Mike Vandeman's Current Fanmail

Some Fan Mail (minus identifying information and some spelling errors)

Sat, 5 Feb 2022:
Subject: Re: Trail-Building: Habitat Destruction by a Different Name

Excellent research, Mike, and quite a blindspot today, Craig

Tue, 1 Feb 2022:

Subject: Re: Save Your Park!

We really owe you a debt of gratitude. It's because of YOU we knew what to expect!

Fri, 14 Jan 2022:
Subject: Re: Joshua Tree National Park Is Safe! (CA)

This is good news indeed. Thank you for continuing the fight to keep bikes out of these sensitive, protective areas.

Thu, 13 Jan 2022:

Hi Mike:

I appreciate all that you do, by the way.

Sat, 14 Mar 2020:

Subject: RE: Conservation Biology

Great letter. Thank you for sharing.

Mon, 9 Mar 2020:
Subject: Re: What Is a Park?

Thank you, Mike Vandeman!

I’m not sure how your message reached me, but I am most grateful that it did!

I’ve spent 50 years working with my husband, …, in Isle Royale National Park, where wolves have been managing the island since 1948.

I am most grateful for your work and commend you for your service to the planet and all its inhabitants.

Sincerely,

…

Houghton, MI

Sat, 21 Dec 2019:

Subject: Re: Loeffler book

Thanks for all you do Mike !!

Sat, 30 Nov 2019:
Subject: Re: The problem with bears in our backyards isn’t a bear problem at all; it’s a human one

Haven't said thank you in a while Mike. Thank you! You're a guiding light and role model.

On Nov 30, 2019 at 5:31 PM, <Mike Vandeman> wrote:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-problem-with-bears-in-our-backyards-isnt-a-bear-problem-at-all/

The problem with bears in our backyards isn’t a bear problem at all; it’s a human one.

Kyle Artelle

Tue, 21 Aug 2018:

Subject: Re: It is always better to prevent problems than try to fix them after they happen

This is the best idea you have ever had, (that I know of). You do forward awesome and thought provoking articles. Keep up the good work.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:49 PM Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote:

I just had a great idea! Since it is always better to prevent
problems than try to fix them after they happen, we should have
everyone call me first, before they do anything, so I can tell them if they should do it (create DDT, bomb Iraq, etc.)! Better still, I can just say "No" in advance to all of them. No one should do anything, if it might cause harm in the future, right? ;) You're welcome.

Sun, 22 Oct 2017
Subject: Re: My Letter to the Editor, American Biology Teacher, October, 2017, p.613

Great article, thanks so much for this.

Thu, 27 Jul 2017

Subject: Re: Some sober environmental damage statistics... (BC)

Keep going and thank you for your work. P

Sun, 10 Jan 2016:

Subject: Re: Mountain Biking Eco-Vandalism Continues in 2016

You and Mike are world-class heroes to those of us who passionately oppose the desecration of wild lands—especially wilderness—but whose lesser energy limits their activism to the signing of petitions and donating to Wilderness Watch, the Wilderness Society and other conservation organizations.

Sun, 10 Jan 2016:

To: Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: "Banning trophy hunting could do more harm than good"

Agree with you, Mike.

Thanks for sharing.

From: Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 9:48 AM
Subject: "Banning trophy hunting could do more harm than good"

This article implies that the population of a species is all that matters, when, in fact, its genetic diversity is also vitally important, and is destroyed by hunting. This issue is frequently ignored by biologists, who should know better!

"Actions speak louder than words": hunting also teaches people that other species don't matter, with unknown but no doubt serious consequences.

Mike

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160108134516.htm

Banning trophy hunting could do more harm than good

Banning trophy hunting could do more harm than good ...

www.sciencedaily.com

Banning trophy hunting could do more harm than good Date: January 8, 2016 Source: University of Adelaide Summary: Trophy hunting shouldn't be banned but instead it ...

