Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-21-09
It is a BIG mistake and a BAD precedent to compromise Wilderness for the benefit of mountain bikers. Mountain bikers are a tiny minority of the recreation community, and every one of them is capable of walking! ...
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . It’s dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don’t have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else—ON FOOT! Why isn’t that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking….
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it’s not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the
area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it’s NOT!). What’s good about THAT?
Why is mountain biking hard for the national forest to categorize? Shouldn’t a an agency such as the USNF have some good unbiased data on the sport by now? It’s been around for over 20 years.
Comparing mountain bikes to motorcycles(as mentioned in the story) is absurd. The impacts are grossly different. I’ve done both for most of my life, and while the motorized user can do much more damage, the individual user and trails are the dominant factors in determining impacts.
One of the main issues for overall sustainability is trail design. Some trails hold up well for mountain biking, others not so well. Soil types, trail grade, offslope, trail watershed and other variables dictate if a trail is sustainable or not for the intended user groups. Another key factor is the amount of use that they get. Properly designed multiple use trails are sustainable for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians.
Mike’s position is simply extremist. He says bicycles shouldn’t be allowed in ANY natural area. He says they are inanimate objects and have no rights. I hope Mike does all of his walking naked and barefoot, for his clothes and shoes don’t have rights either.
He is correct though that we need regulation. The question is, will regulation be based upon good science and an understanding of the actual situation on the ground(trails)? If it is, then the proper place for mountain bikes and all other users will be properly defined and most everyone will be happy including the critters.
Best of luck local USFS. Dig deep in your efforts and make us all proud of the job you are capable of doing.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-21-09
“Westside2” claims that we should use good science to determine what to do about mountain biking. The only good science of the subject (Wisdom et al’s study of impacts on elk) concluded that mountain bikers have a greater impact on wildlife than either hikers or equestrians. And that was in spite of ignoring the much longer distances that mountain bikers travel, as opposed to hikers! But science only deals with facts, not ethics. Ethically, it is extremely irresponsible for humans to destroy as much wildlife habitat as we have over the years. The result is a huge number of species being endangered. Compared with the wildlife’s desire to survive, and the community’s desire to protect them, mountain bikers’ desire for thrills is not an important priority, especially since they already have access to every trail in the world. All they have to do is WALK! I really wonder why mountain bikers are too lazy to walk…. And we we need to cater to such lazy people….
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Dave on 09-21-09
Interesting problem wilderness areas are now having. In Colorado, outside of Carbondale, there is a 400,000 acre wilderness area being held up, in part, to the opposition of a mountain biking association. There is also keen interest to drill for gas in the area. One would assume mtn. bikers would sooner opt for wilderness on foot rather than industrialized land, but apparently that’s not always the case. I know that I feel a little guilty when mtn biking on trails that hikers use as well. I can tell by their frightened expressions and jumpy responses that I’ve pretty much ruined their out-of-doors experience. No pollution is good, though not really compatible with wilderness . . .
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-21-09
Good point! If mountain bikers really cared about protecting the land, they would support Wilderness designation unreservedly, as most people do. Instead, their primary concern is maintaining access for bikes. You won’t hear any of them admitting that they will still have access to those trails after the area has been designated Wilderness—they will just have to go there on foot. For some reason, they see that as a big sacrifice, but I can’t understand why. The best way to experience nature is on foot: then there is nothing to distract you.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Westside2 on 09-22-09
Actually I do both as do many other hikers.. Hike and mountain bike that is. Your suggestion that cyclists are lazy is incorrect and displays a bias against cycling. The best way for you to experience nature is not the best way for everyone. Some trails are simply more enjoyable to me and others on a bike. Of course there are trails and areas that incompatible with mountain bikes. There are also other trails that are closed unnecessarily to mountain bikers. Poor line of site and trails which encourage too much speed by virtue of their design often lead to negative encounters as one example.
Contrary to Mikes’ thinking, mountain bikers often look away from the trail, or stop at points of interest and try as I might I find it impossible turn off my peripheral vision while riding or walking. Sure, there are some pure hedonist on mountain bikes, but this doesn’t mean that we should make management decisions based upon a subjective value judgement placed upon an entire user group. There many options for inclusion including seasonal closures for varying user groups. Of course these should be based on science and the study on elk that Mike mentions should of course be looked into. What doesn’t make sense though are blanket closures based on conditions that don’t exist on a particular trail.
I’m for evaluating the reasonableness of mountain bikes on all trails, including existing and proposed wilderness and for promoting responsible riding when trails are open to mountain biking. It’s the reasonable thing to do.
A former friend of mine was a very active member in our local wilderness chapter. Still though, he hiked with his dogs regularly, as do many hikers, and seldom were they on a leash. More often than not, the dogs would be running ahead, or off the trail in search of critters to chase. Should we ban all hiking because of a few hikers who allow their dogs to chase wildlife? No. This is a human problem that can be managed, just as mountain bikers sometimes need management. Sometimes this might mean no bikes, but it should be evaluated on a trail by trail basis based upon the best available science and knowledge of the local area/trail of concern.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Westside2, yes, of course, dogs should never be allowed off-leash. Your ideas about evaluating trails on a case-by-case basis is unworkable and unnecessary. The laws of physics & biology are the same everywhere. Wildlife everywhere deserve the same degree of protection. I can’t think of any good reason for wasting time coming up with different rules for different trails.
Trails do not “encourage” speeding. You have the free will to choose not to speed. You can’t blame it on the trail!
As to why mountain bikers are too lazy to walk, I can’t understand it, and you haven’t explained it. The only reason I can think for why someone would choose to bike instead of walk, other than laziness, is that they are of necessity in a hurry, or want to travel farther than they can walk. But both seem pointless. Why see 100 miles of terrain poorly, when you can see 10 miles thoroughly? And why hurry, when the whole idea of being there is to EXPERIENCE it?!
It’s very easy to see that most mountain bikers rarely stop and look at anything. All you have to do is look at their webcam videos, such as http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbvideo. You can easily see that they RARELY stop, and are travelling too fast to pick up anything significant in their “peripheral vision”. The evidence speaks for itself.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Matt Holloway on 09-22-09
The Kootenai NF is about 2.3 million acres in size and right now mountain bikers have unrestricted access to roughly 1.9 million acres. The Cabinet Mountain Wilderness is only 94, 272 acres. What do we need more of? WILDERNESS! Not to mention, active mountain biking areas are harder to change to wilderness as opposed to areas without biking access. And, for the record: dogs off-leash are as much of a nuisance and disruption to wildlife and ME as a bike, motorized vehicle, or plane. Sometimes even more… But, that’s just me.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-22-09
I really don’t understand why people are so quick to give up their rights and liberties to ANYONE. This is your land my fellow Montanans. If we can’t ride a bloody bike on it then what the heck is the point? The same goes for Tester’s Bill. Just more Land Grabbing.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By grannysgadgets on 09-22-09
*Hear Hear* Oris. The thing that we want to watch out for is giving up all of our rights for the wilderness area’s ( which it is great to save wilderness dont get me wrong) To one day find ourselves standing outside of a 10 foot fence with no tresspassing allowed signs. Ending up with millions of acres that we can only stand outside of, left to imagine what it was like to enjoy being a part of those mountains now in the distance.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Westside2 on 09-22-09
Mike it’s absolutely workable to evaluate trails on a case by case basis and it’s absolutely possible to design trails so that they are inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Talk to a professional trail builder sometime and maybe they can break down the specifics for you.
Of course you have the right to your thoughts and I have the right to mine, but you have a habit of stereotyping, namecalling and putting words into the mouths of mountain bikers that is not helpful. Will you work on changing on this?
