Mountain Bikers Lobby to Get Bikes Allowed in Wilderness!

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Jim Hasenauer teaches Rhetoric -- the art of effective lying.... Not
too effective, huh?

Mike


Vol. 35 No. 4 | March 3, 2003
Essay
Printable Version

Let bikers in, and we'll stand behind wilderness

by Jim Hasenaur


I'm a mountain bicyclist. The pleasure of my life is pedaling through
wild places, experiencing the views, the changing colors and textures
of the plant life, the occasional animal sightings. On the trail, I'm
renewed, and my commitment to public-land preservation is
strengthened. I think that's the way most mountain bikers feel, and
historically, we've been eager to back conservation efforts.

We're troubled, though, that designated wilderness, the highest level
of protection, is encumbered with regulations that ban bicycling.
Across the country, wilderness advocates are advancing new proposals
while mountain bicyclists struggle to find a meaningful place at the
table. It's a wedge issue with a capital W.

The 1964 Wilderness Act is a remarkable tool. Once Congress acts,
wilderness areas are protected in perpetuity for their own sake and
for the recreational and spiritual sustenance they provide visitors.
Wilderness recreation offers adventure, discovery, solitude and awe -
exactly the kinds of exxperience most valued by bicyclists like me.

But wilderness advocates, like kids with a jackknife, are inclined to
use the tool at hand. They mark their accomplishments in acres
designated and their losses as anything less than wilderness as
proposed. Though bicyclists should be natural allies of the wilderness
movement, because of the bike ban we're understandably reluctant to
embrace proposals that would kick us off cherished trails.

It would certainly be easier for cyclists to oppose wilderness
outright, but that's not who we are. We value wild places. We've
endorsed preservation of all roadless areas as the foundation of real
resource protection.

We try to support wilderness where possible, and when proposals
include significant bicycle trails, we work to find ways to protect
the land and still preserve the riding. These tools include boundary
adjustments, cherry-stem trails and land designations that provide
wilderness-like protection from roads, motors and extraction, but
still allow bikes.

Unfortunately, many wilderness advocates see these measures as losses,
discounting alternatives as "wilderness-lite." They characterize
bicyclists as selfish and uncooperative. The cost of this infighting
has been acrimony, poisoned relationships and lost time, energy and
trust. Meanwhile, the Blue Ribbon Coalition and other anti-wilderness
groups court cyclists.

The 46 million U.S. mountain bicyclists are a giant constituency of
public-land enthusiasts. They're increasingly committed to wild land
protection, but they're understandably wary of wilderness
designations. That's why it's clear to me that there ought to be a way
to work for wilderness protection that doesn't ban bicycles. If the
regulation were changed, and bikes were allowed on some trails in some
wilderness, the entire nature of this debate would shift.

Most wilderness advocates are astonished to learn that the Wilderness
Act did not ban bicycles. It banned "mechanized transport," which was
defined in Forest Service regulation as "powered by a nonliving power
source." Bicycles were allowed and ridden in some wilderness until
1984, when a ban first introduced in 1977 was made final. This is
significant because it means the bike ban is regulatory, not
statutory. It was imposed 20 years after the Wilderness Act by folks
who mistook mountain bikes for motorcycles.

It's time to get past this. Bikes are muscle-powered, human-scale,
quiet and nonpolluting. The tradition and history of bicycle use on
the wild lands of the West goes back to the 1880s. Bicycling is
trail-based recreation. We may range as far as horses and runners, but
our impacts on the trails and on plants and animals have been shown to
be similar to those of hikers. Yes, bikes do provide a mechanical
advantage, but it's only a degree of difference from oarlocks,
suspension poles, skis and the high-tech alloys and composites
associated with other outdoor equipment.

I believe that if mountain bikers were allowed on some wilderness
trails, cyclists would overwhelmingly endorse new wilderness. Rest
assured: Trails would never swarm with bikes; most would still be
earmarked for hikers. Yet in the same way that backpackers cherish
wilderness regardless of whether they ever visit it, mountain bikers
would support more wilderness, both in principle and at the ballot
box.

It's time to make a niche for mountain biking in the push to preserve
wild places. Cyclists, with their commitment, passion and numbers,
could swell the ranks of a new, more inclusive movement. The only
difference between wilderness now and wilderness future would be the
presence of bicycles on some trails and much, much more wilderness.


Jim Hasenauer is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of
High Country News in Paonia, Colorado. He is a professor of
communication studies at California State University at Northridge and
a board member of the International Mountain Bicycling Association,
though his opinions are his own.



