchered the boy to an air ambulance, before he was
flown to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital.
The boy, from Darwen, had been out riding with his dad and younger brother.
There was a torrential downpour as the emergency crews arrived, so
they deployed a casualty shelter at the scene whilst treatment was
given by the air ambulance staff.
Steve Fletcher, a member of the rescue team, said: "We've had quite a
few mountain biking incidents in that area around Tockholes.
"I'm a mountain biker myself and that bit of track is quite stony and
loose and can get very greasy.
"I would urge people to take extra care there, especially when it's wet."
There have now been nine mountain biking accidents attended by Bolton
Mountain Rescue Team so far this year, compared to 10 during 2013.
A spokesman for the North West Air Ambulance was unable to give
further details of the boy's condition.
However, he was thought to have regained consciousness.
12-year-old boy airlifted to hospital with spinal injuries after
Darwen Moors accident
The teenage boy was flown to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital in
the air ambulance
share on Facebook
First published Thursday 30 October 2014 in News
Last updated 07:23 Thursday 30 October 2014 by Lawrence Dunhill,
Health Reporter
MOUNTAIN bikers have been urged to take care on slippery gravel track
on Darwen Moors after a 12-year-old boy was airlifted to hospital.
The boy was knocked unconscious and suffered suspected head, spinal
and pelvic injuries after falling in an area known as 'Lyon's Den' on
Tuesday afternoon.
It comes after a similar accident on the track earlier this month, in
which a 34-year-old man suffered an open fracture to his elbow.
MORE TOP STORIES:
Bolton Mountain Rescue Team attended Tuesday's incident at about 3pm,
where they stretchered the boy to an air ambulance, before he was
flown to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital.
The boy, from Darwen, had been out riding with his dad and younger brother.
There was a torrential downpour as the emergency crews arrived, so
they deployed a casualty shelter at the scene whilst treatment was
given by the air ambulance staff.
Steve Fletcher, a member of the rescue team, said: "We've had quite a
few mountain biking incidents in that area around Tockholes.
"I'm a mountain biker myself and that bit of track is quite stony and
loose and can get very greasy.
"I would urge people to take extra care there, especially when it's wet."
There have now been nine mountain biking accidents attended by Bolton
Mountain Rescue Team so far this year, compared to 10 during 2013.
A spokesman for the North West Air Ambulance was unable to give
further details of the boy's condition.
However, he was thought to have regained consciousness.
> I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to mountain
bikers
> on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead
and rotting in
> cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers
who ride their bikes on
> trails I would piss on their graves.
>> Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land
I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are
they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no
one is riding on your trails at all.
Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours for
doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers, not to Asshole
mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world knew that – even your
sainted grandfather!
EdwardDolan
Nov 8, 2014, 12:22:57 AM11/8/14
to
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message news:a0d55al0r2704m3vm...@4ax.com...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:
>> Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
>> of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only
footprints.
>
>>> The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have
similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one
human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a
tyre print. Same impact.
What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the tires of bikes
on trails is much more damaging then any hiker’s boots.
>>> Everything I've seen in the way of research actually shows
that if
suitable tyres are used, the damage caused by cyclists is less than
that caused by hikers.
Rolling does less damage than stomping, and hiking boots are
particularly damaging.
You obviously have not seen how bikers ride their bikes on
trails. Speed is everything and they regard a trail as nothing but an obstacle
course for their fucking sport. Try to get real if that is even remotely
possible.
[...]
>>> Particularly when the footprints are deeper than the tyre
prints.
I've never seen cyclists kick steps out of slopes to make them easier
to climb, but hikers seem to regard it as normal and reasonable
behaviour to hack holes in the environment.
Hikers are not interested in improving trails, only in
navigating them without falling. Bikers on the other hand are not only into
“improving” trails, but of making entirely separate trails strictly for their
own use against park policy. They are notorious for that. It is why I call them
criminals. You must be living in some kind of crazy fantasyland.
[...]
>>> Heck, he can't even agree with himself, never mind anyone
else.
So the constituency he represents is only himself (and maybe the
convicted criminal vandal man).
Try to post only content. You will not win any name calling
contest with me.
EdwardDolan
Nov 8, 2014, 12:23:01 AM11/8/14
to
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message news:v2l55ad1gj541j7p4...@4ax.com...
[...]
> On the other hand, his fantasy has resulted in him having
someone
(Blackblade) to talk with. Without his constant bemoaning the use of
"trails" by multiple types of users he would be totally alone.
I have never known a hiker who will admit to liking bikers on
trails. I am far from alone. I simply say what all other hikers are thinking but
are too polite to voice. Hikers are gentlemen; bikers are thugs and criminals
... besides being the scum of the earth of course.
Blackblade
Nov 10, 2014, 10:12:39 AM11/10/14
to
> > It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on the
> same
> > trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand
> that simple
> > fact.
>
> >> Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for
> one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.
>
> But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
> other words, your opinion ain't worth shit!
Or, to phrase it differently, you can't tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that approach </sarcasm>.
> same
> > trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would understand
> that simple
> > fact.
>
> >> Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which I, for
> one, don't share and I doubt too many others do either.
>
> But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
> other words, your opinion ain't worth shit!
> >> The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we open
> more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we share. Sharing
> creates some issues but unless we want to use up even more of the natural world
> it has to be the preferred option.
>
> The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off of ALL
> trails used by hikers.
> >> You have opined, again and again, that sharing isn't
> possible. Since it works quite well in most locations I guess what you
> should have written is that sharing isn't possible ... for you. And, given
> that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why the **** should anyone
> care about you and your wants ?
>
> The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere, most
> especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a Fucking Dumb Asshole
> you are!
