Fri, 29 Dec 2000:

Subject: Re: The Bureau of Land Management's National Off-Highway Vehicle Management Strategy

Damn-it-all, Mike, you're right.


But I especially liked your argument that the land is being "used up."


Are you familiar with the writings of Henry George?  Check him out at and  He wrote about

a land management policy that conservatives, liberals, and libertarians

can appreciate.  Basically, he suggests a confiscatory tax rate on any

use of Land that excludes others.


In other words, if you just want to walk quietly through the wilderness,

great, you're not depriving anyone, go on your way.  But if you want to

set up trails, you should pay a high tax to the state for the Privilege.

If you want to fence it off to keep others out, that's going to be

even more expensive.  If you want an ORV trail, well, you've pretty

much driven everyone else off the location and ruined Nature to boot,

so the cost would be prohibitive.


The concept is that the natural ownership of Land is as a commons.

Anything you do that negatively affects others' use of the Land is

taking something away from the commons, and you should have to compensate

society for the loss.


[me:]"My only concern is that the tax is levied by humans, who don't own the land in the first place! So we have no right to even ALLOW people there. The rightful owners are the wildlife, who are unlikely to give their permission for ANY use! :) Also, I don't trust anyone to place a proper cost on its destruction. What would be the loss if a species goes extinct????"


Anyway, you've done some good lobbying on this topic.  Are there more

established organizations that take a similar "no humans" approach to

wildlands management?  It seems that Sierra and similar groups have

compromised too far already.


[me:]"I quite agree. That is why I am working to change them. I already passed a resolution in the SF Chapter supporting human-free habitat. The closest organization I know of is the Wildlands Project, started by Dave Foreman. But they aren't willing to insist on human-free areas."


Sun, 17 Dec 2000:

[you:]You can live with wildlife with respect also, do you not agree?


[me:]Only with a FEELING of respect (on our end). I doubt that it is MUTUAL,

which is my point. Respect respects the wishes of the other person, in this

case wildlife. I have rarely seen that done, or even contemplated. You can

feel all the respect you want, but the question remains: Do the wildlife

want you there? Other than mosquitoes and a few other such species, I

SUSPECT that the answer is "no". Of course, we can't all kill ourselves.

But we can face reality a bit more....


[you:]For the majority of this poor excuse for a civilization you are

unfortunately correct. Thank you for your commitment to keeping these people

fenced from what remains of our wild life.


Sun, 10 Dec 2000:

It is my dream to create a huge wilderness where animals are protected, where animals on the brink are brought back

and once again flourish, to educate humans to eradicate the threat they pose. My commitment is to leave the smallest footprint, to live in an Earthship utilizing what is currently thrown away.  How can I Help?


Tue, 21 Nov 2000:

Subject: re: "Private property vs. wildlife"

Yes!  Somebody else sees what property-rights anarchists really

want--special rights!  Just what most conservatives like to accuse gays, for

instance, of asking for.  This is the root of the protection racket called

the "takings" movement, that property owners should get legal coddling that

no other investor even dares to whisper about--a legally guaranteed return

on their investment.


Great website, thank you.


Thu, 16 Nov 2000:

On 11/16/00 08:35:14 you wrote:

>At 10:56 PM 11/15/2000 -0800, Amy Crane wrote:

>>You have a quote on your page stating that the people that use OHV are

>>"not in shape" thus they need vehicles to make it out to the

>>wilderness.  This is true.  There are many disabled and elderly OHV users

>>that can't make it out in the back trails without vehicle assistance.  Are

>>you saying only the strong and young are allowed to enjoy the wonders of

>>nature.  Are you saying that the physically disabled don't have the right

>>to enjoy what you enjoy.  While you continue your crusade of telling

>>others what is right or wrong, you may want to look at your narrow views

>>and question your ethics.

>[me:]There are no such rights. You have the right to enjoy the public lands that

>you can access in a manner that doesn't destroy them! Because wildlife have

>a right to live, including a right not to be molested by humans who think

>that they own the entire Earth. Being disabled doesn't give you the right

>to harm wildlife, or require all wilderness to be paved over, just so you

>can get to it.

>Wilderness Watch (Missoula, MT) published several articles by disabled

>people who all said that they do NOT want wilderness made accessible to

>them, because then it would no longer be wilderness.




In Zion Nat'l Park they have a beautiful paved trail that is wheelchair

accessible for a while and then there is no trail at all. Hikers have to

choose to hike in the Virgin River and get wet. Up to that point, many

disabled people travel and get to view a steep-walled narrow canyon. There

is no push to build an elevated, bridge-type structure to allow disabled

people to travel further up.


I feel as you do that it wouldn't hurt to have areas that are completely

forbidden to humans. Certainly human access to every wilderness area is not

necessary or even desirable. I think most true environmentalists share this



Tue, 24 Oct 2000:

Subject: Re: "mountain biking fanatic in Philadelphia"
[me:] "Stay where you are. Better yet, move to Pakistan, where you can live with other fanatics."
In my next life, I want to be Mike Vandeman.


Thu, 19 Oct 2000:

I do read your emails and print them all for future reference. You are always thoughtful and right on on the issues. Keep up the good work.

Tue, 10 Oct 2000:
Subject: Re: The Revenge of the Nerds (Nerds Have More Fun!) (was Re: Why do mountain bikers always lie?????)
Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

>Your concern for my welfare is touching, but I have a very, uh, satisfying

>life, thank you. Not that it is any of your business. The myth that nerds

>have no fun is just that -- a MYTH. We actually have MORE fun than you

>macho airheads. Haven't you ever

>seen the movie "The Revenge of the Nerds"

>(or something like that). You should. It was great! And ACCURATE! While you

>guys are out tearing up the landscape, we are ACTUALLY screwing your wives

>and girlfriends! That's a FACT! :)


Another outrageous and amusing comeback. Bravo.


Sun, 08 Oct 2000:

I enjoy reading all your comments because I've come to believe that you are one of the few around here with any guts (rhymes with "nuts").


Mon, 25 Sep 2000:

Subject: Re: Have you seen my web page?
Hi Michael,



Sun, 24 Sep 2000:
Subject: Re: The Human Genome Project
You're right as usual. Hope all goes well.…


Sat, 23 Sep 2000:

I almost always find what you send out interesting---sometimes frustrating, sometimes enraging, sometimes saddening, never dull. Keep it up!


Tue, 12 Sep 2000:

Your web page was overwhelming and made me realize a lot of things. I can say that you have changed my perspective on how I view the environment and I will try my best to help promote the message you are trying to get across to the world. One small step may lead to a ladder of success. Thank you for opening my eyes.