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Oris & grannysgadgets, you can’t lose a right that you never had. There is no right to bring a bike wherever you want to. That was settled in federal court in 1994. See the court decision: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10. The community also has the right to close areas to ALL people, when it is necessary for protecting the wildlife (who are the true owners of the land, having occupied it for 4 billion years before humans ever came around!). The Northwest Hawaiian Islands are closed to everyone but scientists, because that is the only way that such sensitive wildlife habitat can be preserved. There is no right to do whatever you want, whenever you want to, and there never has been such a right, thank God!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Westside2, life is too short to waste it splitting hairs. The science shows that mountain biking is very harmful, and much more so than hiking. That doesn’t change from one trail to another. We don’t need different traffic laws in different cities, and we don’t need different laws for different trails. People like you, who never give any specifics, add nothing to the debate. I’m going to continue telling the truth about mountain biking, and everything else, regardless of who doesn’t like it, and who would prefer that I shut up. Mountain bikers are notorious for bullying and intimidating everyone. In the long run, that backfires. Why do you think that mountain bikers have such a terrible reputation? Because they’ve EARNED it! Their mantra is “yes, I know bikes aren’t allowed here, now get out of my way!“ I have heard them say that, not just once, but many times.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-22-09
Dear Mike, one question…Where in America’s Consitution does it say animals have a “right” to our country’s land over We The People???
If any of you are tired of the government’s continuing land grabbing, whether by the Forest Service or Sen. Tester’s special interest Bill S1470 with the happy sounding name of, “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.“ come to a Tea Party being sponsored by a bunch of ticked off Housewives. It’s Sept 24 @ 6:30 at the Libby, Montana VFW Hall. (114 West 2nd St) We have Representatives Chas Vincent & Jerry Bennett as Speakers. We’ll be serving dessert & coffee. It’s free and open to all. Make your voices heard!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-22-09
I was born and raise in New York but chose to spend the rest of my life in Libby. I love it here as do my neighbors. But I’m concerned as to why Senator Tester wouldn’t meet with us to go over his thoughts on this bill of his. From what I understand he worked with a pretty small group of people that seemed to have some rather heavy special interests put forth in Bill S1470. They speak about doing surveys in the communities, yet won’t explain who paid for the polling or who, what or where this polling took place. Because of his lack of transparency on this I question the motivation of Senator Tester and the gang that worked with him on Bill S1470.
Having spent 40 plus years in New York I’m all too sadly reminded of how back there we lost so many of our privileges to our land when just such land grabs happened. Special interests and big money from ecology friendly groups shut down the forest that surrounded small towns. Yes, there promises that logging would be “allowed” in certain areas…but afterwards those promises weren’t worth the paper they were written on. If logging or mining was attempted it was stopped by being tied up for years in a court by assorted ecology groups. Eventually it became unprofitable to even attempt to do such business in the region. Such bills as S1470 strangled regional businesses and left little for these towns to work with other than to pray for tourist to drive through. These little hometowns soon became nothing more than ghettos of poverty. I do not want that to happen here to my beloved Montana nor my new hometown. I’m asking each of you to boldly question Bill S1470 and don’t stop until you see the whole picture. Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (S1470) - 677,000 acre wilderness bill. Once that land is given up it can never be returned to those I feel rightfully are it’s TRUE stewards. Educate yourself on this bill before going along with it’s happy sounding title. Ask questions and don’t stop till you get real answers.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Oris, good question: “Dear Mike, one question…Where in America’s Consitution does it say animals have a “right” to our country’s land over We The People???“ Obviously, the wildlife owned it before humans arrived (about 10,000 years ago). Native Americans never claimed title. How did the U.S. get title? By force? Force doesn’t confer title, otherwise, I could take your house by force, and then claim title to it. Obviously, the U.S. Constitution was written by humans, with the wildlife having no vote nor veto power, so it’s a document that is only relevant to human-to-human relations. Remember the Boston Tea Party? “No taxation without representation”? Well the wildlife weren’t represented, so humans, and the U.S. Constitution, have no jurisdiction over the wildlife.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-22-09
Wow Mike…Your answer just rocked the Crazy Meter off the charts. Next question oh Lord of the Deer… Now that the animals have land and representation, when can we start collecting taxes from them??
P.S. You have proved so many points here that I know it’s not worth my time to try and debate such a closed mind…But I have to say you do make me giggle though.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By gregb406 on 09-22-09
I am disappointed that the comments do not match the story. This isn’t about Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. This isn’t about a Tea Party. The article certainly isn’t about Mike Vandeman. Too bad he derailed the responses. I think that was his goal.
The Forest Service has a tough time trying to figure out how to catagorize and manage mountain biking. Sometimes they actively embrace it, and other times actively oppose it. Other forest supervisers are just at a loss. Clueless. Bicycling can be the answer to many of our transportation needs and worsening national health. It is time to have meaningful debate. In an unbiased fashion, find the place for bikes on our nations public lands.
Mr. Testa wrote a meaningful and insightful article. He is to be commended. This article tells it like it is, nothing more or less. Good journalism.
Meanwhile, MJV is out there, stirring the pot. He must like the wide open forum of Montana publications, as he has been prohibited many other places. Read up on him, he’s famous. http://evergreenmtb.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32 Remember, if you ignore him, you can have a meaningful conversation around his rants. Kind of like talking over a distruptive child or an obnoxious dog.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By grannysgadgets on 09-22-09
Gregb406 : Thanks for the link, thats a very interesting little post ! Well that’s that, no sense having a debate with someone that set for just a one sided practiced fight ! <sigh> indeed there are a number of commenters that share the same blind, here to just tick someone off ego….. Thanks for the heads up anyways !
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-22-09
Dear Greg,
You are quite correct in saying the article isn’t about Tester’s Bill or Tea Parties and sure not about Professor Loon. My interest in the article was that I saw it as just a small piece of a larger picture. I’m just blown away about how easily the government finds ways to remove or limit the use to the American public such land. And for the most part they get away with it. Whether it’s water rights, grazing rights, saving the grizzlies, whatever…they are taking away so much from you. They’ll use the EPA, Homeland Security, Endangered Species Act.. anything they can come up with as long as it gets the job done. What they give back are some crumbs that we end up fighting over, such as trails for biking or walking. If they can keep us bickering among ourselves like kids they know we won’t join together as one voice to halt what they are doing. You just have to step back, open your mind and look at the whole total picture.
My personal interest isn’t with mountain biking. Heck I don’t even own a bike, ATV or snowmobile. But what I do have is a burning desire to see that our government both local and national (as well as the UN) stop telling us they know better than we do what should be done in our own backyard. I really hope you can join me and step back to view the whole picture. That is why I commented on this article. Thanks for listening.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Oris, the government just represents the community. The vast majority of the community WANT to protect land in the form of Wilderness. We LIKE the Endangered Species Act. If you don’t want the majority to rule, I can suggest some other countries where you may feel more comfortable. You won’t have to put up with freedom of speech, either. It’s not being taken away from you. It’s being protected, so that it will still be around for your children and grandchildren to enjoy, and not trashed by people too ignorant to appreciate it.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-23-09
Hey Mike… I’m bored by you..now go away
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-23-09
I love to hike, ski, backpack, and mountain bike in the backcountry. I think its humorous for individuals to demonize other users of the backcountry because they don’t do it the way they think it should be done. That’s the big city way.
