Mon, 25 Dec 2006:

You are our inspiration. Thank you for all you do!


Mon, 25 Dec 2006:

Merry Christmas Mike!  I enjoyed your holiday email.  You amaze me!  Keep on keeping on...   You are making a difference - one person - one trail - one park at a time.


Wed, 6 Dec 2006:

Subject: Re: "Recreation groups disagree on trail use"



We have not communicated before, I believe, but I have enjoyed your

messages that ..., my North Country Trail Manager, has forwarded to



I went to your website today and wish that I had the time to really explore

it.  The press of work rarely allows that kind of luxury these days.


I want to thank you for one quote near the top of your page:

"Environmentalism can most simply be defined as the extension of the Golden

Rule to include other species."


I like the insight it contains and the connection with my other passion in

life.  With your permission, I can envision a not too distant opportunity

to use that in a sermon, with appropriate credit to you.


Fri, 17 Nov 2006:

Subject: Re: Last Child in the Woods ­­ Saving Our   Children
 from Nature-Deficit Disorder

I agree, great article. 


Fri, 17 Nov 2006:
Subject: Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our  Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

Thank you Mike. I found these thoughts very interesting/important.  Recently, we visited a completely wild area in the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (actually a geographical centre of Europe) and we decided to do smth. more for it to be preserve. I am now initiating a EU project on biodiversity conservation.


Thu, 16 Nov 2006:

Subject: RE: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

Go for it Michael, great review!


Fri, 27 Oct 2006:

Subject: Re: The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence

"Let's address the causes, not the symptoms: invest in improving the quality of life for our neighbors."


Hear, hear!!!!   I've been saying that for years.  Thanks for saying it to many.


Thu, 26 Oct 2006

Subject: Re: The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence

Mike,  Good going!  Well thought out letter.


--- Mike Vandeman <> wrote:


> October 26, 2006


> Re: The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence


> To the Editor:


> If you want evidence of human arrogance and

> stupidity, you need look

> no farther than the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence!

> Proposing to build a

> fence between the U.S. and Mexico indicates that,

> once again, we fail

> to recognize that wildlife are important and that

> they, like we,

> require the ability to travel. At the same time that

> we are causing

> global warming, forcing species to move north to

> find suitable

> habitat to which they are acclimated, we are

> blocking their path!


> Building a fence to stop immigration is like

> tightening your belt to

> prevent weight gain. Let's address the causes, not

> the symptoms:

> invest in improving the quality of life for our

> neighbors. That would

> also be a good policy for other regions, such as the

> Middle East. (Of

> course, that may require "regime change" at home.)


> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.


Sun, 22 Oct 2006:
Subject: Re: Recent anti-mtb letters in the Santa Cruz Sentinel

Thanks Mike! Amen and Amen again!

Mike Vandeman <> wrote:

It seems that more and more people are seeing through the mountain
bikers' lies.


Sun, 22 Oct 2006:

Subject: Re: NorCAMBA Restructuring
Keep on keepin on.  Im proud of you and all your hard work. 

Mon, 2 Oct 2006:
Subject: Re: Mountain Biking Threatens Wildlife

Well written and convincing, Mike.


Sun, 06 Aug 2006:

Subject: Re: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
Thank you for your dedication!


Sat, 5 Aug 2006:

Subject: Re: Napa Valley College - Mountain Biking Course

Good for you, Mike!  I'm in your corner against the intense destruction of our natural habitats by mountain bikers.  I'm beginning to believe that the Thompson Wilderness Bill in California may be the only way to protect more of our land from these treacherous beasts that have no respect for environment or other people. 


I have tried very hard to discuss user conflicts with IMBA and they won't take the time to have a conversation with me.  Therefore, I have no hope of true compromise between the mountain bikers and hikers/equestrians.  I will not be compromised as they wish me to be.


Wed, 2 Aug 2006:

Subject: Re: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in  Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

Excellent, Mike!


Fri, 14 Jul 2006:

To: "Tom Martin" <>, "Mike Vandeman" <>
Subject: Re: [ebbc-talk] Trips for Kids

You apparently don't see the impact that mountain bikers have on trails
where humans walk and local denizen live.  Using foul language does
nothing to make your disagreement persuasive nor does it win people to
your side.  Wheelchairs can't ride on those trails as fast and are not
as numerous as mountain bikers (your guess was WRONG).  Most people on
wheelchairs that ride trails do it at a pace that is acceptable and have
to stay on the trail, for obvious reasons. Also, there are FAR greater
numbers of bikers that do more accumulative damage than wheelchairs and
hikers, altogether.