© copyright 2002 High Country News
High Country News* Box 1090 * Paonia, CO 81428 * 1-800-905-1155
To receive two free copies of High Country News, call 1-800-905-1155
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mar 25, 11:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Michael J. Vandeman

How gay.

I think you are on the wrong side of this one Vandeman. The author makes
several valid points about you and he having common goals, but because you
are a crybaby you shut him out of the table where the common ground can be
leveraged to arrive at a conservation plan that works for all. There is
plenty of room in the wilderness for transient visitors of all types. What
wilderness can not sustain is any form of permanant encampment.

But, you're an idiot that refuses to look at facts in any sort of rational
manner.

Speaking of the fine art of lying, did I mention that when you point out a
lie it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

You should try embracing allies instead of alienating them. It's the whole
catch-more-bees-with-honey thing ...





"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nehju35obnggiqau777kfuukk3holbb8af@4ax.com...
> Jim Hasenauer teaches Rhetoric -- the art of effective lying.... Not
> too effective, huh?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Vol. 35 No. 4 | March 3, 2003
> Essay
> Printable Version
>
> Let bikers in, and we'll stand behind wilderness
>
> by Jim Hasenaur
>
>
> I'm a mountain bicyclist. The pleasure of my life is pedaling through
> wild places, experiencing the views, the changing colors and textures
> of the plant life, the occasional animal sightings. On the trail, I'm
> renewed, and my commitment to public-land preservation is
> strengthened. I think that's the way most mountain bikers feel, and
> historically, we've been eager to back conservation efforts.
>
> We're troubled, though, that designated wilderness, the highest level
> of protection, is encumbered with regulations that ban bicycling.
> Across the country, wilderness advocates are advancing new proposals
> while mountain bicyclists struggle to find a meaningful place at the
> table. It's a wedge issue with a capital W.
>
> The 1964 Wilderness Act is a remarkable tool. Once Congress acts,
> wilderness areas are protected in perpetuity for their own sake and
> for the recreational and spiritual sustenance they provide visitors.
> Wilderness recreation offers adventure, discovery, solitude and awe -
> exactly the kinds of exxperience most valued by bicyclists like me.
>
> But wilderness advocates, like kids with a jackknife, are inclined to
> use the tool at hand. They mark their accomplishments in acres
> designated and their losses as anything less than wilderness as
> proposed. Though bicyclists should be natural allies of the wilderness
> movement, because of the bike ban we're understandably reluctant to
> embrace proposals that would kick us off cherished trails.
>
> It would certainly be easier for cyclists to oppose wilderness
> outright, but that's not who we are. We value wild places. We've
> endorsed preservation of all roadless areas as the foundation of real
> resource protection.
>
> We try to support wilderness where possible, and when proposals
> include significant bicycle trails, we work to find ways to protect
> the land and still preserve the riding. These tools include boundary
> adjustments, cherry-stem trails and land designations that provide
> wilderness-like protection from roads, motors and extraction, but
> still allow bikes.
>
> Unfortunately, many wilderness advocates see these measures as losses,
> discounting alternatives as "wilderness-lite." They characterize
> bicyclists as selfish and uncooperative. The cost of this infighting
> has been acrimony, poisoned relationships and lost time, energy and
> trust. Meanwhile, the Blue Ribbon Coalition and other anti-wilderness
> groups court cyclists.
>
> The 46 million U.S. mountain bicyclists are a giant constituency of
> public-land enthusiasts. They're increasingly committed to wild land
> protection, but they're understandably wary of wilderness
> designations. That's why it's clear to me that there ought to be a way
> to work for wilderness protection that doesn't ban bicycles. If the
> regulation were changed, and bikes were allowed on some trails in some
> wilderness, the entire nature of this debate would shift.
>
> Most wilderness advocates are astonished to learn that the Wilderness
> Act did not ban bicycles. It banned "mechanized transport," which was
> defined in Forest Service regulation as "powered by a nonliving power
> source." Bicycles were allowed and ridden in some wilderness until
> 1984, when a ban first introduced in 1977 was made final. This is
> significant because it means the bike ban is regulatory, not
> statutory. It was imposed 20 years after the Wilderness Act by folks
> who mistook mountain bikes for motorcycles.
>
> It's time to get past this. Bikes are muscle-powered, human-scale,
> quiet and nonpolluting. The tradition and history of bicycle use on
> the wild lands of the West goes back to the 1880s. Bicycling is
> trail-based recreation. We may range as far as horses and runners, but
> our impacts on the trails and on plants and animals have been shown to
> be similar to those of hikers. Yes, bikes do provide a mechanical
> advantage, but it's only a degree of difference from oarlocks,
> suspension poles, skis and the high-tech alloys and composites
> associated with other outdoor equipment.
>
> I believe that if mountain bikers were allowed on some wilderness
> trails, cyclists would overwhelmingly endorse new wilderness. Rest
> assured: Trails would never swarm with bikes; most would still be
> earmarked for hikers. Yet in the same way that backpackers cherish
> wilderness regardless of whether they ever visit it, mountain bikers
> would support more wilderness, both in principle and at the ballot
> box.
>
> It's time to make a niche for mountain biking in the push to preserve
> wild places. Cyclists, with their commitment, passion and numbers,
> could swell the ranks of a new, more inclusive movement. The only
> difference between wilderness now and wilderness future would be the
> presence of bicycles on some trails and much, much more wilderness.
>
>
> Jim Hasenauer is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of
> High Country News in Paonia, Colorado. He is a professor of
> communication studies at California State University at Northridge and
> a board member of the International Mountain Bicycling Association,
> though his opinions are his own.
>
>
>
> © copyright 2002 High Country News
> High Country News* Box 1090 * Paonia, CO 81428 * 1-800-905-1155
> To receive two free copies of High Country News, call 1-800-905-1155
> --
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Jeff, I also don't think he can grasp that he is isolating the very
folks that will do the needed trail maintenance and policing. There are
enough responsible folks in any group that will 'stand behind the
Wilderness' to weed out the idiots or to at least report the idiots and
make them feel very unwelcome.