> > The land managers will have to be educated. For the
> moment,
> > they are almost as dumb as you are.
>
> >> You know something ? When everyone you're
> speaking with, in a position of some authority, is telling you that you're wrong
> and that you need to share ... they just might be right. You're not a
> redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed, you're a selfish loner
> who just wants what you want and b****r everyone else.
>
> The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but they are
> also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power to bear despite
> whatever their original mission might have been. It is why even our National
> Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools like you.
Or are you spouting nonsense again ?
> > Just as there is no
> > way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be
> permitted on hiking trails
> > --- because of the conflicts of both means and purpose
> which applies equally to
> > bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary
> rationale. Until you do, you
> > might as well be whistling Dixie!
>
> >> I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing
> certain spaces because of the huge difference in power, weight and speed.
> However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and should
> be.
>
> Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as motorcycles
> and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for walkers.
> > For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not
> relevant.
>
> >> Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I own
> something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have certain rights. I am
> not going to accept that I have to pay for something which a self-righteous
> minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't happen to suit their
> agenda.
>
> The public lands are being managed by governmental agencies
> which have very specific missions which are written into law. National Parks and
> Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than National Forests and BLM
> areas because of their different missions. The only idiot here, as usual, is
> yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding their lawful
> missions.
I don't read, in there, anything about preserving the chosen recreation of one Mr E Dolan. So, no, the land managers are staying true to their actual mission rather than the one you would like them to adopt.
> > Public
> > lands with its trails must be managed for best use.
> Trails are indeed my church
> > and the church of all hikers. It is not your church
> because you do not regard it
> > as a church, but as a race track for your fucking sport
> of mountain biking.
>
> >> The land managers are doing their best to manage for
> genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated objectives of the parks
> service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't specifically include
> satisfying one Ed Dolan !
>
> >> If you want to have a 'church' then do it on your own
> land. On public lands, you have to share.
>
> If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the very
> first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails used by hikers. You can't
> share what can't be shared.
> > You
> > are even leading your own children to your fucked-up
> sport. You will rue that if
> > and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I have
> warned you. There are
> > none so stupid as those who will not heed a
> warning.
>
> >> I will take no lessons from you in terms of
> safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more dangerous but would still
> displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want to enjoy the trails in
> solitude.
>
> Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who ride
> bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads regardless of your nutty
> ideas.
> >> I find your references to children totally and
> utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it appropriate to wish death or
> serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow recreational activity
> preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but of course you won't,
> because you genuinely don't understand, much less care, about anyone
> else.
>
> The only pathology being presented here is yours. You don't
> even care enough about the safety of your own children to prevent them from
> riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever happens.
> Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
> contemplate:
Or would you prefer to read about road bike deaths ?
What a sick puppy you are.
> > I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to mountain
> bikers
> > on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be dead
> and rotting in
> > cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain bikers
> who ride their bikes on
> > trails I would piss on their graves.
>
> >> Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my land
> I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these AREN'T your trails are
> they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land ! So, you can relax ... no
> one is riding on your trails at all.
>
> Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours for
> doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers, not to Asshole
> sainted grandfather!
No, Ed, the trails do not belong to hikers. They belong to people ... and you can state the converse as many times as you like ... but it's still untrue.
Blackblade
Nov 10, 2014, 10:17:10 AM11/10/14
to
> >> Hiking with its trails has the least impact on nature of any
> >> of man's activities. Take only pictures, leave only
> footprints.
>
> >>> The science suggests that mountainbiking and hiking have
> similar impacts. Unsurprising since the power is exactly the same ... one
> human. I very much doubt whether nature cares whether it's footprint or a
> tyre print. Same impact.
>
> What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
> expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the tires of bikes
> on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.
Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?
EdwardDolan
Nov 13, 2014, 11:41:06 PM11/13/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message
news:e7ed5721-4769-4acd...@googlegroups.com...
> > It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on
the
> same
> > trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would
understand
> that simple
> > fact.
>
> >> Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which
I, for
> one, don't share and I doubt too many others do
either.
>
> But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
> other words, your opinion ain't worth shit!
>>>> Or, to phrase it differently, you can't
tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice
going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that
approach </sarcasm>.
When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever
going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.
> >> The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we
open
> more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we
share. Sharing
> creates some issues but unless we want to use up even
more of the natural world
> it has to be the preferred option.
>
> The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off
of ALL
> trails used by hikers.
>>>> I'm sure it is your preferred option ... and
that's why I don't care one iota what you want anymore. With every
utterance you show yourself as the entitled, hubristic, selfish and ignorant
individual you are.
“When you endlessly repeat yourself that is
all you are ever going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.” – Ed
Dolan
> >> You have opined, again and again, that sharing
isn't
> possible. Since it works quite well in most
locations I guess what you
> should have written is that sharing isn't possible ...
for you. And, given
> that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why
the **** should anyone
> care about you and your wants ?
>
> The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere,
most
> especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a
Fucking Dumb Asshole
> you are!
>>>> Works fine in Swinley Forest, Porridge Pot,
Minley Manor, Forest of Dean, Exmoor, Scotland .. and many other places I'm
aware of.
It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
they hate your guts!
> > The land managers will have to be educated. For the
> moment,
> > they are almost as dumb as you are.
>
> >> You know something ? When everyone you're
> speaking with, in a position of some authority, is
telling you that you're wrong
> and that you need to share ... they just might be
right. You're not a
> redoubtable missionary for the sanctity of the trails Ed,
you're a selfish loner
> who just wants what you want and b****r everyone
else.
>
> The land mangers are not only as dumb as you are, but
they are
> also cowards. They cave to whomever brings the most power
to bear despite
> whatever their original mission might have been. It is
why even our National
> Parks are forever in jeopardy of being ruined by fools
like you.