Date:
January 8, 2016
Source:
University of Adelaide
Summary:
Trophy hunting shouldn't be banned but instead it should be better regulated to ensure funds generated from permits are invested back into local conservation efforts, according to a new paper.

Trophy hunting shouldn't be banned but instead it should be better regulated to ensure funds generated from permits are invested back into local conservation efforts, according to a new paper co-authored by a leading University of Adelaide conservation ecologist.

Professor Corey Bradshaw, from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, along with Enrico Di Minin from the University of Helsinki and Nigel Leader-Williams from the University of Cambridge, argue that banning trophy hunting would do more harm than good in African countries that have little money to invest in critical conservation initiatives.

The researchers have developed a list of 12 guidelines that could address some of the concerns about trophy hunting and enhance its contribution to biodiversity conservation. Their paper was published in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

"The story of Cecil the lion who was killed by an American dentist in July 2015 shocked people all over the world and reignited debates surrounding trophy hunting," says Professor Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling in the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute.

"Understandably, many people oppose trophy hunting and believe it is contributing to the ongoing loss of species; however, we contend that banning the US$217 million per year industry in Africa could end up being worse for species conservation," he says.

Dr Di Minin says trophy hunting brings in substantial money and can be less disruptive than ecotourism.

"Conserving biodiversity can be expensive, so generating money is essential for environmental non-government organisations, conservation-minded individuals, government agencies and scientists," says Dr Di Minin.

"Financial resources for conservation, particularly in developing countries, are limited. As such, consumptive (including trophy hunting) and non-consumptive (ecotourism safaris) uses are both needed to generate funding. Without these, many natural habitats would otherwise be converted into agricultural or pastoral uses.

"Trophy hunting can also have a smaller carbon and infrastructure footprint than ecotourism, and it generates higher revenue from a lower number of uses," he says.

Professor Leader-Williams says there is however a need for the industry to be better regulated.

"There are many concerns about trophy hunting beyond the ethical that currently limit its effectiveness as a conservation tool," says Professor Leader-Williams. "One of the biggest problems is that the revenue it generates often goes to the private sector and rarely benefits protected-area management and the local communities.

"However, if this money was better managed, it would provide much needed funds for conservation," he says.

Guidelines to make trophy hunting more effective for conservation:

1. Mandatory levies should be imposed on safari operators by governments so that they can be invested directly into trust funds for conservation and management;

2. Eco-labelling certification schemes could be adopted for trophies coming from areas that contribute to broader biodiversity conservation and respect animal welfare concerns;

3. Mandatory population viability analyses should be done to ensure that harvests cause no net population declines;

4. Post-hunt sales of any part of the animals should be banned to avoid illegal wildlife trade;

5. Priority should be given to fund trophy hunting enterprises run (or leased) by local communities;

6. Trusts to facilitate equitable benefit sharing within local communities and promote long-term economic sustainability should be created;

7. Mandatory scientific sampling of hunted animals, including tissue for genetic analyses and teeth for age analysis, should be enforced;

8. Mandatory 5-year (or more frequent) reviews of all individuals hunted and detailed population management plans should be submitted to government legislators to extend permits;

9. There should be full disclosure to public of all data collected (including levied amounts);

10. Independent government observers should be placed randomly and without forewarning on safari hunts as they happen;

11. Trophies must be confiscated and permits are revoked when illegal practices are disclosed; and

12. Backup professional shooters and trackers should be present for all hunts to minimise welfare concerns.

--

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.)

Wildlife must be given top priority, because they can't protect themselves from us.

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

http://mjvande.nfshost.com

Mon, 21 Dec 2015:

Subject: Re: Update: Mountain biker seriously injured (NZ)

Hi Mike,

Has anyone ever told you that you are a genius? Your mind works exactly like mine. When I first encountered you on Usenet, I realized almost right away that we were kindred spirits.

Keep up the good work. You are having more of an impact than you know.