It's the same with any off roading or 'wilderness' related group. Folks
like the snowmobile clubs get right pissed if 'others' wreck their
trails by misuse and they will turn in any such person in a quick
second. Like our RAMJ+W groups that looked after some trails, once we
are involved, we do tend to 'police' the trails to a certain extent and
are more likely to report someone who littered 'our' trails or went nuts
off trail, etc....

It's too bad Mikey can't get focused to the reality of the world in
2008, he is persistent enough to actually do some good instead of
chasing windmills.

Mike

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> I think you are on the wrong side of this one Vandeman. The author makes
> several valid points about you and he having common goals, but because
> you are a crybaby you shut him out of the table where the common ground
> can be leveraged to arrive at a conservation plan that works for all.
> There is plenty of room in the wilderness for transient visitors of all
> types. What wilderness can not sustain is any form of permanant encampment.
>
> But, you're an idiot that refuses to look at facts in any sort of
> rational manner.
>
> Speaking of the fine art of lying, did I mention that when you point out
> a lie it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?
>
> You should try embracing allies instead of alienating them. It's the
> whole catch-more-bees-with-honey thing ...
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:nehju35obnggiqau777kfuukk3holbb8af@4ax.com...
>> Jim Hasenauer teaches Rhetoric -- the art of effective lying.... Not
>> too effective, huh?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Vol. 35 No. 4 | March 3, 2003
>> Essay
>> Printable Version
>>
>> Let bikers in, and we'll stand behind wilderness
>>
>> by Jim Hasenaur

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:01:30 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

>I think you are on the wrong side of this one Vandeman. The author makes
>several valid points about you and he having common goals, but because you
>are a crybaby you shut him out of the table where the common ground can be
>leveraged to arrive at a conservation plan that works for all.

We already have that: Wilderness allows mountain bikers to hike,JUST
LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

There is
>plenty of room in the wilderness for transient visitors of all types. What
>wilderness can not sustain is any form of permanant encampment.

Or erosion-causing, wildlife-killing mountain biking.

>But, you're an idiot that refuses to look at facts in any sort of rational
>manner.

I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
thing ever written about it.

>Speaking of the fine art of lying, did I mention that when you point out a
>lie it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?
>
>You should try embracing allies instead of alienating them. It's the whole
>catch-more-bees-with-honey thing ...

Mountain bikers are ALREADY welcome in Wilderness. They are just too
LAZY to hike, like other people.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gqvlu3p7v1hhit0vo9rarjqdm3aq64vl8i@4ax.com...
>
> I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
> thing ever written about it.
>

It is difficult to use rational and anything you have ever said in the same
sentence.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:26:26 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>Jeff, I also don't think he can grasp that he is isolating the very
>folks that will do the needed trail maintenance and policing.

