 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General bicyclingRacingOff-road CyclingRidesTechnicalUnicyclesRecumbent CyclesCountry Specific Australian CyclingUK CyclingCyclingCrowd.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cycling Forum / General / Off-road Cycling / February 2010The Psychology of Mountain Biking
The Psychology of Mountain Biking Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. January 24, 2000 “Violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: I is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood. … Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn For a psychologist, mountain biking is a fascinating phenomenon. Lying The first thing one notices about mountain bikers is that they lie continually! For someone from my generation, raised to tell the truth at all times, this is puzzling. Surely, they must know that everyone, at least all those who aren't mountain bikers, can easily see through them! For example, Oakland Councilwoman Nancy Nadel caught Eric Muhler, President of the Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay, publicly claiming that mountain biking in Joaquin Miller Park has caused hardly any erosion! One look at Alec Karp's photographs of the park is all it would take to know that he was lying. Similarly, the vice president of ROMP ("Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers"), Patty Ciesla, was caught red-handed building an illegal trail. Their favorite lie, of course, is that land managers who ban off-road biking are banning mountain bikers. Actually, it is only their bikes that are banned! It would be impossible to ban mountain bikers even if we wanted to, since they don't look different from anyone else. And they aren't doing their already rotten image much good. Since none of them ever admit lying, we can only guess at their motivation. The best that I have been able to come up with is that they don't believe that they can justify their selfish, destructive sport except by lying. Well, … yes, of course! Since mountain biking destroys wildlife habitat, drives away wildlife and other trail users, and benefits only the mountain bikers, it is hard to see how anyone can justify allowing mountain biking in any natural area. Similarly, it is hard to explain why land managers lie so frequently, when asked why they allow mountain biking. For example, a ranger at China Camp State Park told me that mountain biking is causing "no erosion". An equestrian familiar with the park then told me that the bikers were "turning the trails into powder"! I guess that the land managers are afraid to admit that they have allowed political pressure -- or, in some cases, free trail maintenance provided by the mountain bikers -- to cloud their better judgment. Mountain Biking as an Addiction Recently I suddenly realized why this pattern seemed so familiar: they act exactly like the drug addicts that I knew when I worked with Synanon Foundation! They demonstrate the same willingness to take enormous risks, just to continue their "habit". They risk their image, their job, their relationships, their freedom, even their life, just to continue seeking the ultimate "high". Many subscribe to mountain biking mailing lists at work, risking losing their job. Thousands risk arrest and fines for riding illegally or even building illegal trails on public and private land. The "Sedona Five" took advantage of a temporary closure of Grand Canyon National Park to ride down the North Kaibab Trail, which is closed to bikes (and got arrested). Taking serious risks to continue a habit of doubtful value is the best indicator of a true addiction. In mountain biking newsgroups they exchange stories about their latest "high" (riding "sweet singletrack"), with extra points given for experiences that were dangerous, illegal, or both. When caught riding on trails closed to bikes, in my experience, they lie ("I didn't know it is closed" -- but they don't offer to leave!), threaten ("I'm going to bust your head"), and even physically attack whoever tells them to leave the closed area (one biker rode back up the trail, turned around, and then rode into the guy who had told him the trail is closed, as fast as he could, knocking him bloody). That is a lot of risk to take, just in order to ride one trail illegally! And a good sign that they are addicted. Indeed, many of them, in their discussions on the Internet, describe mountain biking as an "addiction". Mountain Biking as an Image Enhancer Another psychological factor, of course, is the image boost that the sport and its accoutrements give to rebellious young people, just as racing bikes did for an earlier generation (hardly any of whom actually raced!). The knobby tires and "hardened" frames clearly say "I'm tough. Don't cross me!" The names attached to the bikes and tires ("Velociraptor", "Omega-Bite", "Incisor") reinforce that image, as do the photos in mountain bike magazines of bikers flying through the air (getting "big air"). These bikes are clearly intended to indicate that they will help you "conquer nature" (while, ironically, actually insuring that you will have even less contact with that nature, due to their speed, lack of contact with the ground, and suspension systems!). Narcissism Closely related to image is their narcissism: they apparently have no awareness of, or interest in, the welfare or feelings of the wildlife and people around them. Hikers who are young or elderly, and are afraid of being hit, are ignored or termed "unreasonable". People who say that they go to parks to experience peace and tranquility, and to get away from all signs of civilization, are called "selfish". Mountain bikers want to ride on trails that are as narrow as possible -- exactly the trails that are too narrow to accommodate both bikers and other trail users! Cognitive Dissonance Yet another factor explaining their insistence on biking at all costs, even at the risk of getting arrested, is embodied in the psychological term "Cognitive Dissonance": after spending often more than $3000 for their bike, it would be very embarrassing and upsetting if they had nowhere to ride it! Perhaps this explains why, after years of talking about how they are going to put an end to the erosion damage, illegal riding, and