I have never seen, in any of Mike's e-mails that he has a vendetta
against environmentalists.  In fact I AM one and I grew up with one.  My
father has great disdain for mountain bikers for most of the same
reasons that Mike and I have.  So far that's 3 environmentalists that
agree with Mike.

So why don't you speak for yourself and please keep your disagreements
on an adult level.

Thu, 1 Jun 2006:

Subject: Re: October Pumpkin Ride

Hi Mike,


> 5. Every round trip has an equal amount of uphill and downhill.
> Riding a bicycle downhill provides essentially ZERO exercise -- less
> than walking. Riding a bicycle on level ground provides minimal
> exercise -- less than walking. Permitting bikes on trails drives
> other trail users off the trails, because hiking around bicycles is
> dangerous and very unpleasant. One has to be constantly on guard to
> be ready to jump off the trail to avoid getting hit by speeding
> bikers. Continual bell-ringing or shouts of "on you left", forcing
> you off of the trail (even though hikers are supposed to have the
> right-of-way!) destroy any enjoyment you might otherwise gain from
> being in nature. When you force hikers off the trails, you end up


The above is nothing less than sheer genius! You are saying something so elementary that even an idiot should be able to understand it. However, mountain bikers are deaf and blind to nature and only want to do their fun and games. They belong is some kind of park with the kids on skate boards.


Keep up the good work!


Tue, 23 May 2006:

Subject: thanks!

Hi Mike.  Thanks for all your communications.  Although I can't dare to hope that many places on this planet will remain untouched by humans, I appreciate hearing from you re many issues.  In spite of the dark sides, you manage to show signs of hope.  Keep up the good work.


Mon, 8 May 2006:

Subject: ORV book

Dear Michael:


     Great web site. I found it very useful and I'm glad you have produced it.


     I'm in the final stages of preparing a book on ORVS called . I believe I can safely judge from your web page that you will find this book of interest. I don't know of you have seen my other book , but this book will be similar. I hope it will be out within a year. Watch for it.


Fri, 31 Mar 2006:

Subject: Re: Lake Oroville State Recreation Area

Excellent as always Mike.  You nailed that one.

Fri, 03 Mar 2006:

I continue to appreciate your other emails--many of them are new and often provide me with something I hadn't considered before, so thanks again for your efforts.


Wed, 8 Feb 2006:




This ["Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!"] is quite arguably the best piece you've written that I have seen. I believe that it can get published, with some work, and perhaps a comrade who cares about such things.


With your permission I will forward to some such person, she shares all of your belief system etc.


Sun, 8 Jan 2006:

Subject: Re: eco-tourism


Dear Mike,

Having just finished a PhD, your views on tenured

professorship are significant to me.

I would love to contribute to your campaign on pure

habitat. What other worthwhile community

projects would you recommend. Also, what would

you suggest for a company that had money,

a creative soul, a saving-the-environment heart,

and needed to make some income to survive?

Did you see any opportunities in Australia? Any

greater issues? I was half-thinking of trying to shout

the virtues of our eco-tourism model to other nations,

especially the Carribean- but as you suggest, staying

out is best. Another research project I had in mind

was to examine indigenous cultural narratives to

establish more appropriate conservation strategies-

But certainly, lots of stories about hunting emerge

(even though they maintain superior community narratives).

There's an excellent market called CERES in Melbourne,

which shows children how to calculate and then

reduce their ecological footprint. Perhaps this is a good

model to export?? Do stone age economics appeal?

Thanks for your insight.

p.s. Also good to have some solidarity on the anti-car issue-

am I to assume you're not a vegetarian? speciest reasons?

what do you think of Peter Singer?


Sun, 8 Jan 2006:

Subject: eco-tourism


Dear Dr.Vandeman,

Such brilliant work, thank you. Fervently keen

to know your views on eco-tourism. Australia

has set world standards, but again, perhaps

less of us in natures is ideal. In Phillip Island, eco-tourism

measures actually saved the penguins by taking back the roads,

pushing back the houses etc.. at one level we see the horrors of

new roads and housing developments, at another, we see some

benefit in eco-tourism, even if it indulges anthropocentric demands.

What sort of jobs do you see as 'ethical', what sort of businesses?

Our ethical obligations are enormous and I often find it hard to see

a compromise.

Kind regards, (Melbourne, Australia, often Tokyo)