Thu, 24 Sep 2015:

Subject: Re: Equal Access to Our Parks

Hi Mike,

A masterpiece which even the dullest should appreciate!

Be sure to save this message so you can send it to others in the land management business. Humor sometimes will work when nothing else does.

-----Original Message-----

From: Mike Vandeman

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:05 PM

To: Recipient list suppressed:

Subject: Equal Access to Our Parks

November 24, 1999

Tony Acosta

Director, Office of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs

1520 Lakeside Drive

Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Access to Joaquin Miller Park

Dear Sir:

I am very concerned about the arbitrary and discriminatory

management of Oakland's parks. I like to practice bulldozer racing

(also known as "bulldozer scrambling", or BS, for short). That is my

way of enjoying nature. Who are you to tell me how I should enjoy

nature?! Why is your way of enjoying the outdoors any better than

mine?! You allow roller-bladers, equestrians, mountain bikers, and

even hikers in your parks. But I am excluded, and can't enjoy the

parks that I pay taxes for. You obviously like them better than me,

or maybe you belong to one of those user groups, so you are biased

towards them. In any case, you are discriminating against me and

other bulldozer racers, and I demand that this discrimination, which

violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, stop immediately!

I know that bulldozer racers have a bad name, but that's just

because we are the new kid on the block. We are a tiny minority. I

know that there have been some problems, such as some people riding

recklessly, going off the designated trails, and even secretly

constructing illegal trails. But those are a small minority of

bulldozer riders. You shouldn't allow a small minority to give the

majority of us bulldozer racers, who ride responsibly, a bad name.

Why should we be punished, just because of them, and be forced to

walk, just like everybody else?

I also know that some extremist tree-huggers claim that it's a

violation of CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) to allow

a new use of the park trails, and the creation of new trails, without

doing an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). But you are right:

mountain biking and bulldozer racing, when performed in an

environmentally responsible manner, don't have a significant impact

on the environment. In fact, they are actually beneficial to

wildlife. You can tell that, by the fact that you often see deer

tracks on the mountain biking trails. If the trails didn't benefit

them, they wouldn't use them, now would they? Bulldozer racing

doesn't drive out wildlife. That is a myth. I see lots of wildlife

where I ride.

Some people say that we ride too fast to avoid killing small

animals on the trail, such as snakes -- that we have to pay attention

to avoid crashing, and can't also look out for wildlife. Are they

that slow? What about "survival of the fittest"? If they are that

slow, they aren't going to survive, anyway.

Some HOHAs ("Hateful Old Hikers", as the mountain bikers call

them) claim that bulldozer racing does more harm to the environment

than hiking. But a scientific study was done in New Zealand, proving

that bulldozer racing does no more harm than hiking. Another

scientific study showed that most erosion is caused by nature, and so

any additional erosion caused by bulldozer racing is not significant,

by comparison. Would you rather have the park clear-cut, or turned

into another gated community for the rich? Without the support of

strong environmentalists like us, that's what will inevitably happen!

We are your strongest defense against development. If a park doesn't

have a strong constituency of recreational users, no one will care

about it, and it will inevitably be lost. (That's what those

environmental extremists call "destroying it, in order to save it".

But what do they know?) The HOHAs claim that vehicles make it too

easy for lazy, uncaring people to get into wildlife habitat. But if

nobody goes there, who will protect the park? The more people go to a

park, the better it is for the wildlife!

Another claim is that we compact the soil around redwoods, killing

them! Can you believe that?! In Muir Woods National Monument, they

don't even let people walk next to them, making them stick to

pavement or raised walkways. They must be run by an environmental

extremist tree-hugger!