All living things have both positive and negative effects on the environment. Hiking on a rainy day leaves a track. Did that hurt the environment? What about the next ridge over, is that stand of trees hurt by the track left by the hiker? A bike leaves a rut on the trail. Did that hurt the environment? Yes, that mark left by that bike damaged that 18 inch by 2 foot long piece of ground. Is that acceptable? What about the gravel pit over on McCaffery Road? Does it hurt the environment? I’m for minimizing impacts to our environment. Within reason. Anti mountain biking sentiment is often about the same devisive attitudes that go back to tribes, languages, and skin color. “You’re not like me, so I don’t like you.“ It’s pathetic.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-23-09
And then some dope like Mike shows up and feeds that devisive attitude. And then he finds some other like minded people, and persuades them to his point of view. And finds everything he can to substantiate his position. And reads, writes, and attempts to influence as many people as possible to his point of view. Because if he is successful in leveraging his position he can get what he wants! What does he really want, and why? He might not even know his real motives. It probably doesn’t matter anymore. He’s been indoctrinated by his own rhetoric and that of his co-instigators. Demonize those mtn bikers because they’re EVIL. All of ‘Em! Once more, pathetic. When was the last time you were in the woods Mike? Where was I? I’m one of those evil mountain bikers! I remember visiting with a hiker the last time I was on the trail with my mtn bike. They were up picking berries, and we compared notes on the spot we were picking, because I had a ziplock full of em in my Camelbak too. You got an agenda Mike. “You’re not like me, so I don’t like you.“ Go back to the city. That attitude fits in real good there.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-23-09
It’s very interesting to see that mountain bikers have so little knowledge of the real impacts of mountain biking that they actually can’t say anything specific about it. Instead, they prefer to attack anyone who disagrees with them, and lie about everything and everyone. That’s actually the best evidence that the mountain bikers don’t really have a case! If there were any good reasons for allowing bikes on trails, they would be able to list them. No one needs to “demonize” mountain bikers, since they already do such a good job of making themselves look like fools. Mountain bikers are their own worst enemies! But you are right about one thing: destroying the environment IS evil! I can’t think of anything lower than killing innocent plants and animals, just to provide a few mountain bikers with cheap thrills.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-23-09
You are not like me, so I don’t like you. So sayeth the hater.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-23-09
Wade, it sounds like you are describing YOURSELF. We psychologists have a name for that. It’s called
“projection”. Look it up in the dictionary.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-23-09
I like hikers and psychologists. You should talk down to me more. I’m completely sure that you know much more about nearly everything than me. I’m just a dumb fool stupid heartless mountain biker. I won’t hold it against hikers or psychologists. Or you. You have an agenda you are quite committed to, and I am just your witless foil. Strike away; I’m not like you, so you don’t like me.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By OpenMindedHikers on 09-23-09
Mike we think you should get help. Professional psychological help that is.
Maybe someday, if you recover you can join is on the trail? After all, we are open mined hikers and we believe anything is possible!
-Open Minded Hiking Club local 101
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-23-09
Mike, you have a great sense of humor too! I’m impressed!
Back to the article, I’ve been thinking. The Galton travel plan may have been shaping up the way it has because of the single focus lobbying by the Montana Wilderness Association. I am guessing this effective effort has helped shape the restrictive bicycle plan. Reference this link. http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/going_wild_for_wildlife/5665/ Now, when bicyclists finally speak up in unison, it must have been a shock for the Kootenai planners to realize that they have been hearing from only a portion of the public. Hopefully we can go forward from this point with the knowledge that plans need to balance forest use. That plans should to take everyone into account.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-24-09
I ask that you educate yourself on Sen. J. Tester’s Forest Job’s and Recreation Act (FJRA) Bill A1470. I don’t believe Bikers will be enjoying freedom to rise in favorite spots they now have.
“This year’s Lima Festival was held on borrowed time, however. The clock is ticking on bicycle access to the trails that have drawn riders to southern Beaverhead County for years. These trails are slated for closure to bicycles in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge (B-D) Forest Plan and consequently in Senator Jon Tester’s Forest Job’s and Recreation Act (FJRA). The B-D Forest Plan will close the Lima Peaks/Garfield Mountain, the Italian Peak area and local sections of Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) later this year under the Forest Service philosophy that bans bicycles from recommended Wilderness areas. The FJRA in its current form will seal the deal. “
Educate yourselves, unite and make your voices heard.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Westside2 on 09-24-09
I requested that Mike be banned for violating the Beacon’s ground rules. Hopefully they agreed and a reasonable dialogue can resume.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Vud on 09-24-09
Westside2:
While I might not neccessarily agree with his POV,
I don’t see any violations in his posts.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By iHaveLice on 09-24-09
to that mike dude. i eat the amnimals that supposedly have a right to the land. and i mountain bike sometimes too i like it and i would like to bike wherever i want. its not like im killing a person by biking in the forest. jeez.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By coldsteel on 09-24-09
Anything Class 1 or 2 is way more fun via bike. If you don’t wish to encounter bikers, climb Class 3 to 5-15, else stfu. As a courtesy to hikers, if a walker doesn’t immediately step aside on a single track, I will dismount and say “how ya doin, thank you, excuse me.have a good day?“. While walking up a trail, had a dikhead once yell, “GET OUT of my WAY”...Proper etiquette if you don’t want an ### whupin is to whistle or hoot. A modicum of courtesy on foot or on two wheels is really what this boils down to as with my size 14 boots I cause as much trail damage as any biker. Last thing, don’t fly past hikers at 60mph even with a yard clearance..could get you shot. Let’s be cordial out thar.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-24-09
The ESFJ personaility type, first identified by Carl Jung.
Begin quote:
ESFJs who have not had the advantage of developing their own values by weighing them against a good external value system may develop very questionable values. In such cases, the ESFJ most often genuinely believes in the integrity of their skewed value system. They have no internal understanding of values to set them straight. In weighing their values against our society, they find plenty of support for whatever moral transgression they wish to justify. This type of ESFJ is a dangerous person indeed. Extraverted Feeling drives them to control and manipulate, and their lack of Intuition prevents them from seeing the big picture. They’re usually quite popular and good with people, and good at manipulating them. Unlike their ENFJ cousin, they don’t have Intuition to help them understand the real consequences of their actions. They are driven to manipulate other to achieve their own ends, yet they believe that they are following a solid moral code of conduct.
All ESFJs have a natural tendency to want to control their environment. Their dominant function demands structure and organization, and seeks closure. ESFJs are most comfortable with structured environments. They’re not likely to enjoy having to do things which involve abstract, theoretical concepts, or impersonal analysis. They do enjoy creating order and structure, and are very good at tasks which require these kinds of skills. ESFJs should be careful about controling people in their lives who do not wish to be controlled.
ESFJs respect and believe in the laws and rules of authority, and believe that others should do so as well. They’re traditional, and prefer to do things in the established way, rather than venturing into unchartered territory. Their need for security drives their ready acceptance and adherence to the policies of the established system. This tendency may cause them to sometimes blindly accept rules without questioning or understanding them.
An ESFJ who has developed in a less than ideal way may be prone to being quite insecure, and focus all of their attention on pleasing others. He or she might also be very controling, or overly sensitive, imagining bad intentions when there weren’t any.
End quote.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-24-09
Mountain bikers don’t want to be controled by you, Mike. We’re not like you, so you don’t like us.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-24-09
Westside2: “I requested that Mike be banned for violating the Beacon’s ground rules.“ Typical mountain biker dishonesty. You conveniently ignored the fact that ALL of the violations of the Beacon policy were committed by you (e.g. calling me an “extremist”) and other mountain bikers. That’s because you don’t have the knowledge to discuss mountain biking impacts intelligently. All you know how to do is attack PEOPLE, which is of course irrelevant to the issues. Mountain bikers’ middle name is “Dishonest”. It’s the first thing one notices about them, and it’s the best evidence that they don’t have a case.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Tox on 09-24-09
Snowboards should not be allowed on Virgin Powder.
They are vile, inanimate objects and have no rights.
There is no right to snowboard.
No right to desecrate Pow.
It has been a tragic mistake to compromise the beauty of Virgin Pow
for the benefit of blasphemous, destructive snowboarders
A favorite myth of snowboarders is that snowboarding
is no more harmful to lovely Powder than skiing is,
and that science supports such an ignorant view.