BS. We don't need their crappy "trail maintenance", which is designed
only to provide thrills for mountain bikers. And they don't police
their own peers NOW. What makes you think they will suddenly start
doing it, if they get bike access to wilderness? You are very naive.

There are
>enough responsible folks in any group that will 'stand behind the
>Wilderness' to weed out the idiots or to at least report the idiots and
>make them feel very unwelcome.

BS. They SUPPORT those very idiots NOW.

>It's the same with any off roading or 'wilderness' related group. Folks
>like the snowmobile clubs get right pissed if 'others' wreck their
>trails by misuse

BS. Trail misuse is their middle name.

and they will turn in any such person in a quick
>second. Like our RAMJ+W groups that looked after some trails, once we
>are involved, we do tend to 'police' the trails to a certain extent and
>are more likely to report someone who littered 'our' trails or went nuts
>off trail, etc....
>
>It's too bad Mikey can't get focused to the reality of the world in
>2008, he is persistent enough to actually do some good instead of
>chasing windmills.
>
>Mike

Since you don't understand, let me spell it out for you: the mountain
bikers are saying "Let me destroy the Wilderness, so I can help you
protect it." NOW do you get it?
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Thanks for giving his compelling arguments wider distribution!

But you forgot to slander him.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

In article <MpDGj.9051$Oj5.2296@trnddc06>, crwlr@verizon.net says...
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:gqvlu3p7v1hhit0vo9rarjqdm3aq64vl8i@4ax.com...
> >
> > I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
> > thing ever written about it.
> >
>
> It is difficult to use rational and anything you have ever said in the same
> sentence.

That's what the word "not" is for.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

On Mar 26, 10:08 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
> I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
> thing ever written about it.


What's the title of said book and the Library of Congress Control
Number?

On Mar 27, 9:03 am, Siskuwihane <Siskuwiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:08 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
> > thing ever written about it.
?

wrote a book...BULLSHIT. You never wrote anything of your own
material. I can just see it now full of other's quotes.
Mike Vanderman'sofficial Bitch about mountain biking...by everyone
else except Mike Vanderman. I believe you'll find it down the
street...the local homeless shelter uses it for toilet paper.

You are such a liar in every sense and each post just reinforces it.
You said they can Hike? guarenteed if there was no mountain biking,
you would bitch about horses in the woods or on their own
fields...then go to hiking and the impact. Pretty soon Mikey would be
living in a bubble...but he's still fly to his meetings. You fraud.

Just for the record, did anyone ever google the word mike vanderman
and look at the images...pathetic and gross! what a way to protest.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
<Siskuwihane1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 26, 10:08 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
>> thing ever written about it.
>
>
>What's the title of said book and the Library of Congress Control
>Number?

That's an expression. It means I am the expert on it.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:35:48 -0700 (PDT), "maguahiker@gmail.com"
<maguahiker@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 27, 9:03 am, Siskuwihane <Siskuwiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 10:08 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
>> > thing ever written about it.
>?
>
>wrote a book...BULLSHIT. You never wrote anything of your own
>material. I can just see it now full of other's quotes.
>Mike Vanderman'sofficial Bitch about mountain biking...by everyone
>else except Mike Vanderman. I believe you'll find it down the
>street...the local homeless shelter uses it for toilet paper.
>
>You are such a liar in every sense and each post just reinforces it.
>You said they can Hike? guarenteed if there was no mountain biking,
>you would bitch about horses in the woods or on their own
>fields...then go to hiking and the impact. Pretty soon Mikey would be
>living in a bubble...but he's still fly to his meetings.

Prove it, liar.

> You fraud.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mar 28, 7:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
>
> <Siskuwiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 26, 10:08 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
> >> thing ever written about it.
>
> >What's the title of said book and the Library of Congress Control
> >Number?
>
> That's an expression. It means I am the expert on it.

Cite please.

thousands of posts later and we are all still waiting for the phantom
articles of Mikey. Your site proves all my points. All
quotes...nothing orignal, nothing written by you with any scientific
background. You merely use everyone elses material and research. The
entire site...quotes with nothing original. I don't count letters to
the editor...those are your only writings. They are merely babbles
similar to what you post here.

Let's see who is lying...hmmm....

your website on pacbell - the one you quote always. Yes or NO...is
this your site? if so. point proven in regards to continued articles
by everyone else except mikey...and qotes from everyone...