Mon, 04 Sep 2000:
Subject: Re: Kudos!
Kudos, Mike Vandeman, for your indefatigable efforts to detour damaging roads, sideline trailbikes from parklands, and create human-free habitats for native flora and fauna. I'm delving into your writings and plan to share your efforts and ideas with others. Keep up the great work!


Sun, 03 Sep 2000:

Subject: Re: Have you seen my web page?
Mike - An interesting presentation site with lots of excellent concepts. I

work for Caltrans coordinating a very, very small program aimed at

preserving native vegetation communities on state highway rights of way. I

see human impacts pretty much through the same lens that you do. We need

inviolate habitat. By the way, you may have an interest in my 16 year old

daughter's web site. It prescribes protection (not necessarily complete

exclusion of all humans) for a suite of very rare plant species where we



Sat, 02 Sep 2000:

Subject: Re: Have you seen my web page?

I am really pleased by what you are doing.  That sort of work is outside the

scope of our efforts to promote exotic animal sanctuaries, but I heartily

wish you Godspeed, and will pass on any information or requests that come to

my attention which are in your interest.


Sat, 02 Sep 2000:
Subject: Re: Have you seen my web page?
I am really pleased by what you are doing. That sort of work is outside the scope of our efforts to promote exotic animal sanctuaries, but I heartily wish you Godspeed, and will pass on any information or requests that come to my attention which are in your interest.


Sat, 02 Sep 2000:

Subject: Re: Have you seen my web page?
>I think you will like it! I welcome any comments and/or help (publicity, links, etc.).

Like it? We love it! Most impressive -- and highly useful especially to Bay Area People. If you put as much into the wildlife page as there is in the transportation section .… It can be a stellar resource of universal value.

There is already a link to your page from our resource page at … about two/thirds of the way down the page below the green streetcar. More to come when I have enough time.

Look forward to delving into your page at length.
P.S. I have leaned why there was no bike path put on the Richardson Bay Bridge between Sausalito and Strawberry when it was widened in the mid-eighties. What a scandal. When I have all the details I would like to publish it on your page.


Fri, 01 Sep 2000:

Subject: Oy vey!
Your web page is overwhelming and not a little depressing. Short of dropping "the big one," please suggest what I might focus on for my target population (limp fingered California school teachers). I'm developing an environmental education retreat for Calif. school teachers in my native village of …, now known as …, Calif. Our focus is ethnohistory, with an emphasis on the very moment that our world changed with the gold rush.

Keep up the good work and don't jump!


Fri, 01 Sep 2000:
Subject: Re: Have you seen my web page?
Thanks mike...looks good...we can save the planet from ourselves if we'll only ACT.


Fri, 01 Sep 2000:

Dear Mike,

Your web page is great! Well done and keep it up.


Tue, 29 Aug 2000:

Subject: Re: [SFB-GEN*] Part II Re: Habitat Off-Limits to Humans in the East Bay Regional Parks
I'm not going to disagree with Mike because I know he is right. And I respect his knowledge and his tenacity in his belief and his ability to express himself. I suppose I would enjoy having an latte with him in …, even in a human habitat.


Sat, 26 Aug 2000:

Subject: Habitat Off-Limits to Humans in the East Bay Regional

I like Mike's letter.

We tip the champagne glasses when these parklands are "saved". Then we

spend years protecting the public lands from EBRPD upper level management

-- from folks who usually don't have a clue how to protect because

management doesn't provide enough institutional support for the

naturalists who keep the organization informed. In fact, they spend so

much money on managing the lands, they don't have the funding available

to study what effect the managers are having.

As a reference point, the District should recognize that nature does

nature better than humans do nature -- even if given teams of experts

from our finest schools blessed with unlimited budgets. This view

creates a marketing problem since it offers less employment for managers

. Managers are hired to manage something -- and bureaucrats will tend

to advance themselves through creating subordinate positions. So we

can't expect management to be overly excited about abstaining from

managing or from creating sustainable bureaucracy. The leadership needs

to come from the Board. Unfortunately, the current Board defers to


Also, I think we sometimes confuse "environmental group policy" with

"prescription for legislation". The policy goal needs to be expressed --

specific implementation can come later as the decision-makers respond.

Whether or not an idea catches on right away isn't the measure of the

policy's merit. Initially, such policy may not be well received by the

elected and appointed. Nevertheless, we should try to nudge leadership

along the learning curve -- while at the same time try to improve our

representation on the Board.

So I think Mike's letter helps by challenging the notion that all

District lands must be playgrounds for humans -- and by emphasizing that

the higher purpose of the District should be to preserve and protect our

increasingly dwindling undeveloped land. I would only add the emphasis

that District lands should not be playgrounds for professional tinkerers

as well. Personally, I would have some sympathy for certain nature

trails if access were made off limits to EBRPD resource managers who

normally precede and follow with their toolboxes full of unevaluated



Thu, 24 Aug 2000:
Subject: The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People
It seems like I'm in the minority. I trend to agree with the idea that maybe, just maybe we're over using and abusing some of our natural resources.

It seems to me that we're pretty hard on others that are destroying what we consider important resources, but when someone points out to us that we're offenders too...that really makes things different.

Is it so hard to understand that he has a point? Are bikes taking a toll on the woods? If they are why shouldn't they be limited or banned? Please someone explain to me what makes his so wrong in his thinking?

Wed, 23 Aug 2000:

Sure I'll help you - let me know what I can do. I can feature you on the … web site.


Tue, 22 Aug 2000:

Subject: Re: Habitat Off-Limits to Humans
Keep me on, thanks, great information.


Tue, 22 Aug 2000:

Subject: Re: Habitat Off-Limits to Humans
I would be glad to hear more about this topic.


Mon, 21 Aug 2000:
Subject: Re: Habitat Off-Limits to Humans
Include me on this e-mail list.

I look forward to the information you send.


Mon, 21 Aug 2000:

I really think all your time spent on alt.mountain-bike will give results.


Wed, 9 August, 2000:

Subject: Re: Don't even leave footprints
I appreciated the article "Don't even leave footprints" by Michael J.

Vandeman in the August issue. It gives cause for some serious reflection for

all environmentalists. How deep into the wilderness do we really need to go

to feel in touch with nature? And if we persist in going further, perhaps we

ought to be questioning our intentions. Are we there, in fact, to prove

something to ourselves or others? Or to acquire something, be it knowledge,

experience, physical strength, thrills, photos, memories or bragging rights?