Of course, this is not at all not true, but rather
a treacherous myth to assuage the righteous.
We all know that the art of worshiping Pow as was handed down by the Nordic Gods,
clearly showing that She must always be caressed with 2 boards, one on each foot.
Only decadent snowboarders, in their endless, thrill-seeking lust
could come with riding Her on only one board.
The thought alone causes me anguish.
How can they be so insensitive?!
How can they be so selfish?!
Do they not even care how destructive they are for Virgin Pow?
Do they not care about the deep, wide ruts they carve?
Snowboarders should be forever banished from Virgin Pow,
except in areas specifically designated for them,
where they can pursue their obscene obsession
without unnecessarily disturbing those others,
with more lofty and serene pursuits….
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-24-09
I am entertained by Mike’s attempt to apply Universalism to an activity whose aspects are dependent upon many other aspects.
Mike is trying to manipulate others to believe that universally all mountain bikers are liars, dishonest, stupid, and fools. He sells us short though, because we all know that those traits are dependant upon much more than just a single activity or set of activities.
He uses his measure of education and intellegence, driven by an altruistic desire to preserve the environment by isolating it completely by humans, distorted by his skewed value system to achieve his agenda by less than ethical means, and fueled by his own need for structure and order in life to manipulate others into accepting his points of view.
In reality, Mike is a SF Bay area intellectual who thinks hunting, fishing, mountain biking, and any other form of recreation that he deems “damaging” to wilderness should be outlawed. He logs in to many websites that permit the posting of comments as part of social networking under his own name, and many alternative aliases so that he can manipulate, create controversy, influence, distort, and demonize those who don’t share his weltanschauung (worldview).
Mike, the majority of people in Montana (that’s more than half) participate in those activities that you would like to have banned from the backcountry, and they do so in the areas you would have them eliminated from. I’m surprised you haven’t unleashed your vitrolic rhetoric on backcountry skiers and snowmobilers too. It’s probably because you don’t live in an area that gets a winter snowpack, but that’s just a guess.
We’re not like you, so you don’t like us.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Wade on 09-24-09
Won’t someone stand up for the EVIL that is MAN and all that he has done to rape and pillage the Virgin? The POW (thanks TOX, awesome) and the TRAIL. Mike, you must persuade others to right the wrong, vanquish the dissenters, and stand up against those that would trample on our dear Earth, permanently destroying it forever!
Thank you Mike. We’re not like you, so you don’t like us. But with you tireless efforts, you may be able to manipulate others into not liking us either.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By mooseberryinn on 09-24-09
It’s just too easy. Ok, all those who absolutely must protect the land… get off, and your job is done.
Nurse Brain-Injured by a Mountain Biking “Accident”!
I hope that this very sad case will convince people that mountain biking should be banned EVERYWHERE. Trails are not designed to be predictable, and never will be, making mountain biking inherently dangerous. No amount of “fun” will compensate for this!
Family, friends seek help for Piedmont woman injured in bike ride
By J.M. Brown
Correspondent
Posted: 09/24/2009 10:33:12 AM PDT
Updated: 09/24/2009 11:49:32 AM PDT
Friends of a Piedmont woman who suffered a brain injury during a cycling accident last month are asking for the public’s help in raising funds for her family.
Adriana Ospina, 37, a labor and delivery nurse at Oakland’s Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, was ejected from her mountain bike on a trail below Mount Tamalpais on Aug. 30 after a long ride with friends. In addition to the brain injury, Ospina is being treated at Marin General Hospital for a broken collarbone and shoulder blade.
Ospina was in a coma for 19 days until Sept. 18, when she finally began to respond to voices and spoke slightly. Relatives anticipate she will need costly rehabilitation after she fully regains consciousness.
etc.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-25-09
mike since when did you start caring about humans? You don’t..so I find your use of this woman’s situation disgusting, yet completely typical. How low you will go is limitless.
Oh by the way Mike, after Obama was elected, you and I spoke about it ALOT on here. It is now my smug pleasure to say..I TOLD YOU SO! I was correct and you continue your losing streak. Thanks for the laugh.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Mike Vandeman on 09-25-09
Oris, if you cared about your fellow mountainbikers, you would be in favor of publicizing incidents like this one, in order to warn them. Instead, you and other mountain bikers would rather that they just be swept under the rug and ignored. Your behavior is CRIMINAL, although 100% predictable.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By JoeinMontana on 09-25-09
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Oris, the government just represents the community. The vast majority of the community WANT to protect land in the form of Wilderness. We LIKE the Endangered Species Act. If you don’t want the majority to rule, I can suggest some other countries where you may feel more comfortable. You won’t have to put up with freedom of speech, either. It’s not being taken away from you. It’s being protected, so that it will still be around for your children and grandchildren to enjoy, and not trashed by people too ignorant to appreciate it.
You are really that blind? You REALLY like the “Kool-Aid” dont you? “VAST majority”.....wow….in the words of Barney Frank…..WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM”? Wow…...earth calling…...
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Oris on 09-28-09
Mad Mike..you don’t seem to read and remember well… I don’t even own a bike, let alone go mountain biking. Are Connie and Maury paying you to write such drivel?? What a waste for all involved. Click
A leading Scottish spine surgeon has called for an urgent review of mountain-biking safety after figures showed the number of cyclists seriously injured has risen.
David Allen, director of the Queen Elizabeth National Spinal Injuries Unit at Glasgow’s Southern General hospital, warned the sport’s growing popularity meant the number of off-road cyclists injuring their spines would continue to rise unless action was taken.
Since 2004, there have been more than 120 mountainbiking accidents, with eight cyclists getting spinal injuries. Cycling is the second-most common cause of sports-related spinal injuries, after diving.
Last month, a mountain biker was airlifted to hospital with serious head and neck injuries after crashing on a trail in Dalbeattie in the southwest of Scotland. In October last year, a 15-year-old boy received a serious head injury in Ae Forest in Dumfries and Galloway.
“There does appear to be a disproportionate increase in the number of mountain bike injuries and they are, in general, more serious [than other cycling accidents],” said Allen.
The increase in serious injuries has coincided with Scotland’s growing international popularity as a destination for mountain bikers.
The trend has been blamed on inexperienced riders who tackle forest trails and purpose-built tracks, which often involve difficult jumps and steep “drop-offs”. Concerns have also been raised over the quality of riders’ equipment, such as helmets and pads.
Allen’s warning comes ahead of the publication of a national strategic framework on mountain biking, compiled by cycling groups.
The framework will recommend that all trails in Scotland comply with a standard colour-coded grading system used by the Forestry Commission. Under the system, green denotes the easiest trail, progressing to blue, red, black and orange, which should be attempted only by the most experienced bikers.
More detailed information on trails will be provided so riders can judge which are best suited to their ability.
The first mountain bike proficiency scheme, run by Scottish Cycling, the sport’s governing body, will also be launched in Scotland and rolled out across the rest of Britain. Riders must demonstrate good technical, navigation and first aid skills to pass.
“A national strategic framework on mountain biking is welcomed as long as it takes into consideration the importance of safety awareness and safety of the trail, equipment and clothing, including the use of helmets and protective body armour,” said Allen. “We would welcome a real-time accident-monitoring scheme that could identify dangerous routes.”
Etc.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
Ushering History Into the Digital Age
Montana Republicans, Democrats Race to File for Legislature
A Brew With a View
Fallen Hungry Horse Soldier Returns Home
Flathead Schools Struggle at State Basketball
Comments on: In Kootenai Forest, a Test Case for Mountain Bike Access
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-21-09
It is a BIG mistake and a BAD precedent to compromise Wilderness for the benefit of mountain bikers. Mountain bikers are a tiny minority of the recreation community, and every one of them is capable of walking! ...
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . It’s dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don’t have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else—ON FOOT! Why isn’t that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking….