>>>> But I thought you claimed that hikers were
massively in the majority Ed ? I think you said that there were between
10,000 and 1,000,000 hikers for every biker. As such, surely you would
have more power to bring to bear ?
As with everything under the sun organization is
the key. There are of course many times more hikers than bikers and those
numbers will tell in the end.
>>>> Or are you spouting nonsense again
?
> > Just as there is no
> > way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be
> permitted on hiking trails
> > --- because of the conflicts of both means and
purpose
> which applies equally to
> > bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary
> rationale. Until you do, you
> > might as well be whistling Dixie!
>
> >> I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing
> certain spaces because of the huge difference in power,
weight and speed.
> However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and
should
> be.
>
> Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as
motorcycles
> and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for
walkers.
>>>> No, Ed, trails are for people.
“Or are you spouting nonsense again ?” – your own
words!
> > For the umpteenth time, who owns what is not
> relevant.
>
> >> Of course it's relevant you idiot. If I
own
> something and have to pay for its' upkeep then I have
certain rights. I am
> not going to accept that I have to pay for something
which a self-righteous
> minority then informs me I cannot use because it doesn't
happen to suit their
> agenda.
>
> The public lands are being managed by governmental
agencies
> which have very specific missions which are written into
law. National Parks and
> Wilderness Areas are managed quite differently than
National Forests and BLM
> areas because of their different missions. The only idiot
here, as usual, is
> yourself ... and the land mangers who are not upholding
their lawful
> missions.
>>>> The National Parks Service mission statement
says "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal
areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . by such means
and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments
and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of
the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations."
>>>> I don't read, in there, anything about
preserving the chosen recreation of one Mr E Dolan. So, no, the land
managers are staying true to their actual mission rather than the one you would
like them to adopt.
The key phrase is “in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired”. I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area ethic
compared to the National Park one.
> > Public
> > lands with its trails must be managed for best use.
> Trails are indeed my church
> > and the church of all hikers. It is not your church
> because you do not regard it
> > as a church, but as a race track for your fucking
sport
> of mountain biking.
>
> >> The land managers are doing their best to manage
for
> genuinely best use, as defined by the clearly stated
objectives of the parks
> service. Funnily enough, those objectives don't
specifically include
> satisfying one Ed Dolan !
>
> >> If you want to have a 'church' then do it on
your own
> land. On public lands, you have to
share.
>
> If the land managers were doing their jobs properly, the
very
> first thing they would do is ban bikes from all trails
used by hikers. You can't
> share what can't be shared.
>>>> You can't share ... that's the fundamental
issue. The land managers are doing their jobs just fine and most people
can share without any major issues. Only arrogant and sociopathic
individuals think they can have everything they want and damn everyone
else.
The reports of conflicts are pouring in by the thousands. Note
the latest wrinkle:
From: "Janet Peterson"
<Peterso...@att.net>
Subject: RE: Eagles at Lake Folsom
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:45:18 -0800
ParkWatchReport is a web-based service that can now be accessed from any smartphone, laptop, desktop computer, tablet or iPad. It serves the needs of land managers who operate on small budgets and limited staff by collecting reports from the public electronically (including photos and GPS locations) of incidents like speeding bikes, fallen trees, untidy bathrooms, leaky water fountains, injured wildlife, fire hazards, and safety concerns.
Until now a comprehensive data base of such reports has never been developed and as a result problems like trail conflict have never truly been addressed. Without hard facts land managers have a difficult time 1) finding/identifying offenders 2) justifying additional law enforcement support, 3) getting greater restrictions placed on offensive/dangerous types trail users, 4)boosting fines to an effective point, etc.
ParkWatchReport gives the public the ability to deliver an accurate, first-hand account of what life is like on our public trails. They are dangerous and people who are justifiably concerned about injuries like equestrians, senior citizens, mom’s with youngsters, dog walkers, etc no longer enjoy using the trails. This is sad. To bring civility and enjoyment back the public can file a report in under three minutes from their smartphone and a permanent record of their report is 1) retained by the land manager with jurisdiction and 2) by ParkWatchReport, LLC. The offense is now on record and a land manger is informed and therefore accountable.
The goal of ParkWatchReport is to see rules, restrictions, penalties and trail designations revised to reflect what is in the best interest of the majority of trails users by providing land managers with the irrefutable and unbiased data they need substantiate the needed changes.
This is the short version of the answer to your question “how does it work?” For a longer answer, I’ve attached an Overview, a draft sent to Trail Blazer Magazine, and a flier for potential sponsors for the Mt Tam Site. In addition to the parkwatchreport.com site you might also like to check out the Eldorado.parkwatchreport.com site which was launched Nov 1 by the El Dorado Parks and Rec dept.
Thanks for your interest.
Janet Peterson
ParkWatchReport
(530) 878-4750
Ja...@ParkWatchReport.com
Subject: RE: Eagles at Lake Folsom
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:45:18 -0800
ParkWatchReport is a web-based service that can now be accessed from any smartphone, laptop, desktop computer, tablet or iPad. It serves the needs of land managers who operate on small budgets and limited staff by collecting reports from the public electronically (including photos and GPS locations) of incidents like speeding bikes, fallen trees, untidy bathrooms, leaky water fountains, injured wildlife, fire hazards, and safety concerns.
Until now a comprehensive data base of such reports has never been developed and as a result problems like trail conflict have never truly been addressed. Without hard facts land managers have a difficult time 1) finding/identifying offenders 2) justifying additional law enforcement support, 3) getting greater restrictions placed on offensive/dangerous types trail users, 4)boosting fines to an effective point, etc.