You admit to staying in college for a PhD to avoid the draft...you
said it yourself on the site here. remember...you downplayed veterans
and said...My country had better uses for me at home? haha...ok. glad
you got that degree in dietary arts.
You can't deny this you coward.


Working for a company that kills tons of natural areas a year in the
name of "technology advancement"...? what's up with that. You lobby
for nature and then counter it by working for a company that damages
it? You can't dispute this.

Fly to your seminars., conventions...chef's meetings or just dinner
with the fellow lunchladies...more pollution output in flights than a
mtber could dish out in a year...but that's ok...right.

promoted Sierra Club...the company that only lobbies and takes dollars
and really does very little for preservation anymore. They also had
out nice little gifts for joining...Mikey supports these people even
though they don't associate with him anymore...Oh. those nice little
gifts are made in China...one of the biggest environmental destructors
on the planet...but hey...it's ok, right mikey?

You are an asshole Mike. People could post every fact here. You would
still LIE about it. You are the fraud and liar.

We're still waiting for the book info...but hey, even if you do
provide it...it will only be other's information and quotes. I am more
of a naturalist than you ever will be or know to be.

On Mar 28, 8:01 pm, Siskuwihane <Siskuwiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
>
> > <Siskuwiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Mar 26, 10:08 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > >> I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
> > >> thing ever written about it.
>
> > >What's the title of said book and the Library of Congress Control
> > >Number?
>
> > That's an expression. It means I am the expert on it.
>


Oh...so you're saying there isn't a book? Oh I forgot...

YOU LIE!!!!

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
<Siskuwihane1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 28, 7:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
>>
>> <Siskuwiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 26, 10:08 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
>> >> thing ever written about it.
>>
>> >What's the title of said book and the Library of Congress Control
>> >Number?
>>
>> That's an expression. It means I am the expert on it.
>
>Cite please.

Do your own research.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:40:33 -0700 (PDT), "maguahiker@gmail.com"
<maguahiker@gmail.com> wrote:

>thousands of posts later and we are all still waiting for the phantom
>articles of Mikey. Your site proves all my points. All
>quotes...nothing orignal, nothing written by you with any scientific
>background. You merely use everyone elses material and research. The
>entire site...quotes with nothing original. I don't count letters to
>the editor...those are your only writings. They are merely babbles
>similar to what you post here.
>
>Let's see who is lying...hmmm....
>
>your website on pacbell - the one you quote always. Yes or NO...is
>this your site? if so. point proven in regards to continued articles
>by everyone else except mikey...and qotes from everyone...
>
>You admit to staying in college for a PhD to avoid the draft...you
>said it yourself on the site here. remember...you downplayed veterans
>and said...My country had better uses for me at home? haha...ok. glad
>you got that degree in dietary arts.
>You can't deny this you coward.
>
>
>Working for a company that kills tons of natural areas a year in the
>name of "technology advancement"...? what's up with that. You lobby
>for nature and then counter it by working for a company that damages
>it? You can't dispute this.
>
>Fly to your seminars., conventions...chef's meetings or just dinner
>with the fellow lunchladies...more pollution output in flights than a
>mtber could dish out in a year...but that's ok...right.
>
>promoted Sierra Club...the company that only lobbies and takes dollars
>and really does very little for preservation anymore. They also had
>out nice little gifts for joining...Mikey supports these people even
>though they don't associate with him anymore...Oh. those nice little
>gifts are made in China...one of the biggest environmental destructors
>on the planet...but hey...it's ok, right mikey?
>
>You are an asshole Mike. People could post every fact here. You would
>still LIE about it. You are the fraud and liar.
>
>We're still waiting for the book info...but hey, even if you do
>provide it...it will only be other's information and quotes. I am more
>of a naturalist than you ever will be or know to be.

There's no point in communicating with a LIAR. Answer your own
questions.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mar 29, 2:40 am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:01:08 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
>
>
>
>
>
> <Siskuwiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 28, 7:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
>
> >> <Siskuwiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 26, 10:08 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> I wrote the book on mountain biking impacts. That's the most rational
> >> >> thing ever written about it.
>
> >> >What's the title of said book and the Library of Congress Control
> >> >Number?
>
> >> That's an expression. It means I am the expert on it.
>
> >Cite please.
>
> Do your own research.


Ok, I've done that and came to 2 conclusions.

Michael J. Vandeman is NOT an expert on the impacts of mountain
biking.

Michael J. Vandeman uses commercial airlines for travel to
international conferences when he could have use wind powered sailing
vessels, thus he put himSELF above the enviroment, making him a PHONY.