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it’s not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the
area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it’s NOT!). What’s good about THAT?
For more information: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbfaq .
By Westside2 on 09-21-09
Why is mountain biking hard for the national forest to categorize? Shouldn’t a an agency such as the USNF have some good unbiased data on the sport by now? It’s been around for over 20 years.
Comparing mountain bikes to motorcycles(as mentioned in the story) is absurd. The impacts are grossly different. I’ve done both for most of my life, and while the motorized user can do much more damage, the individual user and trails are the dominant factors in determining impacts.
One of the main issues for overall sustainability is trail design. Some trails hold up well for mountain biking, others not so well. Soil types, trail grade, offslope, trail watershed and other variables dictate if a trail is sustainable or not for the intended user groups. Another key factor is the amount of use that they get. Properly designed multiple use trails are sustainable for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians.
Mike’s position is simply extremist. He says bicycles shouldn’t be allowed in ANY natural area. He says they are inanimate objects and have no rights. I hope Mike does all of his walking naked and barefoot, for his clothes and shoes don’t have rights either.
He is correct though that we need regulation. The question is, will regulation be based upon good science and an understanding of the actual situation on the ground(trails)? If it is, then the proper place for mountain bikes and all other users will be properly defined and most everyone will be happy including the critters.
Best of luck local USFS. Dig deep in your efforts and make us all proud of the job you are capable of doing.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-21-09
“Westside2” claims that we should use good science to determine what to do about mountain biking. The only good science of the subject (Wisdom et al’s study of impacts on elk) concluded that mountain bikers have a greater impact on wildlife than either hikers or equestrians. And that was in spite of ignoring the much longer distances that mountain bikers travel, as opposed to hikers! But science only deals with facts, not ethics. Ethically, it is extremely irresponsible for humans to destroy as much wildlife habitat as we have over the years. The result is a huge number of species being endangered. Compared with the wildlife’s desire to survive, and the community’s desire to protect them, mountain bikers’ desire for thrills is not an important priority, especially since they already have access to every trail in the world. All they have to do is WALK! I really wonder why mountain bikers are too lazy to walk…. And we we need to cater to such lazy people….
By Dave on 09-21-09
Interesting problem wilderness areas are now having. In Colorado, outside of Carbondale, there is a 400,000 acre wilderness area being held up, in part, to the opposition of a mountain biking association. There is also keen interest to drill for gas in the area. One would assume mtn. bikers would sooner opt for wilderness on foot rather than industrialized land, but apparently that’s not always the case. I know that I feel a little guilty when mtn biking on trails that hikers use as well. I can tell by their frightened expressions and jumpy responses that I’ve pretty much ruined their out-of-doors experience. No pollution is good, though not really compatible with wilderness . . .
By Mike Vandeman on 09-21-09
Good point! If mountain bikers really cared about protecting the land, they would support Wilderness designation unreservedly, as most people do. Instead, their primary concern is maintaining access for bikes. You won’t hear any of them admitting that they will still have access to those trails after the area has been designated Wilderness—they will just have to go there on foot. For some reason, they see that as a big sacrifice, but I can’t understand why. The best way to experience nature is on foot: then there is nothing to distract you.
By Westside2 on 09-22-09
Actually I do both as do many other hikers.. Hike and mountain bike that is. Your suggestion that cyclists are lazy is incorrect and displays a bias against cycling. The best way for you to experience nature is not the best way for everyone. Some trails are simply more enjoyable to me and others on a bike. Of course there are trails and areas that incompatible with mountain bikes. There are also other trails that are closed unnecessarily to mountain bikers. Poor line of site and trails which encourage too much speed by virtue of their design often lead to negative encounters as one example.
Contrary to Mikes’ thinking, mountain bikers often look away from the trail, or stop at points of interest and try as I might I find it impossible turn off my peripheral vision while riding or walking. Sure, there are some pure hedonist on mountain bikes, but this doesn’t mean that we should make management decisions based upon a subjective value judgement placed upon an entire user group. There many options for inclusion including seasonal closures for varying user groups. Of course these should be based on science and the study on elk that Mike mentions should of course be looked into. What doesn’t make sense though are blanket closures based on conditions that don’t exist on a particular trail.
I’m for evaluating the reasonableness of mountain bikes on all trails, including existing and proposed wilderness and for promoting responsible riding when trails are open to mountain biking. It’s the reasonable thing to do.
A former friend of mine was a very active member in our local wilderness chapter. Still though, he hiked with his dogs regularly, as do many hikers, and seldom were they on a leash. More often than not, the dogs would be running ahead, or off the trail in search of critters to chase. Should we ban all hiking because of a few hikers who allow their dogs to chase wildlife? No. This is a human problem that can be managed, just as mountain bikers sometimes need management. Sometimes this might mean no bikes, but it should be evaluated on a trail by trail basis based upon the best available science and knowledge of the local area/trail of concern.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Westside2, yes, of course, dogs should never be allowed off-leash. Your ideas about evaluating trails on a case-by-case basis is unworkable and unnecessary. The laws of physics & biology are the same everywhere. Wildlife everywhere deserve the same degree of protection. I can’t think of any good reason for wasting time coming up with different rules for different trails.
Trails do not “encourage” speeding. You have the free will to choose not to speed. You can’t blame it on the trail!
As to why mountain bikers are too lazy to walk, I can’t understand it, and you haven’t explained it. The only reason I can think for why someone would choose to bike instead of walk, other than laziness, is that they are of necessity in a hurry, or want to travel farther than they can walk. But both seem pointless. Why see 100 miles of terrain poorly, when you can see 10 miles thoroughly? And why hurry, when the whole idea of being there is to EXPERIENCE it?!
It’s very easy to see that most mountain bikers rarely stop and look at anything. All you have to do is look at their webcam videos, such as http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbvideo. You can easily see that they RARELY stop, and are travelling too fast to pick up anything significant in their “peripheral vision”. The evidence speaks for itself.
By Matt Holloway on 09-22-09
The Kootenai NF is about 2.3 million acres in size and right now mountain bikers have unrestricted access to roughly 1.9 million acres. The Cabinet Mountain Wilderness is only 94, 272 acres. What do we need more of? WILDERNESS! Not to mention, active mountain biking areas are harder to change to wilderness as opposed to areas without biking access. And, for the record: dogs off-leash are as much of a nuisance and disruption to wildlife and ME as a bike, motorized vehicle, or plane. Sometimes even more… But, that’s just me.
By Oris on 09-22-09
I really don’t understand why people are so quick to give up their rights and liberties to ANYONE. This is your land my fellow Montanans. If we can’t ride a bloody bike on it then what the heck is the point? The same goes for Tester’s Bill. Just more Land Grabbing.
By grannysgadgets on 09-22-09
*Hear Hear* Oris. The thing that we want to watch out for is giving up all of our rights for the wilderness area’s ( which it is great to save wilderness dont get me wrong) To one day find ourselves standing outside of a 10 foot fence with no tresspassing allowed signs. Ending up with millions of acres that we can only stand outside of, left to imagine what it was like to enjoy being a part of those mountains now in the distance.
By Westside2 on 09-22-09
Mike it’s absolutely workable to evaluate trails on a case by case basis and it’s absolutely possible to design trails so that they are inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Talk to a professional trail builder sometime and maybe they can break down the specifics for you.
Of course you have the right to your thoughts and I have the right to mine, but you have a habit of stereotyping, namecalling and putting words into the mouths of mountain bikers that is not helpful. Will you work on changing on this?
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Oris & grannysgadgets, you can’t lose a right that you never had. There is no right to bring a bike wherever you want to. That was settled in federal court in 1994. See the court decision: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10. The community also has the right to close areas to ALL people, when it is necessary for protecting the wildlife (who are the true owners of the land, having occupied it for 4 billion years before humans ever came around!). The Northwest Hawaiian Islands are closed to everyone but scientists, because that is the only way that such sensitive wildlife habitat can be preserved. There is no right to do whatever you want, whenever you want to, and there never has been such a right, thank God!