ParkWatchReport gives the public the ability to deliver an accurate, first-hand account of what life is like on our public trails. They are dangerous and people who are justifiably concerned about injuries like equestrians, senior citizens, mom’s with youngsters, dog walkers, etc no longer enjoy using the trails. This is sad. To bring civility and enjoyment back the public can file a report in under three minutes from their smartphone and a permanent record of their report is 1) retained by the land manager with jurisdiction and 2) by ParkWatchReport, LLC. The offense is now on record and a land manger is informed and therefore accountable.
The goal of ParkWatchReport is to see rules, restrictions, penalties and trail designations revised to reflect what is in the best interest of the majority of trails users by providing land managers with the irrefutable and unbiased data they need substantiate the needed changes.
This is the short version of the answer to your question “how does it work?” For a longer answer, I’ve attached an Overview, a draft sent to Trail Blazer Magazine, and a flier for potential sponsors for the Mt Tam Site. In addition to the parkwatchreport.com site you might also like to check out the Eldorado.parkwatchreport.com site which was launched Nov 1 by the El Dorado Parks and Rec dept.
Thanks for your interest.
Janet Peterson
ParkWatchReport
(530) 878-4750
Ja...@ParkWatchReport.com
As a side note, Mt Tamalpais will be subscribing to the newest
version of ParkWatchReport in order to collect data on the dangerous and illegal
activities on the trails and the park in general. This should prove to be
very helpful to both the rangers and the hikers/equestrians that have been run
off the Mt Tam trails by mt bikers.
> > You
> > are even leading your own children to your fucked-up
> sport. You will rue that if
> > and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I
have
> warned you. There are
> > none so stupid as those who will not heed a
> warning.
>
> >> I will take no lessons from you in terms of
> safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more
dangerous but would still
> displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want
to enjoy the trails in
> solitude.
>
> Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who
ride
> bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads
regardless of your nutty
> ideas.
>>>> Mine don't ... they ride exclusively on
trails. No roads.
Your kids will soon relate more to their peer group than a nut
like you.
> >> I find your references to children totally and
> utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it
appropriate to wish death or
> serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow
recreational activity
> preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but
of course you won't,
> because you genuinely don't understand, much less care,
about anyone
> else.
>
> The only pathology being presented here is yours. You
don't
> even care enough about the safety of your own children to
prevent them from
> riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever
happens.
>>>> So, how is it uncaring to allow them to cycle
in a SAFER location ? Not safe, I know that, but far far safer than on the
road.
Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.
> Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
> contemplate:
>>>> Shall I reciprocate with 3 reports of hiker
problems for you to contemplate ? They do, after all, outnumber the biking
ones by a factor of roughly 3.
>>>> Or would you prefer to read about road bike
deaths ?
>>>> What a sick puppy you are.
I will enjoy reading some day that you have managed to kill
yourself by doing something stupid – like riding your bike on a hiking trail.
> > I must admit I am a sociopath when it comes to
mountain
> bikers
> > on my trails. If looks could kill, they would all be
dead
> and rotting in
> > cemeteries. As a sign of my respect for mountain
bikers
> who ride their bikes on
> > trails I would piss on their graves.
>
> >> Well, yes, if someone was hiking or riding on my
land
> I might feel rather aggrieved too ... oh no, wait, these
AREN'T your trails are
> they Ed ? No, in fact they're public land !
So, you can relax ... no
> one is riding on your trails at all.
>
> Trails on public lands are OUR trails, They are not yours
for
> doing whatever you want on them. Trails belong to hikers,
not to Asshole
> mountain bikers. A generation ago everyone in the world
knew that - even your
> sainted grandfather!
>>>> No, Ed, the trails do not belong to
hikers. They belong to people ... and you can state the converse as many
times as you like ... but it's still untrue.
People ... doing what! You make no sense
whatever.
EdwardDolan
Nov 14, 2014, 12:27:40 AM11/14/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message news:80d769ee-8118-40b2...@googlegroups.com...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:
> What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
> expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the
tires of bikes
> on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.
>>>> It would be all the real science that vandeman tries, and
fails, to discredit in this article http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm
>>>> Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair
quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?
What “real research” would that be?
Blackblade
Nov 14, 2014, 9:04:12 AM11/14/14
to
> > > It is never best use to permit cycling and hiking on
> the
> > same
> > > trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would
> understand
> > that simple
> > > fact.
>
> > >> Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which
> I, for
> > one, don't share and I doubt too many others do
> either.
>
> > But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
> > other words, your opinion ain't worth shit!
>
> >>>> Or, to phrase it differently, you can't
> tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice
> going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that
> approach </sarcasm>.
>
> When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever
> going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.
This conversation is never going to move on Ed because you are impervious to reason. You think you're right and all the facts and logic in the world won't sway you.
> the
> > same
> > > trail. If you weren't such a moron, you would
> understand
> > that simple
> > > fact.
>
> > >> Why Ed ? That's just your opinion. Which
> I, for
> > one, don't share and I doubt too many others do
> either.
>
> > But your opinion is that of an Asshole Mountain Biker. In
> > other words, your opinion ain't worth shit!
>
> >>>> Or, to phrase it differently, you can't
> tackle the logic so you resort to profanity and ad hominem ... again. Nice
> going Ed, I'm sure you'll convert thousands to your point of view with that
> approach </sarcasm>.
>
> When you endlessly repeat yourself that is all you are ever
> going to get. Learn how to move the conversation along.
> > >> The fundamental dichotomy facing us is either we
> open
> > more and more trails to suit single-use groups or ... we
> share. Sharing
> > creates some issues but unless we want to use up even
> more of the natural world
> > it has to be the preferred option.