Vandeman speaks of the risk to wild life that our proximity brings, and I

don't doubt the truth of what he says. But just in case anyone reading the

article feels they should cut themselves off from nature in order to save


I would like to put forth a reminder that our distance brings far greater

danger. It is those among us who have spent time in the wilderness who have

led the fight to preserve it from destruction. It is those who have lived

their lives disconnected from wild nature who blithely make decisions that

annihilate whole eco-systems. If in our desire to protect nature, we hold

ourselves apart from wilderness, denying ourselves that sense of deep

connection, the danger is increased significantly. We need to remember that

we are not aliens, that we are nature's creatures too. We need, and other

species need us, to keep in touch with our own wild selves. The very

existence of such wilderness is otherwise in serious jeopardy. The unknown


unvalued, even feared. A generation away from contact with wilderness


a population lost and disconnected, capable of seeing only resources for

consumption and space for possession.

We need to know the wilderness and the wilderness, in the long run, needs us

to know it. But we are so unskillful in our relationship, awkward and

ungainly, bringing our citified coarseness and insensitivity to an

environment so finely tuned that this loud bumpkin presence is indeed an

incredible intrusion. Therefore we certainly need to re-learn our way of


in the wild. Vandeman mentions the importance of slowing down, abandoning

vehicles, including bicycles, that remove us through speed and lack of

sensation from the very wilderness we seek. I would add that we would do


to approach the wilderness as we would any sacred place, with quiet

attention, sensitivity and awe, leaving the trappings of our culture and

creature comforts behind. If we quiet down and listen, slow down and let the

wilderness fill us, we will be a far less threatening presence and enrich


own experience as well. Can we stop focusing on proving physical prowess and

daring, stop storming through quiet pockets of worlds complete unto

themselves, setting everything aflutter? Can we instead find the rhythm of

the wilderness by sitting more and hiking less, by using all our senses, not

just sight, by waiting patiently for nature to tell us who we are and how we

fit? Because we do belong, but not with all our 'civilized' trappings in


not with our busy thoughts, loud voices and untuned senses.

We need from time to time to come home to the wilderness to be reminded why

we do whatever we can, through the votes we cast and the organizations we

support, to protect it. But we need to come home unfettered, humble and

willing to learn how to be at one in the wild.


Tue, 8 August, 2000:

Dear Editor,

Thanks for running that interesting article [“Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation”] on our impact on the wilderness.

Keep up the good and controversial work. You are truly doing a service to

the earth.


Tue 8 August, 2000:


Dear Yodeler,

     I hate to agree with Michael Vandeman’s recent article, “Don’t Even Leave Footprints”, but, alas, I do.  With exceptions being made for the most minimal of scientific excursions, some places on this small planet should be kept off limits to all human activity.  Arguments to the contrary tend to rest on the assumption that an individual walk in the woods can’t really hurt anything.  Were it solely an individual walk, that’s probably true.  But add all of those conscientious individuals together ¾ individuals who are convinced that their little walk couldn’t hurt a thing ¾ and you have a whole horde of sensitive souls traipsing into the woods.

     I have come to believe in the need for people-less environments, particularly if redundant habitats exist where people can visit the “wilderness”.  There is enough land for us to have our wilderness experiences, even places where we can find true solitude, without having to claim all land open to our photo-taking, story-generating, pride-filling excursions. 

     Time it is to re-examine our desire to protect nature.  Is it simply to preserve a playground for human activities, benign as many may seem to be?  Or can it include, from time to time, a responsibility to protect the rights of all living things to exist in natural habitats uninfluenced by human intrusions?


Fri, 11 Aug 2000:

Yes! Wildlife needs a human-free zone! Count me in.


Fri, 11 Aug 2000:

Great article in the Yodeler.


Tue, 01 Aug 2000:

I enjoyed reading your article in the “Yodeler”. I think you chose a great tact for getting your points across.


Mon, 31 Jul 2000:

Thanks for adding your comments to our website. I will indeed find a place

to add a link to your very informative and interesting web page. I'm

thinking of adding a general page of links to other sustainability and

environmental sites and that's where yours will go. It's so broad in scope,

I'm not sure how to categorize it - how about "wildlife preservation?"


Sat, 29 Jul 2000:

Subject: Re: Banff National Park Trail Closed to Bikes to Protect Grizzlies
You've hit it exactly. MTBs make it too easy.

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> They used the same argument I have always used: bikes make it too easy to

> get into wildlife habitat.


> I still don't understand why young, healthy mountain bikers are unwilling

> to WALK. Is walking too slow for the modern age? Is QUANTITY of

> sight-seeing now more important than QUALITY?


> Mike


> From:


> Grizzly bear conflict closes famous Canadian trail in Banff

> National Park

> Bicyclists accuse park of "discrimination"

> IMBA Publications

> July 1998


Wed, 19 Jul 2000:

Subject: RE: MTBers Accuse MROSD of Being "Segregationists"
I think that the soup that you brew is very helpful. Thanks for your efforts.


Fri, 14 Jul 2000:

Subject: Re: "Hikers Are Elitist"
Michael, you are wonderful. I heard an expression the other day: It's alright to listen to praise, just don't inhale.


Sat, 01 Jul 2000:

Subject: Re: New Zealand "Study" Comparing Hiking & Biking Impacts
Mike - now I know why they hate you. You never give up!!! You don't race a bulldozer - you ARE a bulldozer!!! I like that in a person.


Fri, 30 Jun 2000:

Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Save Wilderness!
<< Mountain bikers are VERY SENSITIVE, "SPECIAL" PEOPLE,

who, unlike everyone else, are constitutionally incapable of handling any

criticism, however slight. While normal people take criticism and look to

see if it contains any validity, and modify their behavior accordingly,

MOUNTAIN BIKERS, on the other hand, are, like, TOTALLY turned off by the

slightest smell of TRUTH, and probably go home and pout for a week,

scheming to devise some way to COUNTERATTACK! They are, after all, the

modern version of the WARRIORS, SAMURAI, and NINJAS of olden times. They

have HONOR! They have DIGNITY! They don't brook the shadows of no peons

crossing THEIR path! >>
Michael, this is wonderful. I've never seen it expressed better.


Wed, 28 Jun 2000:
Subject: Re: Re: Principles for Understanding and Working with the Earth
Hi Mike,

Yep, you probably have had a look at the ones Liath posted,

I have a few of these already and will continue to collect them.

places where people can't go is difficult concept for many - I was at a

strategy meeting for a submission as part of a process in deciding areas

for marine protected areas - these often have limited access and some

try to have no access. I proposed that some beach areas be locked up as

off-limits to humans and the idea was greeted with humourous disbelief!

Tue, 27 Jun 2000:

Subject: Re: How to Fight Abusive Web Pages (e.g. Those That Advocate Illegal


X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-106

References: <>

You are amazing, Mike.


