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
http://www.progress.org and http://www.henrygeorge.org. 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.
Mike,
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
conviction.
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
[me:]
>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,
I LOVE IT!
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
live.
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
Parks
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
management.
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
horrors.
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
it,
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
is
unvalued, even feared. A generation away from contact with wilderness
creates
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
being
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
well
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
our
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
tow,
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.
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: http://www.cmbalink.com/pressimba9807.html:
>
> 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
Acts)
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 Synanon.org 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
reciprocal.
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
it?
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 <mjvande@pacbell.net> |
You've got that right! :>
>From: Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net>
>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
rationally.
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
Mike,
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
motorists.
I commute to work using an electric bicycle. It has a 38 pound lead-acid
battery.
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
providers.
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 machine.....man'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!
|
Mike,
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 http://mjvande.nfshost.com/afba4.htm]
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
happen!
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.
Mike,
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
WHOOPEE!!!!!
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
Biking!
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:
Mike-
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
Amen.
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 www.lesscars.org
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: http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org
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
page!
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.
Unthinkable.
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.
AMEN!
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!!!