>
> > The preferred option is to kick your dumb biker ass off
> of ALL
> > trails used by hikers.
>
> >>>> I'm sure it is your preferred option ... and
> that's why I don't care one iota what you want anymore. With every
> utterance you show yourself as the entitled, hubristic, selfish and ignorant
> individual you are.
>
> "When you endlessly repeat yourself that is
> Dolan
Learn some humility. You are not great, you are no saint and you need to at least try and understand that there is no option but to compromise.
> > >> You have opined, again and again, that sharing
> isn't
> > possible. Since it works quite well in most
> locations I guess what you
> > should have written is that sharing isn't possible ...
> for you. And, given
> > that you have proven yourself selfish to the core, why
> the **** should anyone
> > care about you and your wants ?
>
> > The fact is that sharing does not work well anywhere,
> most
> > especially if trails become the least bit crowded. What a
> Fucking Dumb Asshole
> > you are!
>
> >>>> Works fine in Swinley Forest, Porridge Pot,
> Minley Manor, Forest of Dean, Exmoor, Scotland .. and many other places I'm
> aware of.
>
> It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
> they hate your guts!
> >>>> Or are you spouting nonsense again
> ?
>
> > > Just as there is no
> > > way that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles can be
> > permitted on hiking trails
> > > --- because of the conflicts of both means and
> purpose
> > which applies equally to
> > > bikes. Too bad you can't grasp this most elementary
> > rationale. Until you do, you
> > > might as well be whistling Dixie!
>
> > >> I agree, you can't have powered vehicles sharing
> > certain spaces because of the huge difference in power,
> weight and speed.
>
> > However, clearly, some spaces/places can be shared .. and
> should
> > be.
>
> > Bicycles for hikers fall into the same class as
> motorcycles
> > and all-terrain vehicles. Trails are strictly for
> walkers.
>
> >>>> No, Ed, trails are for people.
>
> words!
No. Just sense that you don't want to hear.
I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.
> > > You
> > > are even leading your own children to your fucked-up
> > sport. You will rue that if
> > > and when they are injured, paralyzed or killed. I
> have
> > warned you. There are
> > > none so stupid as those who will not heed a
> > warning.
>
> > >> I will take no lessons from you in terms of
> > safety. You acknowledged that roads are far more
> dangerous but would still
> > displace bikers from trails onto roads because you want
> to enjoy the trails in
> > solitude.
>
> > Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who
> ride
> > bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads
> regardless of your nutty
> > ideas.
> >>>> Mine don't ... they ride exclusively on
> trails. No roads.
>
> Your kids will soon relate more to their peer group than a nut
> like you.
> > >> I find your references to children totally and
> > utterly sociopathic; that anyone would think it
> appropriate to wish death or
> > serious injury to a child simply to advance a narrow
> recreational activity
> > preference is horrendous. You should apologise, but
> of course you won't,
> > because you genuinely don't understand, much less care,
> about anyone
> > else.
>
> > The only pathology being presented here is yours. You
> don't
> > even care enough about the safety of your own children to
> prevent them from
> > riding on trails. You and yours deserve whatever
> happens.
>
> >>>> So, how is it uncaring to allow them to cycle
> in a SAFER location ? Not safe, I know that, but far far safer than on the
> road.
>
> Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
> hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.
You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you ?
> > Here is a recent media report from the UK for you to
> > contemplate:
>
> >>>> Shall I reciprocate with 3 reports of hiker
> problems for you to contemplate ? They do, after all, outnumber the biking
> ones by a factor of roughly 3.
> >>>> Or would you prefer to read about road bike
> deaths ?
>
> >>>> What a sick puppy you are.
>
> I will enjoy reading some day that you have managed to kill
You'll be waiting a long time.
Blackblade
Nov 14, 2014, 9:06:57 AM11/14/14
to
> > What science would that be? Mr. Vandeman is the world class
> > expert on the impact of cycling on trails and he asserts that the
> tires of bikes
> > on trails is much more damaging then any hiker's boots.
>
> >>>> It would be all the real science that vandeman tries, and
> fails, to discredit in this article http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm
>
> >>>> Funny how real research trumps opinion and armchair
> quarterbacking by lobbyists like vandeman and you isn't it ?
>
> What "real research" would that be?
EdwardDolan
Nov 25, 2014, 9:53:24 PM11/25/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message news:a7139c09-d8b9-41f4...@googlegroups.com...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:
> It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
> they hate your guts!
>> I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so
you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.
I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you
would be a dead man.
[...]
> The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
> leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area
ethic
> compared to the National Park one.
>> I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that there is
nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking. So your
statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their mission
statement.
I have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence
that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You
are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is
sensible.
>> I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which
therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.
I don’t give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion.
What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a
pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at
issue here?
[...]
> > Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who
> ride
> > bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads
> regardless of your nutty
> > ideas.
>> I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of
mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been, in the last
five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There has been
1 off road ... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.
I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that
the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily
get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day
when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean
the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor
vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport.
Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But
cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.
[...]
> Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
> hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.
>> More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe". What
total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is being
lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/drivers-face-20mph-limit-on-all-residential-roads-to-cut-deaths-6753301.html
>> You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you
?
Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways,
especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how
bad the streets are in the UK.
[...]
> People ... doing what! You make no sense
> whatever.
>> You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the
trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use and
ownership are not the same.
It never matters who “owns” anything. In the end it is the
practitioners and the customers who “own”. Indeed, use and ownership are not the
same thing.
EdwardDolan
Nov 25, 2014, 10:13:49 PM11/25/14
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message news:0ddd4ab1-a750-4fbc...@googlegroups.com...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:
> What "real research" would that be?
>> Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure
things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed
publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman [Mr. Vandeman, Ph.D.] who
simply trawl the web and spout drivel.