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Westside2, life is too short to waste it splitting hairs. The science shows that mountain biking is very harmful, and much more so than hiking. That doesn’t change from one trail to another. We don’t need different traffic laws in different cities, and we don’t need different laws for different trails. People like you, who never give any specifics, add nothing to the debate. I’m going to continue telling the truth about mountain biking, and everything else, regardless of who doesn’t like it, and who would prefer that I shut up. Mountain bikers are notorious for bullying and intimidating everyone. In the long run, that backfires. Why do you think that mountain bikers have such a terrible reputation? Because they’ve EARNED it! Their mantra is “yes, I know bikes aren’t allowed here, now get out of my way!“ I have heard them say that, not just once, but many times.
By Oris on 09-22-09
Dear Mike, one question…Where in America’s Consitution does it say animals have a “right” to our country’s land over We The People???
If any of you are tired of the government’s continuing land grabbing, whether by the Forest Service or Sen. Tester’s special interest Bill S1470 with the happy sounding name of, “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.“ come to a Tea Party being sponsored by a bunch of ticked off Housewives. It’s Sept 24 @ 6:30 at the Libby, Montana VFW Hall. (114 West 2nd St) We have Representatives Chas Vincent & Jerry Bennett as Speakers. We’ll be serving dessert & coffee. It’s free and open to all. Make your voices heard!
By Oris on 09-22-09
I was born and raise in New York but chose to spend the rest of my life in Libby. I love it here as do my neighbors. But I’m concerned as to why Senator Tester wouldn’t meet with us to go over his thoughts on this bill of his. From what I understand he worked with a pretty small group of people that seemed to have some rather heavy special interests put forth in Bill S1470. They speak about doing surveys in the communities, yet won’t explain who paid for the polling or who, what or where this polling took place. Because of his lack of transparency on this I question the motivation of Senator Tester and the gang that worked with him on Bill S1470.
Having spent 40 plus years in New York I’m all too sadly reminded of how back there we lost so many of our privileges to our land when just such land grabs happened. Special interests and big money from ecology friendly groups shut down the forest that surrounded small towns. Yes, there promises that logging would be “allowed” in certain areas…but afterwards those promises weren’t worth the paper they were written on. If logging or mining was attempted it was stopped by being tied up for years in a court by assorted ecology groups. Eventually it became unprofitable to even attempt to do such business in the region. Such bills as S1470 strangled regional businesses and left little for these towns to work with other than to pray for tourist to drive through. These little hometowns soon became nothing more than ghettos of poverty. I do not want that to happen here to my beloved Montana nor my new hometown. I’m asking each of you to boldly question Bill S1470 and don’t stop until you see the whole picture. Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (S1470) - 677,000 acre wilderness bill. Once that land is given up it can never be returned to those I feel rightfully are it’s TRUE stewards. Educate yourself on this bill before going along with it’s happy sounding title. Ask questions and don’t stop till you get real answers.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Oris, good question: “Dear Mike, one question…Where in America’s Consitution does it say animals have a “right” to our country’s land over We The People???“ Obviously, the wildlife owned it before humans arrived (about 10,000 years ago). Native Americans never claimed title. How did the U.S. get title? By force? Force doesn’t confer title, otherwise, I could take your house by force, and then claim title to it. Obviously, the U.S. Constitution was written by humans, with the wildlife having no vote nor veto power, so it’s a document that is only relevant to human-to-human relations. Remember the Boston Tea Party? “No taxation without representation”? Well the wildlife weren’t represented, so humans, and the U.S. Constitution, have no jurisdiction over the wildlife.
By Oris on 09-22-09
Wow Mike…Your answer just rocked the Crazy Meter off the charts. Next question oh Lord of the Deer… Now that the animals have land and representation, when can we start collecting taxes from them??
P.S. You have proved so many points here that I know it’s not worth my time to try and debate such a closed mind…But I have to say you do make me giggle though.
By gregb406 on 09-22-09
I am disappointed that the comments do not match the story. This isn’t about Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. This isn’t about a Tea Party. The article certainly isn’t about Mike Vandeman. Too bad he derailed the responses. I think that was his goal.
The Forest Service has a tough time trying to figure out how to catagorize and manage mountain biking. Sometimes they actively embrace it, and other times actively oppose it. Other forest supervisers are just at a loss. Clueless. Bicycling can be the answer to many of our transportation needs and worsening national health. It is time to have meaningful debate. In an unbiased fashion, find the place for bikes on our nations public lands.
Mr. Testa wrote a meaningful and insightful article. He is to be commended. This article tells it like it is, nothing more or less. Good journalism.
Meanwhile, MJV is out there, stirring the pot. He must like the wide open forum of Montana publications, as he has been prohibited many other places. Read up on him, he’s famous. http://evergreenmtb.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32 Remember, if you ignore him, you can have a meaningful conversation around his rants. Kind of like talking over a distruptive child or an obnoxious dog.
By grannysgadgets on 09-22-09
Gregb406 : Thanks for the link, thats a very interesting little post ! Well that’s that, no sense having a debate with someone that set for just a one sided practiced fight ! <sigh> indeed there are a number of commenters that share the same blind, here to just tick someone off ego….. Thanks for the heads up anyways !
By Oris on 09-22-09
Dear Greg,
You are quite correct in saying the article isn’t about Tester’s Bill or Tea Parties and sure not about Professor Loon. My interest in the article was that I saw it as just a small piece of a larger picture. I’m just blown away about how easily the government finds ways to remove or limit the use to the American public such land. And for the most part they get away with it. Whether it’s water rights, grazing rights, saving the grizzlies, whatever…they are taking away so much from you. They’ll use the EPA, Homeland Security, Endangered Species Act.. anything they can come up with as long as it gets the job done. What they give back are some crumbs that we end up fighting over, such as trails for biking or walking. If they can keep us bickering among ourselves like kids they know we won’t join together as one voice to halt what they are doing. You just have to step back, open your mind and look at the whole total picture.
My personal interest isn’t with mountain biking. Heck I don’t even own a bike, ATV or snowmobile. But what I do have is a burning desire to see that our government both local and national (as well as the UN) stop telling us they know better than we do what should be done in our own backyard. I really hope you can join me and step back to view the whole picture. That is why I commented on this article. Thanks for listening.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Oris, the government just represents the community. The vast majority of the community WANT to protect land in the form of Wilderness. We LIKE the Endangered Species Act. If you don’t want the majority to rule, I can suggest some other countries where you may feel more comfortable. You won’t have to put up with freedom of speech, either. It’s not being taken away from you. It’s being protected, so that it will still be around for your children and grandchildren to enjoy, and not trashed by people too ignorant to appreciate it.
By Oris on 09-23-09
Hey Mike… I’m bored by you..now go away
By Wade on 09-23-09
I love to hike, ski, backpack, and mountain bike in the backcountry. I think its humorous for individuals to demonize other users of the backcountry because they don’t do it the way they think it should be done. That’s the big city way.
All living things have both positive and negative effects on the environment. Hiking on a rainy day leaves a track. Did that hurt the environment? What about the next ridge over, is that stand of trees hurt by the track left by the hiker? A bike leaves a rut on the trail. Did that hurt the environment? Yes, that mark left by that bike damaged that 18 inch by 2 foot long piece of ground. Is that acceptable? What about the gravel pit over on McCaffery Road? Does it hurt the environment? I’m for minimizing impacts to our environment. Within reason. Anti mountain biking sentiment is often about the same devisive attitudes that go back to tribes, languages, and skin color. “You’re not like me, so I don’t like you.“ It’s pathetic.