Sat, 24 Jun 2000:

Subject: Re: FW: copyright violation?
Mike, AWESOME reply to their threats!!!! Way to go, wheeee hoooo!


Mon, 19 Jun 2000:

Subject: Re: We have a new baby!
Wonderful reply there, Mike. I agree with your concepts of baby

imprinting. We are expecting a grandchild in August; the parents (our

son and daughter in law) have just built a beautiful home on 20 acres of

forest on the slopes of Mt. Hood in Sonoma County. This baby will

gradually "come conscious" to the sound of birdsong and the wind in the

trees, and the fragrance of trees, leaves and forest mulch will be its

perfume. What a lucky baby.


Sun, 18 Jun 2000:

Subject: Re: Recreational Use of Arastradero Preserve, Palo Alto
Dear Mike, I guess we belong to the mutual admiration society. Yours is a terrific letter. Hope they listen.


Sun, 18 Jun 2000:

Hi Mike, What a wonderful website. I had read a lot of it on website. See you in July.


Sun, 18 Jun 2000:

I've followed your work for many years. I never wrote you 'cause you looked like you had your hands full and I wasn't sure if you'd even remember me. I must say I am not in agreement with many of your positions, but hey, that's what makes life interesting.


Wed, 14 Jun 2000:
Subject: Re: Author of "Unbiased" Study on Mountain Biking Is Apparently a Mountain Biker (Surprise!)
Dear Mike,

I would like to take a minute to thank you for your tireless efforts in

relation to off-road bicycle damage to nature. You are responsible in large

part for disseminating facts which are crucial to responsible land management

decisions. I don't know how you do it, but please don't give up. A lot of

us rely on you for information and encouragement. I hope it is somewhat


Tomorrow night is our first full new planning commission hearing in Fairfax.

5 new appointees since January. No slouches either: Nick, physics degree

from Harvard, JD from UCLA, former chair, enforcement committee BCDC, private

legal practice 25 yrs, clients have included David Brower, Sierra Club.

Brian, BS, MS, PhD, MD, runner and open space advocate. Egad there are

finally brains on the planning commission!!! How will the newspapers handle



Mon, 12 Jun 2000:
Subject: your writings
Dear Mike:

Really enjoy your writing! I am very pleased that you responded to the

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Management Plan, public response due

May 1, 2000. I was on the stakeholder group that often argued with the DNR,

Mountain biker's and the sierra club delegate. I was one of the Equestrian

representatives. Although I am an Equestrian, and not eliminated from the

erosion impact of hooves, I appreciate your points for the wildlife. The

arrival of Mountain Bikes have eliminated or shall I say annoyed the hunters

who used to kill for the sake of killing, away from the recreation areas, so

there is that one positive perspective, but, I can think of only one.

Anymore stuff on Mountain Biking in parks would be appreciated.

Thank you!


Sat, 20 May 2000:

Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Openly Discuss "Poaching" (Illegal Mountain Biking)!

Oh man- talk about pleading guilty. Mountain bikers are going to seal their own fate. When I mountain biked a lot I would sometime ride a closed trail because I just HADDDD to ride. I always felt guilty afterwards and I had a lot of growing up to do. I don't think our trails were meant to be racetracks. Thanks for everything you are doing.


Sat, 20 May 2000:

Subject: Re: Where's the "Bias" Against Mountain Bikers???

To: Mike Vandeman <>

You've got that right! :>

>From: Mike Vandeman <>

>Subject: Where's the "Bias" Against Mountain Bikers???

> I have been asking this question for 6 years, but I have never heard the

> answer. Where is the bias against mountain bikers, when bikes are banned

> from trails??? Since the exact same regulations apply to EVERYONE, I don't

> see how anyone can claim bias. You can't bike there, but I can't either!


> Since only BIKES, not MOUNTAIN BIKERS, are banned, only the BIKES are being

> discriminated against. And last I heard, bikes don't have rights! :)


Fri, 19 May 2000:

Subject: Re: Is Mountain Biking Prohibited in Any State's State Parks? Yes. Mine.

You are a good soldier. Fight the good fight sir. Your beliefs are solid. I hope your dreams become a reality for our children. Because they matter the most.


Fri, 19 May 2000:

Subject: Re: Is Mountain Biking Prohibited in Any State's State Parks?

I'm very impressed. I thought Frank Lutz was the fencing master. Looks like you both are. Thanks for taking over and responding to this fellow. He sounds smart enough, perhaps he'll come over to our side.


Fri, 19 May 2000:

Subject: Re: Mountain Biking in Giant Sequoia National Monument
Keep up the good work Mike. It's hard to believe that an outdoor user would strike a ranger like that -- so sad. John Muir would turn in his grave. Oh man- the world is getting smaller and smaller.


Fri, 19 May 2000:

Subject: Whipsnake letter
I read your post on the web site, and found it very informative and moving. …, one of the other co authors of our trail book, directed me to your URL.


Thu, 18 May 2000:

You have a great site. What is your position on responsible trail running?


[ALL human presence is harmful to wildlife. It should be kept to a minimum.


I don't understand why anyone would want to RUN through wilderness. You would necessarily miss a lot of the enjoyment and learning. It is essentially USING nature to maintain a level of fitness that (according to Dr. Cooper, the inventor of aerobics) is unnecessary for fitness & health. Hiking/walking are completely adequate, unless you are training for competition, which itself seems unnecessary. Think about the environmental impacts of the Olympics!!!!!! Yuk! Don't get me started on THAT! :)


Of course, running is a lot less harmful than mountain biking, horseback riding, etc. That's what those recreationists refuse to admit.]


Fri, 12 May 2000:
Subject: Biking on mountain trails
Just wanted to let you know I was going back through past messages that had been posted and read your objections about biking on trails. I also posted a message disagreeing purely on the one comment made about it only scares wildlife for one day. Having worked in wildlife rehab for 6 years, I can't understand how anyone could make such a statement. Obviously this person doesn't understand the impact human beings make on the environment and the creatures that share it with us. Just wanted to let you know I share your opinion.


Tue, 09 May 2000:

Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Join the Anti-Wilderness Crowd
There is a hiking trail that my wife and I believe should be on the National Treasures List. It is a very easy trail that can accommodate even the elderly. It is also shared by mountain bikers. Sometimes the hike seems like a freeway in that if the person(s) want to go as fast as they possibly can the slower hiker has no choice but to get out of the way. I understand the desire for speed and "extreme" sport, but it does seem to be creating havoc on the slow, easy, meandering trails for us slow, easy, meandering hikers.