You are one of the most pitiful human beings in the entire
universe. You believe in research! All research is driven by a point of
view. I see it every day on my cable TV channels. You must be an idiot to trust
to it.
Let’s face it, mountain bikers are the worst of the worst. I
would not mind them if they would get their own god damn fucking trails, but no,
they want to horn in on hiking trails. Death is too good for them. I would like
to see them drawn and quartered like in the good days of the Middle Ages
How else would you ever get through to their addled brains. Yea, torture is the
solution!
Blackblade
Nov 27, 2014, 3:49:56 AM11/27/14
to
> > It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
> > they hate your guts!
>
> >> I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so
> you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.
>
> I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
> trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you
> would be a dead man.
Ed, you are quite simply wrong. These are areas of which I have personal experience and you have none. You're simply projecting your own monomania and obsessions onto others who don't share them. Everyone in these areas understands that the land is a public resource and it has to be shared.
> > they hate your guts!
>
> >> I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so
> you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.
>
> I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
> trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you
> would be a dead man.
> > The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
> > leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area
> ethic
> > compared to the National Park one.
>
> >> I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that there is
> nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking. So your
> statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their mission
> statement.
>
> I have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence
> that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You
> are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is
> sensible.
What you really want is for the land managers to go beyond their 'lawful missions' and prefer your activity over all others. You are not trying to get them to follow what they are legally tasked to do ... you want them to do something outside that to suit yourself.
> >> I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which
> therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.
>
> I don't give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion.
> What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a
> pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at
> issue here?
> > > Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who
> > ride
> > > bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads
> > regardless of your nutty
> > > ideas.
>
> >> I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of
> mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been, in the last
> five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There has been
> 1 off road ... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.
>
> I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that
> the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily
> get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day
> when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean
> the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor
> vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport.
> Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But
> cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.
> > Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
> > hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.
>
> >> More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe". What
> total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is being
> lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ?
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/drivers-face-20mph-limit-on-all-residential-roads-to-cut-deaths-6753301.html
>
> >> You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you
> ?
>
> Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways,
> especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how
> bad the streets are in the UK.
You are, yet again, probably wrong in your assertion. When are you going to learn ???
> > People ... doing what! You make no sense
> > whatever.
>
> >> You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the
> trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use and
> ownership are not the same.
>
> It never matters who "owns" anything. In the end it is the
> practitioners and the customers who "own". Indeed, use and ownership are not the
> same thing.
Blackblade
Nov 27, 2014, 3:53:09 AM11/27/14
to
> > What "real research" would that be?
>
> >> Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure
> things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed
> publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman [Mr. Vandeman, Ph.D.] who
> simply trawl the web and spout drivel.
>
> You are one of the most pitiful human beings in the entire
> universe. You believe in research! All research is driven by a point of
> view. I see it every day on my cable TV channels. You must be an idiot to trust
> to it.
Ah, so you PREFER trawling the web and spouting nonsense. Well, at least we're clear as to the status of your claims.
>
> >> Oh, you know, research where people actually go out and measure
> things, conduct surveys and then publish their findings in peer reviewed
> publications ... as opposed to lobbyists like vandeman [Mr. Vandeman, Ph.D.] who
> simply trawl the web and spout drivel.
>
> You are one of the most pitiful human beings in the entire
> universe. You believe in research! All research is driven by a point of
> view. I see it every day on my cable TV channels. You must be an idiot to trust
> to it.
> Let's face it, mountain bikers are the worst of the worst. I
> would not mind them if they would get their own god damn fucking trails, but no,
> they want to horn in on hiking trails. Death is too good for them. I would like
> to see them drawn and quartered like in the good days of the Middle Ages
> How else would you ever get through to their addled brains. Yea, torture is the
> solution!
Message has been deleted
EdwardDolan
Dec 4, 2015, 4:29:47 PM12/4/15
to
"Blackblade" wrote in message
news:f8794bed-3d54-4412...@googlegroups.com...
> > It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
> > they hate your guts!
>
> >> I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been
there so
> you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.
>
> I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
> trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks
could kill you
> would be a dead man.
>>> Ed, you are quite simply wrong. These are areas of which
I have personal experience and you have none. You're simply projecting
your own monomania and obsessions onto others who don't share them.
Everyone in these areas understands that the land is a public resource and it
has to be shared.
Nothing HAS to be shared except by common agreement (a
political process) of how the public resource is to be used by particular groups
or individuals. Regulation and its enforcement is the essence of a civilized
society..
> > The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
> > leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness
Area
> ethic
> > compared to the National Park one.
>
> >> I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that
there is
> nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking.
So your
> statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their
mission
> statement.
>
> I have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence
> that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do
you. You
> are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is
> sensible.
>>> Your premise was a little different this time though wasn't it
? You stated that the land managers were not upholding their 'lawful
missions'. I've disproved that by reference to their actual lawful
mission.
It is their mission that is being contested. It needs to be
changed for the better. No bikes on hiking trails. A total no
brainer!
>>> What you really want is for the land managers to go beyond
their 'lawful missions' and prefer your activity over all others. You are
not trying to get them to follow what they are legally tasked to do ... you want
them to do something outside that to suit yourself.
I want them to do what is common sense. They need to be
educated just like you need to be educated. The way things are now, we have got
morons in charge of the situation and morons like you doing what they should not
be doing.
> >> I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired
which
> therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and
erosion.
>
> I don't give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion.
> What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are
doing a
> pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what
is at
> issue here?
>>> When are you going to get up to speed on the fact that your
'pilgrimage' has no special status above others sport and recreation ? You
are still eroding and impacting the natural environment simply for the purposes
of your recreation.