By Wade on 09-23-09
And then some dope like Mike shows up and feeds that devisive attitude. And then he finds some other like minded people, and persuades them to his point of view. And finds everything he can to substantiate his position. And reads, writes, and attempts to influence as many people as possible to his point of view. Because if he is successful in leveraging his position he can get what he wants! What does he really want, and why? He might not even know his real motives. It probably doesn’t matter anymore. He’s been indoctrinated by his own rhetoric and that of his co-instigators. Demonize those mtn bikers because they’re EVIL. All of ‘Em! Once more, pathetic. When was the last time you were in the woods Mike? Where was I? I’m one of those evil mountain bikers! I remember visiting with a hiker the last time I was on the trail with my mtn bike. They were up picking berries, and we compared notes on the spot we were picking, because I had a ziplock full of em in my Camelbak too. You got an agenda Mike. “You’re not like me, so I don’t like you.“ Go back to the city. That attitude fits in real good there.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-23-09
It’s very interesting to see that mountain bikers have so little knowledge of the real impacts of mountain biking that they actually can’t say anything specific about it. Instead, they prefer to attack anyone who disagrees with them, and lie about everything and everyone. That’s actually the best evidence that the mountain bikers don’t really have a case! If there were any good reasons for allowing bikes on trails, they would be able to list them. No one needs to “demonize” mountain bikers, since they already do such a good job of making themselves look like fools. Mountain bikers are their own worst enemies! But you are right about one thing: destroying the environment IS evil! I can’t think of anything lower than killing innocent plants and animals, just to provide a few mountain bikers with cheap thrills.
By Wade on 09-23-09
You are not like me, so I don’t like you. So sayeth the hater.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-23-09
Wade, it sounds like you are describing YOURSELF. We psychologists have a name for that. It’s called
“projection”. Look it up in the dictionary.
By Wade on 09-23-09
I like hikers and psychologists. You should talk down to me more. I’m completely sure that you know much more about nearly everything than me. I’m just a dumb fool stupid heartless mountain biker. I won’t hold it against hikers or psychologists. Or you. You have an agenda you are quite committed to, and I am just your witless foil. Strike away; I’m not like you, so you don’t like me.
By OpenMindedHikers on 09-23-09
Mike we think you should get help. Professional psychological help that is.
Maybe someday, if you recover you can join is on the trail? After all, we are open mined hikers and we believe anything is possible!
-Open Minded Hiking Club local 101
By Wade on 09-23-09
Mike, you have a great sense of humor too! I’m impressed!
By Mike Vandeman on 09-24-09
“The Psychology of Mountain Biking”:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb17
By Westside2 on 09-24-09
Mike, that’s pathetic quality work for a PhD.
By gregb406 on 09-24-09
Back to the article, I’ve been thinking. The Galton travel plan may have been shaping up the way it has because of the single focus lobbying by the Montana Wilderness Association. I am guessing this effective effort has helped shape the restrictive bicycle plan. Reference this link. http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/going_wild_for_wildlife/5665/ Now, when bicyclists finally speak up in unison, it must have been a shock for the Kootenai planners to realize that they have been hearing from only a portion of the public. Hopefully we can go forward from this point with the knowledge that plans need to balance forest use. That plans should to take everyone into account.
By Oris on 09-24-09
I ask that you educate yourself on Sen. J. Tester’s Forest Job’s and Recreation Act (FJRA) Bill A1470. I don’t believe Bikers will be enjoying freedom to rise in favorite spots they now have.
“This year’s Lima Festival was held on borrowed time, however. The clock is ticking on bicycle access to the trails that have drawn riders to southern Beaverhead County for years. These trails are slated for closure to bicycles in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge (B-D) Forest Plan and consequently in Senator Jon Tester’s Forest Job’s and Recreation Act (FJRA). The B-D Forest Plan will close the Lima Peaks/Garfield Mountain, the Italian Peak area and local sections of Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) later this year under the Forest Service philosophy that bans bicycles from recommended Wilderness areas. The FJRA in its current form will seal the deal. “
Educate yourselves, unite and make your voices heard.
By Westside2 on 09-24-09
I requested that Mike be banned for violating the Beacon’s ground rules. Hopefully they agreed and a reasonable dialogue can resume.
By Vud on 09-24-09
Westside2:
While I might not neccessarily agree with his POV,
I don’t see any violations in his posts.
By iHaveLice on 09-24-09
to that mike dude. i eat the amnimals that supposedly have a right to the land. and i mountain bike sometimes too i like it and i would like to bike wherever i want. its not like im killing a person by biking in the forest. jeez.
By coldsteel on 09-24-09
Anything Class 1 or 2 is way more fun via bike. If you don’t wish to encounter bikers, climb Class 3 to 5-15, else stfu. As a courtesy to hikers, if a walker doesn’t immediately step aside on a single track, I will dismount and say “how ya doin, thank you, excuse me.have a good day?“. While walking up a trail, had a dikhead once yell, “GET OUT of my WAY”...Proper etiquette if you don’t want an ### whupin is to whistle or hoot. A modicum of courtesy on foot or on two wheels is really what this boils down to as with my size 14 boots I cause as much trail damage as any biker. Last thing, don’t fly past hikers at 60mph even with a yard clearance..could get you shot. Let’s be cordial out thar.
By Wade on 09-24-09
The ESFJ personaility type, first identified by Carl Jung.
Begin quote:
ESFJs who have not had the advantage of developing their own values by weighing them against a good external value system may develop very questionable values. In such cases, the ESFJ most often genuinely believes in the integrity of their skewed value system. They have no internal understanding of values to set them straight. In weighing their values against our society, they find plenty of support for whatever moral transgression they wish to justify. This type of ESFJ is a dangerous person indeed. Extraverted Feeling drives them to control and manipulate, and their lack of Intuition prevents them from seeing the big picture. They’re usually quite popular and good with people, and good at manipulating them. Unlike their ENFJ cousin, they don’t have Intuition to help them understand the real consequences of their actions. They are driven to manipulate other to achieve their own ends, yet they believe that they are following a solid moral code of conduct.
All ESFJs have a natural tendency to want to control their environment. Their dominant function demands structure and organization, and seeks closure. ESFJs are most comfortable with structured environments. They’re not likely to enjoy having to do things which involve abstract, theoretical concepts, or impersonal analysis. They do enjoy creating order and structure, and are very good at tasks which require these kinds of skills. ESFJs should be careful about controling people in their lives who do not wish to be controlled.
ESFJs respect and believe in the laws and rules of authority, and believe that others should do so as well. They’re traditional, and prefer to do things in the established way, rather than venturing into unchartered territory. Their need for security drives their ready acceptance and adherence to the policies of the established system. This tendency may cause them to sometimes blindly accept rules without questioning or understanding them.
An ESFJ who has developed in a less than ideal way may be prone to being quite insecure, and focus all of their attention on pleasing others. He or she might also be very controling, or overly sensitive, imagining bad intentions when there weren’t any.
End quote.
By Wade on 09-24-09
Mountain bikers don’t want to be controled by you, Mike. We’re not like you, so you don’t like us.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-24-09
Westside2: “I requested that Mike be banned for violating the Beacon’s ground rules.“ Typical mountain biker dishonesty. You conveniently ignored the fact that ALL of the violations of the Beacon policy were committed by you (e.g. calling me an “extremist”) and other mountain bikers. That’s because you don’t have the knowledge to discuss mountain biking impacts intelligently. All you know how to do is attack PEOPLE, which is of course irrelevant to the issues. Mountain bikers’ middle name is “Dishonest”. It’s the first thing one notices about them, and it’s the best evidence that they don’t have a case.
By Tox on 09-24-09
Snowboards should not be allowed on Virgin Powder.
They are vile, inanimate objects and have no rights.
There is no right to snowboard.
No right to desecrate Pow.