Tue, 09 May 2000:
Subject: RE: Mountain Bikers Join the Anti-Wilderness Crowd
I do agree wholeheartedly... Wait until you see what they have done to the

Phoenix Mountain Preserve. I was kayaking down the Colorado River through

Glen Canyon the last three days (i.e. what it left of it after construction

of the dam upstream) and it's the fisherman in power boats that are clearly

a menace to the wilderness there. The noise can be almost deafening and they

pay no respect to those using human powered transportation (not to mention

killing helpless fish). I just cannot stand Homo stupidiens and am ashamed

to be a member of this species... I do admire your ability to deal with them



Sun, 07 May 2000:

Subject: Permission to Print Article
Dear Michael,

My friend …, president of the … Association, sent me the enclosed article several days ago.

The …'s main purpose is to save the wildlife corridor to the north and

west of the … Valley from development, etc., so that the wildlife

in the mountains south of the … Valley can maintain their gene pool ... and

so that our local wilderness can still be wild.

I'm writing you to request permission to publish portions (most paragraphs

that you wrote and some sentences from the referenced book) of the enclosed

article in the … Association newsletter.

I just looked at your web site and am very impressed with your efforts! I

will of course include the web site reference and your request for help in

your effort.

Most of our Board of Directors knows the truth of what you say in your

article; unfortunately, many of our more active members look to the

newsletter as a place to get hiking info, so I'm going to have to introduce

your article rather carefully, especially since this may be a relatively

short edition with only your article, meeting announcements, and hiking stuff.

Thank you.


Mon, 01 May 2000:

Subject: bravo [Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation]
These ideas are what I teach almost daily. Glad to see all those references and other people who think similarly. Only last week my group and I (I take

children on nature walks and talk about the plants and animals) disturbed a Cooper's hawk(?) sitting on a branch not far from his nest.


Sun, 30 Apr 2000:

Subject: Hello- interesting articles on mountain bikes.
Hello, I am a backpacker who loves the wilderness and it's beauty. I took up mountain biking a few years ago, but have recently began to stop due to the lack of natural discovery as well as the guilt attributable to the very act itself. I have taken my two year old hiking recently and the bikes nearly scared both of us into the woods. It's really sad- A place so beautiful and tranquil is becoming [trashed] so fast. Is it getting better with the banning of bikes on pristine trails? But, we live in a democracy and unfortunately a lot of people buy bikes. These bikes become votes and voices. Keep up the awareness. Thanks.


Sat, 29 Apr 2000:

Subject: Re: Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation

Very well written as usual.

Like you have written a short walk in a simple trail

or even a quiet street that has lots of trees and

birds is refreshing enough. Man just gets greedy for

more with everything even nature.

The amount of research you do is amazing. How much

longer is it going to take for people to realize the

damage they are causing?

By then how many more species would have gone extinct.

It is really sad to even think of that.


Sat, 29 Apr 2000:
Subject: your website
Glad to hear there is someone else like me that doesn't own a car. That is

probably the worst thing you could do for the environment and wildlife in general. Besides the pollution, and constant use of resources, the car has also contributed to the destruction of more habitat because it has allowed us to spread far and wide, actually far greater than mountain bikes or hikers. It's good to see people with a consistent environmental ethic such as yours and not one that is preferential to what suits them best.


Fri, 28 Apr 2000:
Subject: Re: Mountain Biking in Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park
Mike, I have to admire your resolve in your issues. I may not agree with your cause, but by god you are consistent. You do know it's a lost cause when you are dealing with human selfishness...on BOTH sides.


Fri, 28 Apr 2000:
Subject: habitat
I agree with the concerns regarding mountain bikes and

other technological instruments jeopardizing wildlife,

but you don't address a larger issue I'm concerned

with, energy production. Obviously having read only a

small portion of your writings, I must say I am in

awe. Would be interested to hear your views on a

fundamental core issue; CO2, global warming,

electricity and dams.

Habitat off-limits to humans - Love it - Starting in

the Grand Canyon!


Thu, 27 Apr 2000:

Subject: Re: Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation
Mike Vandeman wrote:

> Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and ____________

> Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
A rational contribution


Wed, 26 Apr 2000:
Subject: Re: Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation

What a thoughtful article. I read the whole thing and it says so much. I

would like to include it on my web site. Thanks for the research and your

obvious skill as a wordsmith. Your writing is informative and a pleasure to

read. You've put across your thoughts on this important subject in a

beautiful way. I want to read it again and again, and will.


Tue, 25 Apr 2000:
Subject: Electric propulsion
I really love your Bicyclist Website (found it from newsgroup environment).

It is indeed enlightening to read after slowly being put down by gasoline


I commute to work using an electric bicycle. It has a 38 pound lead-acid


I have a headlight that uses AA batteries, and I've noticed with the

development of Nickel Metal Hydride AA's and these new 'charge-ables' brand

batteries, that battery life has been greatly extended over lead-acid

rechargable on a weight and volume basis.

I have always opted for the bicycle, throughout my life. I commuted up a

huge hill on the way home from high school. I rode a lightweight to my

last job until it was stolen. I rode a motorcycle for years and decided

that it is too dangerous.

I believe that one could easily construct the ultimate commute vehicle,

based on a direct drive motor with pedal assist, 3 or 4 wheels (for safety

at that speed), that is much smaller than a standard car, attains speeds of

about 40+ mph, and runs on rechargable batteries.

They have them at 20 mph, but that is bicycle speed. They have the 'Lectra

electric motorcycle, but it uses lead-acid.

Users could recharge with solar panels or wind generators, or switch their

electricity to clean-n-green geothermal and landfill bio-mass power


User could build up their hearts, strength, stamina, and energy at their

own rate - thus reducing electricity use.


Wed, 19 Apr 2000:

Dear Michael,

I did a poster to stick up around the University of …

based it upon the front page of the wheeled Locusts site, incorporating all

its photos in black and white.

I think it's highly fortuitous that I found your web site, because I put out

a newsletter (…) only a week or so before, attacking the student's

association for not supporting Critical Mass, in which, I referred to all

the different clubs that were allowed to affiliate, and a throwaway line

"heaven only knows why the Mountain Bike Club is allowed to exist" (ie,

affiliate and get funding)

Then I find your site and am bowled over by the wonderful eloquent testimony

of those photos of MTB destruction of trails (I never Knew about this.)

As I said in my last missive, I've never been a MTB'er. I've never even been

what we call a 'bush-walker' (hiker), so I've never seen the damage.

I've never gone off on some greenie 'tree-hugging' expedition. The largest,

oldest tree in New Zealand, a tree thousands of years old, which has

survived massive storms, earthquakes,forest fires, and loggers - everything

that nature can dish up, is now dying. The National Parks and Wildlife

service have declared the cause to be all the greenies who have been

trampling around the roots of this ancient tree in large groups of human

'tree-huggers' over the last twenty years or so.