My ‘pilgrimage’ is the purpose for which hiking trails were
built and maintained in the entire past century. Hiking trails in fact do have a
special status by virtue of their purpose. They were never meant to be lanes for
an insane machine sport by morons like you. Get your own trails which will be
special constructions designed with the bicycle in mind. Maybe if that were the
case, not so many of you dodos would be injuring and killing
yourselves.
> > > Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who
> > ride
> > > bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads
> > regardless of your nutty
> > > ideas.
>
> >> I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of
> mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been,
in the last
> five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There
has been
> 1 off road ... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.
>
> I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that
> the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you
can easily
> get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait
for the day
> when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which
will mean
> the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate
motor
> vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public
transport.
> Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that
there is. But
> cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.
>>> Your last statement is not a consequence of anything that you
wrote beforehand. Given that trail cycling is an order of magnitude safer
than cycling on the road, which you concede is true, it is a perfectly valid
answer to keeping ones children safer.
The only advantage to biking on a hiking trail is that you are
not going to get hit by a motor vehicle. Other than that, it remains extremely
dangerous and not something that any child should be doing. The best place for
children to ride a bike is on a bicycle path. They most definitely should not be
riding in the street.
> > Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
> > hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.
>
> >> More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe".
What
> total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is
being
> lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ?
>
> >> You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you
> ?
>
> Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways,
> especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue
as to how
> bad the streets are in the UK.
>>> Ed Ed Ed. Take a moment BEFORE you spout more
nonsense. If you consider the attached report you will note that high
speed highways (we call them motorways in the UK) are actually the safest roads
in the country. A moment's consideration would lead you to conclude this
anyway; all traffic is moving in the same direction and at a similar speed and
there is minimal interaction with other road users. (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2013)
It doesn't matter in the slightest what direction traffic is
moving if you are on a bicycle. If it is moving fast and it hits you, you are
dead as a mackerel. Residential streets are orders of magnitude safer than high
speed highways when it comes to cycling.
>>> You are, yet again, probably wrong in your assertion.
When are you going to learn ???
One thing is for sure, you are never going to learn much of
anything because you lack common sense. High speed highways safer for cyclists
than residential streets? Give me a break!
> > People ... doing what! You make no sense
> > whatever.
>
> >> You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the
> trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use
and
> ownership are not the same.
>
> It never matters who "owns" anything. In the end it is the
> practitioners and the customers who "own". Indeed, use and ownership
are not the
> same thing.
>>> Did you actually have a point to make ? You appear to be
going in a circle and contradicting yourself.
It doesn't matter who owns what if it is to serve a public
purpose. What matters is what the governing authority has decided how it is to
be used.
Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great
Minnesota – Land of 10,000 Taxes
cycl...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2016, 4:52:35 PM6/6/16
to
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 11:27:16 PM UTC-7, Edward Dolan wrote:
> Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of
> nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
> for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
> this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
> also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
> lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!
>
> http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/ticket_to_ride
>
>
> Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
>
>
> by George Wuerthner
>
> George Wuerthner is an ecologist
> and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
> Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He has
> personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.
>
> I just got
> back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
> Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my mountain
> bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling without
> the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously logged
> forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or other
> special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain biking.
>
>
> The key words here are “appropriate location.”
>
> That is the same
> qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
> “thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when driving in
> snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s appropriate to
> drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike can
> climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
> appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.
>
> Although I can’t speak
> for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
> representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and the
> sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In other
> words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my cycling
> experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my biking
> experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary conflict
> between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.
>
> This is not to
> say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to the
> beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
> appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to observe
> nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would agree. When
> careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail in
> front of us, not the natural world around us.
>
> Our wildlands are not
> outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness
> designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe
> natural systems.
>
> It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
> creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime rationale for
> wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational uses
> or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
> Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated clearly:
> “Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.” In an
> essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
> wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
> gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to establish
> among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to know
> the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to
> sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
> responsibility.”
>
> I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
> development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
> responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should not be
> permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that are
> strong candidates for wilderness designation.
>
> Legal. The
> Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are deemed
> acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
> advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph, is
> “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement
> and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the
> United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation
> and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of that
> growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike technology
> reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those walking
> or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.
>
> Ecological.
> Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than a pack
> of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The cumulative
> effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in streams,
> and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more damage
> than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
> cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only increase
> impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild nature, not
> to preserve recreational opportunity.
>
> Sociological. Any
> mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike – shrinks
> the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily surpassed by
> those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other users. On
> heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the experience for
> other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in the
> natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of the way
> of a bike.
>
> Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
> protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The more
> advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our alienation
> from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in quiet
> contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no different
> to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine Chapel
> or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many mountain
> bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one reason
> why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
> disrespectful.
>
> For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
> goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to protect
> self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological gadgets
> available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and self-restraint
> that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.
Just because you've found someone that agrees with your twisted viewpoint doesn't mean that it is any better focused than yours.
> Blackblade and his ilk are trespassers and despoilers of
> nature. Here is an article I pulled out of my stream of such articles expressly
> for him to read. Will it do any good? Probably not, but the truths stated in
> this missive will be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain in his head. It
> also assumes a heart and a soul, things which mountain bikers have ever shown to
> lack. God Damn their rotten souls all the way to Hell and back!
>
> http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/ticket_to_ride
>
>
> Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
>
>
> by George Wuerthner
>
> George Wuerthner is an ecologist
> and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
> Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He has
> personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.
>
> I just got
> back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
> Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my mountain
> bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling without
> the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously logged
> forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or other
> special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain biking.
>
>
> The key words here are “appropriate location.”