I know that some HOHAs claim that bulldozer racing is annoying,

and destroys their experience of nature. I guess they're superior to

everybody else. They are just being selfish. They just don't want to

share "their" trails with anybody else! That's obvious. The older

ones claim that they have given up going there, because they are

afraid of being hit, or are tired of constantly having to get off the

trail to let bulldozers go by. Isn't that just evolution -- survival

of the fittest? Why should hikers, or anyone else, have the whole

park to themselves? We pay taxes, too. We have just as much right to

be there as they do. We are just as much environmentalists as they

are. We love nature! That's why we want to ride there!

When you have spent as much on your equipment as we have, believe me,

it is very frustrating, not to have any place to use it! We don't, of

course, condone illegal trail building. However, we can understand

the frustration of people whose only sin is preferring a different

way of enjoying nature. They think that, because they are able to

purchase a piece of equipment that lets them go off-road, the public

is obligated to give them a place to use it. That's understandable --

isn't that the American way? Aren't they just like the pioneers?

We bulldozer racers ("BS-ers") belong in the parks just as much as

everybody else. If the HOHAs don't want us on their trails, because

we allegedly create narrow ruts, and make them difficult to walk on,

then we deserve to have our own trails, which we will gladly build

for free. There is plenty of space for everyone. If the wildlife

don't like it, they can always move! It's just survival of the

fittest. As I said, that's what evolution is all about.

We will even police our own riders, so that you won't have any

additional expenses. After all, how would you catch a renegade

bulldozer racer? Your rangers would also need to drive bulldozers,

increasing the wear and tear on the trails. We can do that for you.

How about it? There are more and more of us every day. And we vote.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

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.)

Wildlife must be given top priority, because they can't protect

themselves from us.

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

are fond of!

http://mjvande.nfshost.com

Sun, 26 Apr 2015:
Subject: Re: 10 Signs of a Mountain Biking Cult

Kinda figured this was also the work of …. You two have done some pretty Cool stuff over the years. Thanks for keeping the faith for all of us, even when it has seemed hopeless.

Everything discussed here is happening throughout Society. If one disagrees with what a group has claimed to be the excepted Norm, that person can be persecuted in almost any way. There are very few paths that we can disagree on anymore. Disagreement is even looked at be the various "Communities", as dangerous. It shakes the Communities at their core. This then becomes the excuse to do anything, to the people who disagree. ANYTHING.

What's interesting is that by joining the Communities, even an idiot can claim his thoughts correct, and is allowed to do anything the so called Elitist can do. The whole thing stinks!

Thanks Guys. It is refreshing and feels good that there are others who see these things as well. This alone scares the "Communities". Fear causes mistakes. Mistakes eventually add up to the demise of the Community.

Subject: Re: Mountain Biking's Destined to Destroy All Wildlife Habitat

Mon, 13 Apr 2015:

I really admire your passion. It's difficult to find that deep of passion for nature now and days. I totally support your work for nature.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote:

Mountain bikes are a powerful tool for accessing almost every square inch of the Earth. The presence of people - facilitated by the mountain bike - makes habitat useless for the wildlife that live there, at least during the day (of course, with night riding, that dead zone is extended to 24 hours).

I just attended a weekend series of high school mountain bike races. These races create kids that want to ride fast and rip up ("shred", they say) trails. Unfortunately, there are no easily accessible, appropriate venues for doing that, so they will be looking to do that in our public parks, where it is totally inappropriate. This leads inevitably to illegal riding and illegal trail-building. In violation of NICA's written rules, at least one of the coaches deliberately took four of the high school mountain bikers on an illegal ride (i.e., contributed to the delinquency of minors - a crime punishable by a year in jail).

The mountain bikers claim that mountain biking brings them into contact with nature, and hence makes them want to protect it. Nonsense! Not one of the kids in these races had any beneficial contact with nature. They simply raced as fast as they could for from 6 to 18 miles, and then went home. Every one of them got to the races in a fossil-fuel-burning car, truck, or van - approximately 300 vehicles in total (see attached photos). They drove approximately 100 miles, on average, to get there and back. For most races, they drive twice as far!