So it appears that just as wildlife fauna shuns humanity, as koala bears

detest being hugged by humans - such activities actually kill trees as

effectively as ring-barking!

In my last epistle I mentioned how I was going to say 'shame!' on the

students' association for funding mountain biking....Instead I wrote at the

bottom: "This message was brought to you By Critical Mass" and quoted your

lines: "in our righteous enthusiasm for the bicycle let's not forget that it

is a's excessive reach into wildlife habitat" Even without

mentioning NUSA and how ashamed they ought to be....I hope that people at

University are intelligent enough to make the association. Still, there's no

accounting for just how dumb the majority of people can be. So, in a later

poster if the point has been lost on a lot of people (probably the majority)

I will explicitly spell it out.

I fully expect these posters to be ripped down immediately by MTB

enthusiasts. But, as I do every week, I'll keep putting them back up again.

I'll write you again soon. I'm still reading all the 'stuff' on your site -

there's a lot of "stuff" there!


Wed, 12 Apr 2000:

I enjoy Mike's posts - usually they get me off my behind, and DOING something positive and active to help create a more interesting and perhaps more viable future for all of us, especially those sentient beings who don't have human voices to add to our deep ecology discussions.


Tue, 11 Apr 2000

I thought you were working towards wide-spread banning of off-road riding, i.e. countrywide.

If you are working towards what you mentioned, then you have my support.

Sorry if I sounded arrogant.

I don't want to desecrate nature, let alone hurt any of the animals, life

would be extremely dull without them. I would rather ride around town

anyway. I'm not obsessed, but its like a lot of mountain bikers are.


Mon, 03 Apr 2000:

Subject: Re: "Equal Access"
Dear Mike, I had read that - very good.


Sun, 02 Apr 2000

Subject: Bob & Foxy
Dear Michael,

I have for some time been reading the articles you have wrote on the web and see and feel the frustration that you are too feeling. Tonight I was initially refering to the article 'Get the City Out of The Parks' as I am currently concluding my Bsc on 'A Parks Strategy for ... Parks for People', I was initially outranged at this so called 'environmental strategy' when it was brought out in the summer of 1999, so much so I decided to construct a critical analysis and evaluation in order to test its effectiveness, Ha Ha!!

Anyway just to introduce my frustration on one of many topics. I then came across Bobs site at which had me in tears as I have too just recently lost Foxy, of five years old in a car accident just outside my house. The day it happened I had only popped out for a one hour lecture at university, as I was leaving he was there outside my gate looking happy and contented as usual, if only.......

When I arrived home my partner informed me that Foxy had been knocked down and received head injuries so he had done me the favour of burying him, well I can't describe how angry I felt at that moment, and insisted to his disgust that he dug him up straight away so I could say my goodbyes. I was literally devasted and insisted in cleaning and nursing him before wrapping him up in a blanket and burying him in a nice spot in the garden. Afterwards all sorts of things were going through my mind like what if my boyfriend had knocked him down reversing into the drive as I could not understand why this had happened as he was the most 'streetwise' cat I knew. Well, I suppose as time goes on you learn to live with the pain and hurt as I do, and stop looking for reasons why, but not a day goes by when I don't think about him as you do too with Bob. I just wanted to share that with you as it helped me to share your loss.

Please feel free to reply anytime.


Fri, 31 Mar 2000:

Subject: Re: Bikes / Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
Dear Prof. Vandeman,

Great work. Thanks very much for sharing it. I have no affinity with

the mountain bike crowd nor with the motorized crotch-rocket bunch.

Wilderness designation should continue to preempt the mechanized, not

just the motorized. We need the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection

Act (NREPA) to do that as well. H.R. 488. Has your Member of Congress

signed on as a co-sponsor? We have almost 100 co-sponsors, and your MC

can help us reach that magic number to justify hearings in the next

Congress. Do you have an amendment in mind that would make any of the

approximately 20 million acres to be protected under the five-state NREPA

off limits to humans? Perhaps start by requesting a copy of the bill

through your MC.


Thu, 30 Mar 2000:

Subject: Re: Mountain Biking in Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park
Mike, excellent letter. Thanks.


Thu, 30 Mar 2000:

Subject: Bob
Dear sir,

Your heart felt story of loss brought a tear to my

eye. It always hurts to lose a loved one. I lost a

small dog to a larger aggressive dog that used a

neighbor's retaining wall to jump over my six foot

fence. My innocent pet was minding his business in his

own back yard. Your cat, although not being quite as

innocent, did not deserve to die. Your comment about

one mistake is so true for anything. All it takes is

one mistake.

What brought me to your web site was an article about

mountain biking and its destruction of nature. I am

one of those brainless folk who enjoy all the

destructive activities you talk about, such as living

in a house built by cutting down trees and mining

rock, and driving a automobile, and riding a mountain

bike, and I have a jet ski, and an OHV(motorcycle). I

have been made to feel bad about using the

motorcycle, and the jet ski, and more recently, the

mountain bike. I have been on the defensive about

these activities most of my life. Reading a small

portion of your web site both bothered me and makes me

happy. What makes me happy is that you choose to put

the mountain biking and jet skiing activities into the

same category as cars and roads and hiking boots. You

have put me back into the mainstream. I guess that

has always been the case. It just seems like my

activities are those of outsiders, but in reality

eco-friendly people would attack just about all

activities if they thought they had a chance. It

makes sense to fight the groups that have smaller

followings. Survival of the fittest I guess.


Sun, 26 Mar 2000:

Subject: Re: MROSD Trail Closures -- the Mountain Bikers' Point of View
Hi Mike,

I like your rebuttal to the ROMP position. I hope that some Open Space

District Board Members are on your suppressed list of recipients or

otherwise have access to your comments. It would serve as a reality check

for them. They sometimes get so wrapped up in trying to avoid conflict

among the trees that they lose sight of what is best for the forest.

Thanks for what you are doing.


Sun, 26 Mar 2000:
Subject: Re: MROSD Trail Closures -- the Mountain Bikers' Point of View
The noise level alone

without the smell and tear up of trees and wild species

is enough to break the law for protecting

the clean quiet and innocent forest dwellers.

Every one has boundaries, we have trash

and pollution all over -- to let one group of our people slop

everything up.

I am thrilled that protection of our clean areas is progressing.

It is not allowed, it's a fine sign.

We should hire rangers to keep garbage dumpers and spoilers supervised.

Fouling water and leaving junk --

good job for people to study.

We need a slew more like you.


Sat, 25 Mar 2000:

Subject: Yes! I want to Help Preserve Undisturbed Wildlife Habitat!