illegal trail building in Joaquin Miller Park, the mountain bikers are continuing all of those activities unabated. Monomania All land management plans are evaluated by a single criterion: do they provide "sweet" (attractive), "technical" (difficult to ride) "singletrack" (narrow trails)? The President could be about to designate a million acres of new wilderness, but they don't care. All they care about is "will I be allowed to mountain bike there?" (in wilderness, no). Laziness Why ride a bike, when you can walk? Only because you can get to your destination a lot faster and with a lot less energy. In spite of their muscular, "hard-body" appearance, mountain bikers are lazy! "People who must ride on sumthin' to get into the back country are essentially lazy" (Larry Kralj). Bad Role Modelling Mountain biking also provides very bad role modeling for our children. Whether or not a bike is ever ridden off-road, any child looking at one will get the impression that it is used to tear up wildlife habitat, and that this is okay. Paradox Mountain bikers claim to want just what we all want -- the experience of nature in all her pristine glory. However, the very fact that they ride on a bike denies them that experience! They move too fast to truly experience what they are seeing. They have to pay attention to their "driving", to avoid crashing. They are insulated from feeling the ground by distance, tires, and expensive suspension systems. And they (in common with other trail users, of course, although to a much greater degree) destroy nature in the very act of "appreciating" it. > The Psychology of Mountain Biking > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. That kook? He's f.cked his reputation so thoroughly that nobody is ever likely to believe a word he says ever again. The last significant moment in Mike Vandeman's life was when he was voted "kook of the month" - it's all been downhill since then. -- Guy The Psychology of Mountain Biking Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. January 24, 2000 Ten f---ing years you've been posting this bullshit! I could post, "The psychology of a maniac," and make it fresh each year with qoutes from you. Crap! I could do it weekly and have new material each time. Well, the qoutes would be fresh, but the material wouldn't change very much. And, we've proven your material to be false almost every time you post it. You have no clue the psychology of anybody, and for having a PhD in psychology, being clueless takes considerable effort. If you put half as much effort into getting a clue as you do in remaining clueless, more of your peers would actually pay attention to you. And just maybe the Sierra Club would let you back into their good graces, from which you've been barred for as long as you've been posting this crap. > The Psychology of Mountain Biking > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. > January 24, 2000 > > Ten f---ing years you've been posting this bullshit! Read it and weep, you god damn f.cking a.shole! > I could post, "The psychology of a maniac," and make it fresh each year > with qoutes from you. Crap! I could do it weekly and have new material > each time. Well, the qoutes would be fresh, but the material wouldn't > change very much. The only crap being posted here is by you. > And, we've proven your material to be false almost every time you post it. > You have no clue the psychology of anybody, and for having a PhD in > psychology, being clueless takes considerable effort. If you put half as > much effort into getting a clue as you do in remaining clueless, more of > your peers would actually pay attention to you. Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that mountain biking does. On the other hand, Jeff Strickland is the foremost expert a.shole on nothing at all. And just maybe the Sierra > Club would let you back into their good graces, from which you've been > barred for as long as you've been posting this crap. The Sierra Club is not the last word in protecting natural areas. f.cking Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that mountain > biking does. No, he's the *only* "expert" - nobody else gives a flying f.ck, including the wilderness agencies. They are, however, concerned about wildfires (caused mainly by hikers) and offroad motor vehicles (which Vandeman has never once condemned as far as I can tell). And you, you coffin dodger, said you had Alzheimers, what, five years ago? Time your nurse cut off your internet access. -- Guy On Feb 2, 2:24 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that > mountain > biking does. >> No, he's the *only* "expert" - nobody else gives a flying f.ck, including the wilderness agencies. They are, however, concerned about wildfires (caused mainly by hikers) and offroad motor vehicles (which Vandeman has never once condemned as far as I can tell). Hikers care. Off-road motor vehicles are seldom found on hiking trails, unlike mountain bikes. Most wildfires are caused by lightning strikes, except in Southern California where they are sometimes caused by arsonists. >> And you, you coffin dodger, said you had Alzheimers, what, five years ago? Time your nurse cut off your internet access. f.ck you too! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota snip >Off-road motor vehicles are seldom found on hiking trails... you are claiming that off road motorcycles and snow machines, as well as other motor vehicles, are seldom found on hiking trails; what justification do you have for saying this? you are aware that motor vehicles are able to operate on hiking trails far from trail heads and easy detection, right? On Feb 2, 11:40 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: snip >Off-road motor vehicles are seldom found on hiking trails... >> you are claiming that off road motorcycles and snow machines, as well as other motor vehicles, are seldom found on hiking trails; what justification do you have for saying this? you are aware that motor vehicles are able to operate on hiking trails far from trail heads and easy detection, right? I have hiked thousands of miles on hiking trails over a period of 30 years and never encountered any motor vehicles. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > On Feb 2, 11:40 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: > snip [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have hiked thousands of miles on hiking trails over a period of 30 years > and never encountered any motor vehicles. I have motor-vehicled thousands of miles over 10 years and encountered hundreds of hikers, most of them stop to watch the antics of Jeeps crawling over the same rocks they just hiked across, or were getting ready to hike across. Or go around. I never drove on hiking trails, but plenty of hikers walk on driving trails. I was once the Adopt-A-Trail leader for my group, we did trail maintenance in the National Forest that the forest rangers had no budget to maintain. Due to my work and others that do the same kind of volunteer work, you have thousands of miles of routes open and maintained for your enjoyment. The routes that people like me provide free labor to keep open and maintained so shitheads like you to bitch about sharing routes that would otherwise be CLOSED. Don't thank me, just enjoy the hike and think about the free labor that's involved in providing it to you. Morons like you and Vandeman would close off-road routes that have been on the ground for a century or more and claim the environment is harmed -- despite the fact that in a century or more the environment has not been harmed beyond the roadbed of the route. Clearly, the route itself alters the environment, but alteration and harm are not the same thing. And volunteers that provide the labor and resources necessary to repair the ancillary harm so that you can sit on your fat a.s until you feel like going outside should be rewarded for their efforts by keeping the routes open for everybody instead of just you. Vandeman makes stuff up as he goes along, and his peers (except you) reject him out of hand. Get a life. >> On Feb 2, 11:40 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote: >> snip [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I never drove on hiking trails, but plenty of hikers walk on driving > trails. So what? Hikers can't harm jeep roads, but jeeps sure as hell can harm hiking trails. > I was once the Adopt-A-Trail leader for my group, we did trail maintenance > in the National Forest that the forest rangers had no budget to maintain. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > otherwise be CLOSED. Don't thank me, just enjoy the hike and think about > the free labor that's involved in providing it to you. Hiking trails are for hikers. Fire roads are for mountain bikes. > Morons like you and Vandeman would close off-road routes that have been on > the ground for a century or more and claim the environment is harmed -- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > going outside should be rewarded for their efforts by keeping the routes > open for everybody instead of just you. Mr. Vandeman is a purist, I am not. As far as I am concerned, once a road has been established, it has already ruined all natural and wilderness values. In the main, the less roads, the better. In any event, mountain bikes belong on roads, not hiking trails. > Vandeman makes stuff up as he goes along, and his peers (except you) > reject him out of hand. Get a life. Mr. Vandeman is genius (as well as being a scholar and a gentleman) compared to the likes of you and your ilk. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota snip > I have hiked thousands of miles on hiking trails over a period of 30 years > and never encountered any motor vehicles. Well, then I guess the problem doesn't exist. Never mind. > Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that > mountain biking does. On the other hand, Jeff Strickland is the foremost > expert a.shole on nothing at all. He pulls sh.t out of his a.s, and you call him a good doctor. Anybody can pull sh.t out of their a.s, this does not make them an authority. Pure mathematics says that if Mike was 100% effective in his agenda to ban mountain bikes, he would manage to protect and preserve 0.04% of the environment, and that's being generous by an order of magnitude. >> Mike Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the harm that >> mountain biking does. On the other hand, Jeff Strickland is the foremost >> expert a.shole on nothing at all. > > He pulls sh.t out of his a.s, and you call him a good doctor. Anybody can > pull sh.t out of their a.s, this does not make them an authority. That is all you do is pull sh.t out of your dumb a.s. Get back to me when you have earned a Ph.D in a natural science like Mike Vandeman has. > Pure mathematics says that if Mike was 100% effective in his agenda to ban > mountain bikes, he would manage to protect and preserve 0.04% of the > environment, and that's being generous by an order of magnitude. Yes, there is damn little left of the natural environment. All the more reason to protect and preserve what little is left and not have it further degraded by mountain biking. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > That is all you do is pull sh.t out of your dumb a.s. Get back to me when > you have earned a Ph.D in a natural science like Mike Vandeman has. Which natural science does Mike hold a PhD in? Not environmental studies, that's for damn sure. >> Pure mathematics says that if Mike was 100% effective in his agenda to >> ban mountain bikes, he would manage to protect and preserve 0.04% of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reason to protect and preserve what little is left and not have it further > degraded by mountain biking. If all there was left was a tennis court sized plot, Mike would be lucky to save a letter-sized sheet of paper of it if he was 100% effective in his goal. He's a poser. He's also a loser, which is why he has to use a bot to scan the Internet for news stories of "mountain bike" to tell the rest of the world that a person with heart desease and severe coronary blockage died while riding his mountain bike to the store for more potato chips and beer. >> That is all you do is pull sh.t out of your dumb a.s. Get back to me when >> you have earned a Ph.D in a natural science like Mike Vandeman has. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > person with heart desease and severe coronary blockage died while riding > his mountain bike to the store for more potato chips and beer. Mountain biking on hiking trails is dangerous. Only a fool would deny it. There are tens of thousands of miles of fire roads and jeep trails that are suitable for mountain biking. They do not belong on hiking trails. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >>> That is all you do is pull sh.t out of your dumb a.s. Get back to me >>> when you have earned a Ph.D in a natural science like Mike Vandeman has. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Mountain biking on hiking trails is dangerous. So what? Driving on the freeway is dangerous, only a fool would deny it yet everybody does it. Only a fool would deny it. > There are tens of thousands of miles of fire roads and jeep trails that > are suitable for mountain biking. They do not belong on hiking trails. Maybe, but that's not the topic. Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he reports the danger anyhow. > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message [...] >> Mountain biking on hiking trails is dangerous. > > So what? Driving on the freeway is dangerous, only a fool would deny it > yet everybody does it. There is never any reason for a mountain bike to be on a hiking trail. > Only a fool would deny it. >> There are tens of thousands of miles of fire roads and jeep trails that >> are suitable for mountain biking. They do not belong on hiking trails. > > Maybe, but that's not the topic. But that is exactly the topic. > Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode off > the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he reports the > danger anyhow. Well, that is because he does not like mountain bikes on hiking trails, the same as I don't. He has had plenty of extremely unpleasant encounters with mountain bikers on hiking trails. I generally hike strictly in Wilderness Areas or in the National Parks and so I avoid mountain bikers that way. Frankly, I am delighted every time a mountain biker manages to kill himself. I say good riddance to bad rubbish. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode >> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that way. Frankly, I am delighted every time a mountain biker manages to > kill himself. I say good riddance to bad rubbish. Mike would have an unpleasant experience at McDonalds, he attracts unpleasant experiences. Mike takes great pains to create an unpleasant experience where one would not exist unless he made it. He has zero credibility. Your credibillity is sliding. >>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode >>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > experience where one would not exist unless he made it. He has zero > credibility. Your credibillity is sliding. Mr. Vandeman does not go through life as a poor lost lamb like the rest of us. Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be on hiking trails. That is the only issue for me. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >>>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode >>>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be on > hiking trails. That is the only issue for me. Dear Ed, This may be your only issue, but it is clearly NOT Mr. Vandeman's only issue. I for one agree that wheeled vehicles, motorized or not should not be on hiking trails. Mr. Vandeman thinks, and has stated on numerous occasions, that mountain bikes specifically, and by extension, all wheeled vehicles, should be limited to pavement. That is as absurd as it is impossible to implement. Think about it. The town has not paved my road. Therefore I should park my car at the pavement head and hike in. As for ad-homs, I agree that they are "feeding the troll" and should be avoided. RW > Regards, > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >>>>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode >>>>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > motorized or not should not be on > hiking trails. Not only is it not Vandeman's only issue, it's not even one of his main issues. >>>> Vandeman reported a guy that was riding on a automobile route and rode >>>> off the cliff. He doesn't care where the bike was being ridden, he [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be on > hiking trails. That is the only issue for me. I don't think they should be on hiking trails, but I also don't think -- as Vandeman does -- that they should not be on any trails at all. If some bikes appear on a hiking-only trail, then that's a policing matter not an environmental one. Mike doesn't give a rat's a.s about the bikes on hiking trails or bikes on bike trails, he wants all bikes to remain on the street. Mike is not any sort of environmentalist that deserves to know the time of day if he hasn't got his own watch strapped to his arm. He is a fraud. He is rejected by far more true environmentalists than he's accepted by. He thinks nothing of selective research and conditional conclusions, and he is perfectly willing to apply results of isolated and unique situations to all instances. He would describe any change of habitat as damage, then say that the entire habitat is destroyed no matter how slight and confined the changes was, even if the change was naturally occurring and would have happened regardless of human activity and the change is transitory in its nature. In short, Mike is a liar. He may lie for noble reasons, but he's a liar nonetheless. And frequently, his lies are not only blatant, but easily disproved, yet you hold him up as some sort genius. > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message [...] >> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and concerning yourself with >> credibility, you need to tell us why you think mountain bikes should be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > trails or bikes on bike trails, he wants all bikes to remain on the > street. Mr. Vandeman holds to an extremist position that no one will ever agree with. However, his heart is in the right place. We would all be better off if there were less roads and cars in the world. However, I can assure you that both Mr. Vandeman and I do not want bikes on hiking trails. We both care deeply about that! > Mike is not any sort of environmentalist that deserves to know the time of > day if he hasn't got his own watch strapped to his arm. He is a fraud. He [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > nonetheless. And frequently, his lies are not only blatant, but easily > disproved, yet you hold him up as some sort genius. It may be that he sincerely believes what he says. But what does it matter since what he wants in toto is clearly beyond the realm of possibility. Mr. Vandeman has gone far beyond where you and I would go. He has in fact become an expert on the harm that mountain bikes do to hiking trails and natural areas on many different levels. It does not hurt us to be confronted with extremist views on a subject. Such views help us to clarify our own thinking. I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me. It tells me that you value something in life besides roads and cars. Keep up the good work! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > [...] [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that both Mr. Vandeman and I do not want bikes on hiking trails. We both > care deeply about that! I appreciate where YOU don't want bikes, but you can be sure that Mike does not share the same limitations that you have imposed upon yourself. >> Mike is not any sort of environmentalist that deserves to know the time >> of day if he hasn't got his own watch strapped to his arm. He is a fraud. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > confronted with extremist views on a subject. Such views help us to > clarify our own thinking. He is no more of an expert than the morons that f.cked up the global warming science by hiding data and warping the results of the data they elected to pick and choose from. I'll tell how he hurts us by using an example from the global warming alarmists. In California, we have a bill, AB-32, that addresses things the state wants to do to combat warming and diesel pollution. I accept that the cause is noble, but the sicence used to take aim at the agenda is seriously flawed and the result of pursuing the cause will cost thousands of jobs and millions of dollars just in California. The California Air Resources Board has a guy on the payroll that was demoted to a 6-figure job -- he should have been fired and jailed for the frauds he has perpetrated -- that got his degree from a ficticious on-line university. He claims -- as Vandeman does -- that his "research" shows harm that any rational person would have to question, yet the government is using the research to shut down small businesses and independent contractors to cure that "harm". Mike would not shut down business, but he does claim non-existant or utterly insignificant harm that the cure he would propose isn't proven to aleviate the harm he asserts, and his cure would prevent the public right to visit public lands. Mike is a fraud, just as the guy at CARB is a fraud. > I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have > worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message > [...] [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > aka > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Complete this sentence: "he who argues with morons ..." > I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have > worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me. > It tells me that you value something in life besides roads and cars. Keep > up the good work! I missed this earlier ... Thank you. I respect the environment, and recognize that the uses that I avail myself of do have an impact, and I'm willing and able to mitigate that impact wherever possible. I actively encourage my friends to also help to mitigate the impact. Use of the environment and abuse of the environment are not the same thing. I accept the idea that bikes should not be on hiking trails, but hiking trails and biking trails frequently the same trail and everybody simply has to figure out a way to get along. When the trails are segregated, then bikers abusing the segregation are more problematic than hikers who abuse the segregation, but the entire issue is a policing matter that requires a policing remedy not a ban on bikes everywhere -- or motor vehicles everywhere. Mike calls for a blanket ban, you call for a selective ban. Of the two, I can go along with the selective ban. But all trail users should show up in early spring to assist the Park Service or Forest Service for a day of trail maintenance to recover fromt he winter rains and snow melt runoff. These natural causes of erosion are a far greater problem than the mere existance of a route. Personally, I think you should distance yourself from the likes of Mike Vandeman. He's an extremist whack job that does nothing to help you with your agenda, indeed he harms your agenda among the rational people that might be inclined to agree with you. That's just my two-cents worth. >> I really do not have much of an argument with you. After all, you have >> worked on improving hiking trails. That is as good as you can get for me. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > matter that requires a policing remedy not a ban on bikes everywhere -- or > motor vehicles everywhere. Hikers and bikers on single track trails simply don't mix. When these type of conflicts exist, it is the bikers that should always be banned. Roads are for cycling, trails are for hiking. > Mike calls for a blanket ban, you call for a selective ban. Of the two, I > can go along with the selective ban. But all trail users should show up in > early spring to assist the Park Service or Forest Service for a day of > trail maintenance to recover fromt he winter rains and snow melt runoff. > These natural causes of erosion are a far greater problem than the mere > existance of a route. All trails will cause some erosion problems, even wildlife animal trails. > Personally, I think you should distance yourself from the likes of Mike > Vandeman. He's an extremist whack job that does nothing to help you with > your agenda, indeed he harms your agenda among the rational people that > might be inclined to agree with you. That's just my two-cents worth. Mr. Vandeman is one of the few who is vehemently against mountain bikes on hiking trails. As long as that is the case, I am on his side. His extremist views do not intrude on this core issue, at least not in my mind. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > Mr. Vandeman is one of the few who is vehemently against mountain bikes on > hiking trails. As long as that is the case, I am on his side. His > extremist views do not intrude on this core issue, at least not in my > mind. That's what I'm telling you, he's not against bikes on hiking trails, he against bikes on any trails. Any. He's as good for your agenda as Jesse Jackson is for the cause of the black community. You really need to give Vandeman wide berth because he's going to close the trails to everything that has rubber on the bottom, including your boots. I respectfully disagree with some of the things you say and represent, but Vandeman is a kook of the highest order and while I respect the stuff you want -- even while I don't agree -- I have absolutely no respect for Vandeman. >> Mr. Vandeman is one of the few who is vehemently against mountain bikes >> on hiking trails. As long as that is the case, I am on his side. His [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Vandeman wide berth because he's going to close the trails to everything > that has rubber on the bottom, including your boots. Trails in national parks, wilderness areas and natural areas devoid of roads need to be closed to mountain bikes. They have all the rest of the world to ride in. > I respectfully disagree with some of the things you say and represent, but > Vandeman is a kook of the highest order and while I respect the stuff you > want -- even while I don't agree -- I have absolutely no respect for > Vandeman. Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he represents 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >>> Mr. Vandeman is one of the few who is vehemently against mountain bikes >>> on hiking trails. As long as that is the case, I am on his side. His [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > roads need to be closed to mountain bikes. They have all the rest of the > world to ride in. Sorry, I just do not agree. >> I respectfully disagree with some of the things you say and represent, >> but Vandeman is a kook of the highest order and while I respect the stuff [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he represents > 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. No, Vandeman is hardly ever right, and the very few things he is right about, he's so far over the top that any rational person with the same goals would not dare stand next to him. Just my two cents ... > Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on > many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is > an idealist, you and I are not. We represent 99% of mankind, he represents > 1%. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. The fuss is that you give him the validity that he can't get anyplace else. >> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on >> many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The fuss is that you give him the validity that he can't get anyplace > else. I have to laugh! Mr. Vandeman circulates news items to a select group via emails and he has many supporters almost as avid as he is. Some of these folks that respond to him are extremely intelligent and write letters to various land managers and park officials that are simply excellent. You could learn a lot by reading those emails. You can't go by what you see on Usenet. Usenet is mainly for idiots. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota> >>> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on >>> many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You can't go by what you see on Usenet. Usenet is mainly for idiots. Idiots, like Vandeman. I rest my case. You should separate yourself from him. He's poison to any semblance of reasonableness that you might possess. He won't stop with bikes, he has stated many times that rubber is his issue, not bikes. Today, the rubber is on a bike, but tomorrow the rubber is the soles of your boots. Today you might see him as a leader of a cause you can get behind, but tomorrow you will be behind a cause that would not exist were it not for the efforts of people like him. I get that you want a hiking trail to be a hiking trail. Vandeman wants to close all trails because it's the trail itself that is the environmental harm, not the uses that the trail is put to. You are making a holy allegiance with the Devil. He is not your friend. >>>> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain on >>>> many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. He [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > harm, not the uses that the trail is put to. You are making a holy > allegiance with the Devil. He is not your friend. I do not think your above statement can possibly be correct. Mr. Vandeman is an ardent hiker just like I am. He loves nature and the wild creatures. We just do not want mountain bikers on hiking trails. Mr. Vandeman and I want to access the wilderness, but only as hikers (walkers). Surely you can see the sense of that. I know exactly what I want on these issues. I do not go as far as Mr. Vandeman does. But we are in agreement that mountain bikers should not be on hiking trails. It is too bad you are fixated on some of his personal traits and not on his central thrust. It seems you also agree with us that mountain bikers should not be on hiking trails. There are plenty of other types of pathways for them to be on. Jeep roads are ideal for mountain bikers. Why not come over to the good side. Most mountain bikers are just testosterone prone thugs who don't give a damn about the wilderness or any natural values. All they care about is their "sport". You need to read the books of the great advocates of wilderness. It began with Thoreau, but there are many others extending right up to the present time. They are all excellent writers and make for enjoyable reading. You will come away from such reading prepared to defend wilderness with all your might. The Burns series on the National Parks on TV (PBS) is also pretty good. Mankind needs wilderness. After all, it is where we came from. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >>>>> Well, that is too bad for you, because Mr. Vandeman is right as rain >>>>> on many issues, if not all issues. He is not a kook, merely a purist. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > want to access the wilderness, but only as hikers (walkers). Surely you > can see the sense of that. Sorry, I don't see it at all. That's akin to saying that there should be a separate highway system depending on how you elect to travel. We don't have enough resources to give everybody their own trail system, and doing so pretty much ruins the experience, not to mention the environment. Shared resources is the only way to go. When a specific trail is designated as hiking only -- there are lots of reasons for such a designation, and lots of places where there is such a designation -- then bikes should not be there, but when there is no designation then the trail is by definition a multi-use trail and you just have to learn to share. Of course, the bikes have to share too, which means they need to give right-of-way and other common courtesies to hikers. All I'm hearing is that Mike does not want to share. Too bad, so sad. I wouldn't want to be him. > I know exactly what I want on these issues. I do not go as far as Mr. > Vandeman does. But we are in agreement that mountain bikers should not be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > don't give a damn about the wilderness or any natural values. All they > care about is their "sport". The same assertion is made about offroad vehicle operators by some in your camp. Clearly the assertion is unfounded in reality, but exists in stories and folklore. > You need to read the books of the great advocates of wilderness. It began > with Thoreau, but there are many others extending right up to the present > time. They are all excellent writers and make for enjoyable reading. You > will come away from such reading prepared to defend wilderness with all > your might. The Burns series on the National Parks on TV (PBS) is also > pretty good. I can defend the wilderness and use it at the same time. I don't need gates and fences to lock the public off of public lands to defend the wilderness. The wilderness does just fine, thank you, with the occasional visitor that is passing through without regard to his method of passing. What the wilderness does not tolerate is permanant encampments -- mini malls and gas stations and houses. Paved roads are also something that the wilderness does nto tolerats. But the wilderness can handle a few people on bikes riding through on Saturday and Sunday, or any other day. It isn't the traffic, per se, that harms the wilderness, it's the amount of the traffic. I would go so far as to suggest that a wilderness could be bisected by a highway if there was no means to exit the highway except at opposite ends of the wilderness. One would need the highway to accomodate the animals that may want to traverse the area, this could be accomplished by raising the highway or fencing it in a manner that would guide the animals to natural features that they could use to get to the other side. For example, there is a wilderness area near my home that is a bedroom community, and on the opposite side of the wilderness area is the job center. The homes are cheap and the jobs pay reasonably well, but there is no way to get from one to the other. They can't build a highway to connect the homes to the jobs because of the wilderness designation. There are topographic hurdles too, so the issue isn't an easy one to solve. In any case, they could build about 25 miles of highway and reudce the commute from over 60 miles to under 30, which would be good for everybody concerned -- except for maybe the habitat. I would suggest that the highway could be built in a manner that mitigates the impact to the animal species through which the highway would pass, but there are environmentalist groups that reject the notion. Branches of the same environmental groups decry the use of automobiles, but they fight to keep a 60+ mile commute instead of provide the means of making it an under-30 mile commute. The point is, we can recognize and preserve the few remaining wilderness areas that there are but we don't have to sacrafice our mobility to do it. We can designate wilderness but still venture out to enjoy it. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, as environmentalists would have the rest of us believe. > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message [...] >> I do not think your above statement can possibly be correct. Mr. Vandeman >> is an ardent hiker just like I am. He loves nature and the wild [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > All I'm hearing is that Mike does not want to share. Too bad, so sad. I > wouldn't want to be him. I am with Mr. Vandeman on this issue and not with you. I also do not want to share a hiking trail with mountain bikers. The two modes of recreation do not mix. I have never heard of a hiker who wants to share. Once mountain bikers take to a trail, it is no longer usable by hikers. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on this subject, not you or I. The only sad thing here is your inability to learn. It will be a disaster for wilderness values if your view ever prevails. >> I know exactly what I want on these issues. I do not go as far as Mr. >> Vandeman does. But we are in agreement that mountain bikers should not be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > camp. Clearly the assertion is unfounded in reality, but exists in stories > and folklore. Those who want to use their off-road vehicles in natural areas are beneath contempt. They are savages and barbarians who have more money than brains. >> You need to read the books of the great advocates of wilderness. It began >> with Thoreau, but there are many others extending right up to the present [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the traffic, per se, that harms the wilderness, it's the amount of the > traffic. Mountain bikers need their own trails and such trails should not be anywhere near wilderness. Your tolerance and laissez faire attitude is highly dangerous to wilderness values. > I would go so far as to suggest that a wilderness could be bisected by a > highway if there was no means to exit the highway except at opposite ends [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > to enjoy it. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, as environmentalists > would have the rest of us believe. I have never seen what you describe above as any kind of wilderness I would ever want to visit. People not only want to live near a wilderness but in it, thereby destroying it. Mr. Vandeman is quite right to be opposed to all such infringements. There is precious little wilderness left in this country. If we follow your lead, the US will end up looking exactly like Europe. Is that what you want? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > [...] [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > thing here is your inability to learn. It will be a disaster for > wilderness values if your view ever prevails. Mike is NOT an expert. Most of the time he's wrong. >>> I know exactly what I want on these issues. I do not go as far as Mr. >>> Vandeman does. But we are in agreement that mountain bikers should not [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > but in it, thereby destroying it. Mr. Vandeman is quite right to be > opposed to all such infringements. I agree that when you live in a wilderness, it stops beign one. But we can open the wilderness to visitation without destroying that which makes the wilderness something worth visiting. Much of the wilderness where I live was once mining areas, so there are already roads that have been on the ground for over a century. We also have a wilderness designation that is surrounded by a military installation and national forest on the south and north (respectively), with residential areas to the west and east. This wilderness was designated to keep the residential areas at bay. It's a good idea, but we need a road to connect the homes with the jobs, and this is one of the very few possible routes. This route is off the table thanks to environmental interests, but the irony is that other environmental interests bitch about the burning of fossil fuels and our dependence on foreign oil, but they block a possible route that would cut half of the commute from several tens of thousands of people every day. > There is precious little wilderness left in this country. If we follow > your lead, the US will end up looking exactly like Europe. Is that what > you want? I don't know. I've only been to Europe once, and it looked pretty good to me. > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message [...] >> There is precious little wilderness left in this country. If we follow >> your lead, the US will end up looking exactly like Europe. Is that what >> you want? > > I don't know. I've only been to Europe once, and it looked pretty good to > me. Europe is a well tended garden. There is no wilderness in Europe except at the far fringes. Trust me on this, we do not ever want to look like Europe. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > [...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the far fringes. Trust me on this, we do not ever want to look like > Europe. That's pure nonsense. You looked at Europe from the window of your hotel room, that's the problem. >>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's pure nonsense. You looked at Europe from the window of your hotel > room, that's the problem. Even Switzerland is more a garden than anything else. Trains and roads go everywhere. Our Rocky Mountains are a paradise of wildness compared to the Swiss Alps. Why not look at some detailed road maps of Europe in order to get a clue. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota > I am with Mr. Vandeman on this issue and not with you. That is pretty close to conclusive proof that Jeff is right. -- Guy > [...] > Personally, I think you should distance yourself from the likes of Mike > Vandeman. He's an extremist whack job that does nothing to help you with > your agenda, indeed he harms your agenda among the rational people that > might be inclined to agree with you. That's just my two-cents worth. Personally, I think Ed Dolan should distance himself from Ed Dolan. With all due respect, Mr. Dolan is an extremist whack job who does nothing to help himself with his agenda. ;)  SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >> Personally, I think you should distance yourself from the likes of Mike [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all due respect, Mr. Dolan is an extremist whack job who does nothing to > help himself with his agenda. ;) This is nothing but an example of the kettle calling the pot black. No greater extremist exists in the entire universe than Mr. Sherman - as is well known on these cycling newsgroups. He equates Palestinian terrorists with the Israeli military. Enuf said! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota >The Psychology of Mountain Biking >Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. >January 24, 2000 >“Violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: I is >necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most >intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge >in falsehood. … ...snip drivel... Good lord, a freudian slip that is exceedingly appropriate! Now nobody can say that he tells nothing but lies. Even though the slip causes the statement to make a bit less sense and is grammatically incorrect, it is very accurate. Since the twit advocates violence, I suppose it fits in with the overall theme. Wow Mikey, good on you for coming clean, even if it was unintentional: I is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Now I know you were just quoting, and your original intention was different, but isn't it fascinating how you managed to make it fit you to a tee?!?! It is a very exciting breakthrough and you should be proud. The first step toward fixing a problem is admitting you have it, as your therapist has no doubt told you. Now, next time he gets you coloring with crayons, drawing pictures of your dead cat that you irresponsibly let roam free, remembering your childhood abuses received and given, making graphic illustrations of those special night visits from uncle Herman, be sure to let him know about this little slip of yours. Maybe it will lead somewhere or maybe not, but you must at least try. We're all rootin' for ya'!!!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.