>
> That is the same
> qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
> “thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when driving in
> snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s appropriate to
> drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike can
> climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
> appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.
>
> Although I can’t speak
> for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
> representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and the
> sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In other
> words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my cycling
> experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my biking
> experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary conflict
> between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.
>
> This is not to
> say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to the
> beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
> appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to observe
> nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would agree. When
> careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail in
> front of us, not the natural world around us.
>
> Our wildlands are not
> outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness
> designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe
> natural systems.
>
> It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
> creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime rationale for
> wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational uses
> or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
> Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated clearly:
> “Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.” In an
> essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
> wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
> gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to establish
> among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to know
> the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to
> sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
> responsibility.”
>
> I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
> development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
> responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should not be
> permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that are
> strong candidates for wilderness designation.
>
> Legal. The
> Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are deemed
> acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
> advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph, is
> “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement
> and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the
> United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation
> and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of that
> growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike technology
> reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those walking
> or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.
>
> Ecological.
> Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than a pack
> of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The cumulative
> effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in streams,
> and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more damage
> than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
> cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only increase
> impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild nature, not
> to preserve recreational opportunity.
>
> Sociological. Any
> mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike – shrinks
> the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily surpassed by
> those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other users. On
> heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the experience for
> other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in the
> natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of the way
> of a bike.
>
> Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
> protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The more
> advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our alienation
> from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in quiet
> contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no different
> to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine Chapel
> or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many mountain
> bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one reason
> why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
> disrespectful.
>
> For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
> goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to protect
> self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological gadgets
> available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and self-restraint
> that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by
> hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn fucking bikes and walk like
> everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when
> they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to
> mountain biking!
>
>
>
> “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
>
> ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
>
> from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"
>
>
>
> Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
>
>
>
> Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by
> hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn fucking bikes and walk like
> everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when
> they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to
> mountain biking!
>
>
>
> “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
>
> ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
>
> from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"
>
>
>
> Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
>
>
>
> Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?
>
>
>
> Ed Dolan the Great
>
> aka
>
> Saint Edward the Great
Sorry but in that manner equestrians are riding "thrillcraft" There is NO DAMAGE that is done to national Wilderness areas greater than the hiker/camper.
>
> aka
>
> Saint Edward the Great
Just because you've found someone that agrees with your twisted viewpoint doesn't mean that it is any better focused than yours.
cycl...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2016, 4:57:10 PM6/6/16
to
"Bog of a brain"???
I really suggest you NEVER make the slightest attempt to purposely impede my progress on any public trail or you will in quite short order learn who has a bog of a brain. Where I come from people do not try to boss others around. At least not more than once.
I really suggest you NEVER make the slightest attempt to purposely impede my progress on any public trail or you will in quite short order learn who has a bog of a brain. Where I come from people do not try to boss others around. At least not more than once.
EdwardDolan
Jun 6, 2016, 7:50:18 PM6/6/16
to
wrote in message
news:fdc34c77-1d3b-4ddc...@googlegroups.com...
> "Bog of a brain"???
When the hell are you going to learn how to post to this
group? Who said what when? Why isn’t your moniker somewhere on this post instead
of a lot of idiot numbers? Get a brain why don’t you!
> I really suggest you NEVER make the slightest attempt to purposely
impede my progress on any public trail or you will in quite short order learn
who has a bog of a brain. Where I come from people do not try to boss others
around. At least not more than once.
Hikers always have the right of way on any trail. Equestrians
come first of course, and mountain bikers last. If there are equestrians and
hikers on the trail, you will indeed be impeded. Get your own god damn trails
why don’t you?
Ed Dolan the Great –
Minnesota
EdwardDolan
Jun 6, 2016, 8:18:25 PM6/6/16
to
wrote in message news:be527838-8994-404c...@googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness
>
>
> by George Wuerthner
>
> George Wuerthner is an ecologist
> and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books
including,
> Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation.
He has
> personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.
>
> I just got
> back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of
Bend,
> Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my
mountain
> bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy
pedaling without
> the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously
logged
> forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness
or other
> special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain
biking.
Are these the sort of lands that hikers would find attractive?
If not, who cares about bikes being ridden there.
>
> The key words here are “appropriate location.”
>
> That is the same
> qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
> “thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when
driving in
> snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s
appropriate to
> drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain
bike can
> climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
> appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.
Four-wheel drive vehicles are an even greater menace to nature than
mountain bikes, but as long as driven on roads however primitive, who
cares!
> Although I can’t speak
> for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
> representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail
and the
> sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings.
In other
> words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my
cycling
> experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my
biking
> experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary
conflict
> between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.
>
> This is not to
> say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are
immune to the
> beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
> appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to
observe
> nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would
agree. When
> careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the
trail in
> front of us, not the natural world around us.
Mountain biking on single track trails is a sport, not any
kind of communion with nature. It is why bikers and hikers cannot share
trails.
[...]
>> Sorry but in that manner equestrians are riding "thrillcraft"
There is NO DAMAGE that is done to national Wilderness areas greater than the
hiker/camper.
Sorry, but you are an idiot! Hiking has the least impact of
any human activity. Camping does have to be regulated as it can damage the
natural resource.
>> Just because you've found someone that agrees with your twisted
viewpoint doesn't mean that it is any better focused than yours.
There are thousands of great writers and thinkers who have
come to the same conclusion. It is the reason for wilderness areas being set
aside to begin with. You and your g.d. mechanical contrivances are despoilers of
wilderness. Short of executing you for your sacrilege, I would put you in prison
for 20 years. That would keep you out of mischief.
I suggest you read the above article a few hundred times until
it sinks into your thick skull.
0 new messages