Is this what we want to teach our kids???

Mike

From: [a friend]
Subject: Fat tire MTB's ripping up Iceland, now...
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 16:35:26 -0700

http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenovascotian/1280156-all-terrain-bicyclists-to-explore-nooks-and-crannies-of-iceland

--

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.)

Wildlife must be given top priority, because they can't protect themselves from us.

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

http://mjvande.nfshost.com

Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="386d72.jpg"; x-mac-type=4A504547; x-mac-creator=4A565752

Content-Disposition: inline; filename="386d72.jpg"

Content-ID: <7.1.0.9.0.20150413083312.08e793f0@pacbell.net.1>

X-Attachment-Id: 66701e355e5ea491_0.0.1

Mon, 9 Mar 2015:
Subject: Re: Hiker-biker clash reignites tension on Marin trails (CA)

Hi Mike,

This is one of the best arguments I’ve heard yet!

Thanks for all your activism efforts to keep our trails safe!!

On Mar 9, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote:

This whole conflict is the fault of the land managers. We decided long ago that bikes and pedestrians are incompatible on sidewalks, which are wider and smoother than trails. So they are, a fortiori, even more incompatible on trails. The only possible solution is to restrict bikes to paved roads. This is not unfair to mountain bikers, since they are welcome to walk on the trails.

Mike

Subject: RE: Hiker-biker clash reignites tension on Marin trails (CA)
Mon, 9 Mar 2015:

I love it!

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:04:45 -0700
From: mjvande@pacbell.net
Subject: Hiker-biker clash reignites tension on Marin trails (CA)

This whole conflict is the fault of the land managers. We decided long ago that bikes and pedestrians are incompatible on sidewalks, which are wider and smoother than trails. So they are, a fortiori, even more incompatible on trails. The only possible solution is to restrict bikes to paved roads. This is not unfair to mountain bikers, since they are welcome to walk on the trails.

Mike

Sat, 4 Oct 2014:

Subject: Re: Berkeley High School Mountain Bike Race Team

Thanks so much for this Mike. You are appreciated and supported.

Wed, 17 Sep 2014:

Subject: Re: Children and Mountain Biking

Mike; Thanks. Really stimulating reading.

-----Original Message----- From: Mike Vandeman

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 9:29 PM

Subject: Children and Mountain Biking

Re:

http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_26546321/dick-spotswood-bike-path-accident-leads-calls-bikes

Thanks for telling the truth about the danger of bikes to pedestrians!

Introducing children to mountain biking is CRIMINAL. Mountain biking,

besides being expensive and very environmentally destructive, is

extremely dangerous. Recently a 12-year-old girl DIED during her very

first mountain biking lesson! Serious accidents and even deaths are

commonplace. Truth be told, mountain bikers want to introduce kids to

mountain biking because (1) they want more people to help them lobby

to open our precious natural areas to mountain biking and (2)

children are too naive to understand and object to this activity. For

400+ examples of serious accidents and deaths caused by mountain

biking, see http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm.

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 1996:

http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm . 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://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm ). 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://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtbfaq.htm .

Mon, Sept 1, 2014: [a friend] mentioned you in a comment. [She] wrote: "I dedicate this post to Mike Vandeman - who has ALWAYS been out front with ways to save the environment. He is the one who sent me the post."

Subject: Re: Massive Damage to Forest Trails from a Mountain Bike Race
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:49:33 -0500

Hi Mike,

Great retort!

You can see how land mangers can be bamboozled into self-serving justifications for their cowardice in the face of the mountain biking pressure. Government employees by and large lack courage to confront any kind pressure from whatever direction. I gave up on the whole breed years ago.

I wonder sometimes if the best pressure to bear would not be a horde of hikers yelling and screaming bloody murder in their offices. They are easily frightened. Hikers are way too polite. We need to be more like the mountain bikers and put the fear of God into them.

Keep up the good work!