I believe what I'm working on here in Alameda is helping preserve undisturbed

wildlife habitat by promoting transit friendly, compact development. Please

let me know of anything I can do to help you more directly with your habitat

preservation efforts.


Thu, 23 Mar 2000:

Subject: plight of the reptiles
Dear Michael;

I recently read your article on the whip snake and feel your frustration. The

general public is very ignorant on reptiles, and furthermore, could care less.

I am a zoo student in Florida, and I deal with this all the time. Like

yourself though, I am amazed not at the general publics apathy on this

subject, but by the "learned" people who hold power in this society. I am

amazed at the bunny huggers that I attend school with that love animals, as

long as that does not include reptiles. I have my goals though, to educate. It

is an often unpopular stance, but I stand my ground. I have also been able to

educate many of my fellow classmates on these beautiful creatures. I hope you

continue to keep your faith on this subject, as I believe a change can and

will be made in the future.

Thanks for your efforts, and hopefully some day I can hike that area and

witness this animal first hand, instead of in a museum of past history. Good

luck and best wishes;

MR. Reptiles


Sun, 19 Mar 2000:

Subject: Re: Fwd: critical habitat proposed for Alameda whipsnake
Michael - I'm pretty busy with Endangered Species protection and creek

restoration projects, but I 100% support industrial human-free wilderness

areas. I'll keep you updated on whipsnake issues.


Wed, 15 Mar 2000:

Subject: about bob
I was touched by bob's story. [see]


Sun, 12 Mar 2000:

Subject: Re: TROLL MAN!
Thanks for the info!

I am a current Mt Biker, but I'll still go on backpacking trips

sometimes. I think the way we could all help each other is to ban

anything other than hiking in the few wild areas we have left! I do not

ride my bike in wildlife areas, so why does everyone else?

I do just fine riding in these "parks" we have in Denver. I have been

to Isle Royale when I was in high school and that is probably all MESSED UP

up by now!

I think we should make Mt Bike only areas where the land is too messed up to

think about fixing, like in the middle of a city, along rivers and

around crappy parts of towns.((( Military Bases? ))) We could make

trials areas out of old parking garages and MAKE all of our obstacles,

so there is no erosion. And if someone litters, run their bike over

with the available bulldozer! JOKE.

The only problem, with banning cars, is winter-time. I personally ride

the bus as much as I can, but I know too many people that have too much

PRIDE to ride the bus!

We'll never control cars, because of the oil people and too much money

to government. But we can al try to do our own thing and someday when we are all

wearing gas masks, maybe someone will vote on something good for once.

Keep up the work, and keep pissing people off and someday something will


P.S. I'm 27 years old and have never owned a car and have no

drivers license!

P.S. You Are Not A Troll! Maybe an Elf or whatever is the caretaker of

the woods.

Be seeing you.


Sat, 11 Mar 2000:
Subject: TROLL MAN!
I saw a warning about you in this discussion group [alt.mountain-bike].

You're a popular dude!

Keep the Faith Man!


Sat, 11 Mar 2000:

Subject: Re: Why the Crystal Springs Watershed Should be Off-Limits to Recreation
Am here, alive and following your mailings with great interest.


Sat, 11 Mar 2000:
Subject: Re: Progress in the Fight Against Off-Road Biking!
Thanks for your replies...and the real work you're doing...


Fri, 10 Mar 2000:

Subject: RE: Required Reading for the Entire Planet
Good stuff. Thanks.


Fri, 10 Mar 2000:

Subject: Re: pure habitat, etc.


I'm thrilled that you took the time to reply. I've

read your emails for months and really do admire your

positions and arguments.


Fri, 03 Mar 2000:
Subject: Re: (De-)Mapping the Earth

I'm the editor of the on-line …, and also and occasional

contributor to the deep-ecology list. Earlier this month, you posted the

note below, and I'd like your permission to run it as a letter-to-the-ed.

I'd also like you to consider becoming a monthly columnist for the ….

I've always liked what you post to the DE list, and want to ignite more

discussion of these issues. We pay (not much -- $25 for op/ed) but we're

also a member of Alternet and other wire services, and would be glad to

submit the column on your behalf. You retain all copyright, of course.

Please let us know about the letter reprint ASAP.


Mon, 28 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: Banning Mountain Biking


Mon, 28 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: Banning Mountain Biking
Mike Vandeman wrote:

> This is GREAT news, especially for wildlife! Thank you for having the

> courage to stand up to the "industrial-grade" recreationists, who think

> that nature exists only to pleasure THEM! Thank God, the tide is beginning

> to turn against mountain biking, which benefits ONLY the mountain bikers

> who do it, and hurts wildlife and every other person who loves and wants to

> enjoy nature. Every now and then it is good to stop, think, and admit that

> something we are doing is really not such a good idea.


> God bless you,


> Mike Vandeman


> P.S. I am not really religious, I just can't think of a better way to

> express this

Just the way I feel!


Mon, 28 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: Midpeninsula Regional Openspace District Starts Banning Mountain
People who can see into the future

for the sake of us all

and the purity of our earth

and our innocent wildlife are few.

Congratulations on having vision.


Wed, 24 Feb 1999:


I just started reading some if the bicycle related news groups that you

post on, and I must say that I agree with you on the mountain bike

issue. In addition to banning mountain bikes from wild lands, do you

know if any organization is working on banning horses and other pack

animals from these places as well? The damage that is done with these

creatures to horrible! And, they seem to be allowed in three times as

many places the dogs and bikes combined I would like to get involved

with this issue.


Sat, 19 Feb 2000:

Although I commend what you do, I only wish I had time to assist you in your causes. I have a 7 month old baby and another on the way.


Tue, 15 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: (De-)Mapping the Earth


Tue, 15 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: Committee to Plan for the End of the Oil
Your words resonate with what our organization has been around to tell people for 10

years now! Good to hear it from other sources now and then. Do you know of us?

Fossil Fuels Policy Action Institute which runs Alliance for a Paving Moratorium and

publishes the Auto-Free Times. Our website is

Happy toothbrushing!


Tue, 15 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: (De-)Mapping the Earth

Your Earth-mapping project is VERY misguided! We don't need more maps, we

need to start DE-MAPPING the scanty scraps of viable habitat that remain on

the Earth, and pulling all human artifacts out of them, ESPECIALLY ROADS

AND TRAILS. Think "Terra Incognita", just like in the old days!

Please stop this expensive boondoggle before it can do any more damage!

Don't tell me how "beneficial" it will be. From the point of view of

wildlife, it will be unequivocally HARMFUL.


Dear Michael:

Good point, the video (carried by Ring of Fire Productions) The Dream Weavers of Borneo" illustrates your point.