It has been a tragic mistake to compromise the beauty of Virgin Pow
for the benefit of blasphemous, destructive snowboarders
A favorite myth of snowboarders is that snowboarding
is no more harmful to lovely Powder than skiing is,
and that science supports such an ignorant view.
Of course, this is not at all not true, but rather
a treacherous myth to assuage the righteous.
We all know that the art of worshiping Pow as was handed down by the Nordic Gods,
clearly showing that She must always be caressed with 2 boards, one on each foot.
Only decadent snowboarders, in their endless, thrill-seeking lust
could come with riding Her on only one board.
The thought alone causes me anguish.
How can they be so insensitive?!
How can they be so selfish?!
Do they not even care how destructive they are for Virgin Pow?
Do they not care about the deep, wide ruts they carve?
Snowboarders should be forever banished from Virgin Pow,
except in areas specifically designated for them,
where they can pursue their obscene obsession
without unnecessarily disturbing those others,
with more lofty and serene pursuits….
By Wade on 09-24-09
I am entertained by Mike’s attempt to apply Universalism to an activity whose aspects are dependent upon many other aspects.
Mike is trying to manipulate others to believe that universally all mountain bikers are liars, dishonest, stupid, and fools. He sells us short though, because we all know that those traits are dependant upon much more than just a single activity or set of activities.
He uses his measure of education and intellegence, driven by an altruistic desire to preserve the environment by isolating it completely by humans, distorted by his skewed value system to achieve his agenda by less than ethical means, and fueled by his own need for structure and order in life to manipulate others into accepting his points of view.
In reality, Mike is a SF Bay area intellectual who thinks hunting, fishing, mountain biking, and any other form of recreation that he deems “damaging” to wilderness should be outlawed. He logs in to many websites that permit the posting of comments as part of social networking under his own name, and many alternative aliases so that he can manipulate, create controversy, influence, distort, and demonize those who don’t share his weltanschauung (worldview).
Mike, the majority of people in Montana (that’s more than half) participate in those activities that you would like to have banned from the backcountry, and they do so in the areas you would have them eliminated from. I’m surprised you haven’t unleashed your vitrolic rhetoric on backcountry skiers and snowmobilers too. It’s probably because you don’t live in an area that gets a winter snowpack, but that’s just a guess.
We’re not like you, so you don’t like us.
By Wade on 09-24-09
Won’t someone stand up for the EVIL that is MAN and all that he has done to rape and pillage the Virgin? The POW (thanks TOX, awesome) and the TRAIL. Mike, you must persuade others to right the wrong, vanquish the dissenters, and stand up against those that would trample on our dear Earth, permanently destroying it forever!
Thank you Mike. We’re not like you, so you don’t like us. But with you tireless efforts, you may be able to manipulate others into not liking us either.
By mooseberryinn on 09-24-09
It’s just too easy. Ok, all those who absolutely must protect the land… get off, and your job is done.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-25-09
Why mountain biking should be banned EVERYWHERE: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb_dangerous:
Nurse Brain-Injured by a Mountain Biking “Accident”!
I hope that this very sad case will convince people that mountain biking should be banned EVERYWHERE. Trails are not designed to be predictable, and never will be, making mountain biking inherently dangerous. No amount of “fun” will compensate for this!
Mike
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_13411131
Family, friends seek help for Piedmont woman injured in bike ride
By J.M. Brown
Correspondent
Posted: 09/24/2009 10:33:12 AM PDT
Updated: 09/24/2009 11:49:32 AM PDT
Friends of a Piedmont woman who suffered a brain injury during a cycling accident last month are asking for the public’s help in raising funds for her family.
Adriana Ospina, 37, a labor and delivery nurse at Oakland’s Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, was ejected from her mountain bike on a trail below Mount Tamalpais on Aug. 30 after a long ride with friends. In addition to the brain injury, Ospina is being treated at Marin General Hospital for a broken collarbone and shoulder blade.
Ospina was in a coma for 19 days until Sept. 18, when she finally began to respond to voices and spoke slightly. Relatives anticipate she will need costly rehabilitation after she fully regains consciousness.
etc.
By Oris on 09-25-09
mike since when did you start caring about humans? You don’t..so I find your use of this woman’s situation disgusting, yet completely typical. How low you will go is limitless.
Oh by the way Mike, after Obama was elected, you and I spoke about it ALOT on here. It is now my smug pleasure to say..I TOLD YOU SO! I was correct and you continue your losing streak. Thanks for the laugh.
By Mike Vandeman on 09-25-09
Oris, if you cared about your fellow mountainbikers, you would be in favor of publicizing incidents like this one, in order to warn them. Instead, you and other mountain bikers would rather that they just be swept under the rug and ignored. Your behavior is CRIMINAL, although 100% predictable.
By JoeinMontana on 09-25-09
By Mike Vandeman on 09-22-09
Oris, the government just represents the community. The vast majority of the community WANT to protect land in the form of Wilderness. We LIKE the Endangered Species Act. If you don’t want the majority to rule, I can suggest some other countries where you may feel more comfortable. You won’t have to put up with freedom of speech, either. It’s not being taken away from you. It’s being protected, so that it will still be around for your children and grandchildren to enjoy, and not trashed by people too ignorant to appreciate it.
You are really that blind? You REALLY like the “Kool-Aid” dont you? “VAST majority”.....wow….in the words of Barney Frank…..WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM”? Wow…...earth calling…...
By Oris on 09-28-09
Mad Mike..you don’t seem to read and remember well… I don’t even own a bike, let alone go mountain biking. Are Connie and Maury paying you to write such drivel?? What a waste for all involved. Click
By Mike Vandeman on 09-28-09
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6850964.ece
Injuries on the rise among mountain bikers
Mark Macaskill
A leading Scottish spine surgeon has called for an urgent review of mountain-biking safety after figures showed the number of cyclists seriously injured has risen.
David Allen, director of the Queen Elizabeth National Spinal Injuries Unit at Glasgow’s Southern General hospital, warned the sport’s growing popularity meant the number of off-road cyclists injuring their spines would continue to rise unless action was taken.
Since 2004, there have been more than 120 mountainbiking accidents, with eight cyclists getting spinal injuries. Cycling is the second-most common cause of sports-related spinal injuries, after diving.
Last month, a mountain biker was airlifted to hospital with serious head and neck injuries after crashing on a trail in Dalbeattie in the southwest of Scotland. In October last year, a 15-year-old boy received a serious head injury in Ae Forest in Dumfries and Galloway.
“There does appear to be a disproportionate increase in the number of mountain bike injuries and they are, in general, more serious [than other cycling accidents],” said Allen.
The increase in serious injuries has coincided with Scotland’s growing international popularity as a destination for mountain bikers.
The trend has been blamed on inexperienced riders who tackle forest trails and purpose-built tracks, which often involve difficult jumps and steep “drop-offs”. Concerns have also been raised over the quality of riders’ equipment, such as helmets and pads.
Allen’s warning comes ahead of the publication of a national strategic framework on mountain biking, compiled by cycling groups.
The framework will recommend that all trails in Scotland comply with a standard colour-coded grading system used by the Forestry Commission. Under the system, green denotes the easiest trail, progressing to blue, red, black and orange, which should be attempted only by the most experienced bikers.
More detailed information on trails will be provided so riders can judge which are best suited to their ability.
The first mountain bike proficiency scheme, run by Scottish Cycling, the sport’s governing body, will also be launched in Scotland and rolled out across the rest of Britain. Riders must demonstrate good technical, navigation and first aid skills to pass.
“A national strategic framework on mountain biking is welcomed as long as it takes into consideration the importance of safety awareness and safety of the trail, equipment and clothing, including the use of helmets and protective body armour,” said Allen. “We would welcome a real-time accident-monitoring scheme that could identify dangerous routes.”
Etc.