Mon, 14 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: (De-)Mapping the Earth
I love the concept. Did you hear that the mapping mechanism is broken and

won't be able to complete the job? The satellite is coming down a day early.


Sun, 13 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: (De-)Mapping the Earth
Good, I like it.


Mon, 14 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: Contested Lands -- Windfalls for Wildlife?
Yes, we agree.


Wed, 09 Feb 2000:

Please consider linking Alliance for the Wild Rockies (AWR) to your

excellent website.

AWR is a 501(C)(3) non-profit conservation group working to protect the

ecological integrity of the Northern Rockies bioregion through citizen

empowerment and the application of conservation biology, sustainable

economic models, and environmental law. AWR's website provides browsers

with timely information on wildlife and wildlands issues in the region.

AWR also posts environmental articles.

Our Web Address:


Sun, 06 Feb 2000:

Subject: Right on Mike.
Keep up the good work, you are truly

ahead of your time, let's hope and

pray that mankind will someday see the

wisdom of your views.


Sat, 05 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: Contested Lands -- Windfalls for Wildlife?
That's a nice letter.....and a wonderful thought!

I'm reading: "The Resurgence of the Real" by Charlene Spretnak. Then

"Wildlife and Recreationists" comes next. Hopefully. Unless I get

distracted along the way!


Fri, 04 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: Contested Lands -- Windfalls for Wildlife?

I like it! How about a copy to Bruce Babbitt...our Secretary of

Extinction? God I hate to admit it but I knew the man in Tucson when I

was a TV reporter (Dennis DiConcini was the DA) and he sure wasn't the

ass then that he is now...every stupid thing he does makes me want to

slap back into consciousness!!


Tue, 01 Feb 2000:

Subject: Re: OHV Management Strategy to be Developed by BLM
I see what you mean by mountain bikes because they were all

over the place like ants on a sugar pile! I think the deal here is that

BLM plans to sell out again and allow the land to be developed down the

road and that's why the bikes are allowed to tear things up (but the

horses weren't).


Sat, 29 Jan 2000:

Subject: Re: The Psychology of Mountain Biking
Hi Mike,

Good letter!


Wed, 26 Jan 2000:

Subject: Re: The Psychology of Mountain Biking
Greetings Mike, and thank you for this revealing copy, very useful to

your/our cause, and we will not be surprised to see the paranoid shrieks

of denial in the newsgroups will we … ??!

I wish you a happy, healthy and successful 2000 and assure you that you

are not alone in your passionate objectives.


Wed, 26 Jan 2000:

Subject: The Psychology of Mountain Biking
Right ON!


Fri, 21 Jan 2000:

For you interest, I have been trying to convince Parks Canada (Glacier

National Park) to create a "human free zone" in Mountain Creek drainage

where no human will ever (legally) enter. Not even the police or wardens.

The Chief Warden is somewhat interested, but doesn't really see the need as

no one ever goes there anyway. I have tried to convince him that it is the

statement that counts, not the one drainage.


Fri, 21 Jan 2000:
Subject: Understanding your web page
I own both a car and a mountain bike and still I understand your web


The bike has never been in the mountains and for that matter has never

been off the asphalt.

The car has been in the mountains, but also, never off the asphalt.

Just thought that I would let you know that while most of us are victims

of modern technology,

some of us "eco-demons" actually AGREE with you and even respect what's

left of the environment.

It is unlikely that I will "dump" my car anytime in the near future.

But I will do what I can to preserve what

remains of our ecology.

I am a new member of the Sierra Club, and look forward to helping where

I can.

Keep up the good work!


Fri, 21 Jan 2000:

Many thanks for sending your web pages. Your 'non-conforming' perspectives

appeal to my own...I'm looking forward to exploring your site and reading

some of the authors you recommend.

'Pure habitat' --great concept. Some will be beside themselves, stripped of

opportunities to intervene (study and trample) on behalf of the common good.


Mild and overcast on Vancouver Island...highway construction in progress.

By the way, I would love to do something here before our ever-expanding

Island Highway, and others in the planning stage, further damage our

severely threatened wildlife communities. I'm hoping to work with the

province's Wildlife branch toward that goal, but at this point projects are

contingent on approvals and funding. If the project(s) proposed by the

branch get off the ground I think you will be a great source of inspiration

and knowledge. I'll keep you posted.


Mon, 17 Jan 2000:

Please continue sending what ever you feel is pertinent to the environment

and its preservation and its natural inhabitants. I think you may have

changed my stance on preservation as a result.


Mon, 10 Jan 2000:

I enjoy your e-mails and hope to continue getting them. I find your

point of view interesting.


Thu, 06 Jan 2000:

We would very much like to vote for the California Slender Salamander since

… is doing his Science report on this incredible lungless amphibian!!! Thanks.


Thu, 06 Jan 2000:

Dear Michael,

I have been looking at web pages and found yours very useful.

I am looking for an introductory book for Deep Ecology that I can use as

part of my "Introduction to Biological Engineering Class". Most I have read

are too involved (i.e. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century) or too

religious/side tracked (Living richly in an age of limits, DeVall). They

are good books, but won't function well in a class that is primarily about

teaching fundamentals of engineering. My goal is to help my students become

aware of the environmental and ethical side of the design and engineering

process. I want to use the book as a means of providing discussion over the

semester about deep ecology and why it is important.


Subject: Review: Wilderness & the American Mind.

Try reading Edward Abbey's Desert Solitaire. It's right up your alley. Of course, we have a president who is taking many steps in the right direction. The Hanford US Atomic Energy Res. is and will always be off limits to developers.

Here in Washington State, there has been a major land swap between National Forest, & a large timber company to create a continuous environment for wildlife...sponsored by a Democrat senator & a Republican senator. Must be a good thing if they're both in agreement!


Wed, 05 Jan 2000:

I'm new to rec. backcountry....actually I think you're very funny.
some people just can't take a joke.


Sun, 2 Jan 2000:

One must admit, that if making mountain biking

appear as an environmental issue of some importance is what

Mike seeks to attain, then he is bloody good at it. Less would

be sufficient, I think, but that is not for me to decide.  I admire

his persistence and I've found him to be generally agreeable

to the willing opponent.


Sat, 01 Jan 2000:

I want to express my appreciation for your work to preserve wilderness. Here in the Blue Ridge Mtns. of Virginia, we are oppressed on all sides by loggers who would cut every last tree, if they could. Chip mills are being built in Va. and NC which devour acres of forest in short order. We are trying to do our part in this neck of the woods. It's a tough battle. We have designated our 90 acre farm/forest to never be logged (conservation easement).

Best wishes to you and good fortune in your work to preserve biodiversity!!!