Mon, 25 Dec 2006:
You are our inspiration. Thank you for all you do!
Mon, 25 Dec 2006:
Merry Christmas Mike! I enjoyed your holiday email. You amaze me! Keep on keeping on... You are making a difference - one person - one trail - one park at a time.
Wed, 6 Dec 2006:
Subject: Re: "Recreation groups disagree on
trail use"
Michael:
We have not
communicated before, I believe, but I have enjoyed your
messages that ..., my North
Country Trail Manager, has forwarded to
me.
I went to your website
today and wish that I had the time to really explore
it. The press of
work rarely allows that kind of luxury these days.
I want to thank you for
one quote near the top of your page:
"Environmentalism
can most simply be defined as the extension of the Golden
Rule to include other
species."
I like the insight it
contains and the connection with my other passion in
life. With your
permission, I can envision a not too distant opportunity
to use that in a sermon,
with appropriate credit to you.
Fri, 17 Nov 2006:
Subject:
Re: Last Child in the Woods ÂÂ Saving Our Children
from Nature-Deficit Disorder
I agree, great article.
Fri,
17 Nov 2006:
Subject: Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving
Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
Thank you Mike. I found these thoughts very interesting/important. Recently, we visited a completely wild area in the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (actually a geographical centre of Europe) and we decided to do smth. more for it to be preserve. I am now initiating a EU project on biodiversity conservation.
Thu,
16 Nov 2006:
Subject:
RE: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit
Disorder
Go for it Michael, great review!
Fri, 27 Oct 2006:
Subject: Re: The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence
"Let's address the
causes, not the symptoms: invest in improving the quality of life for our
neighbors."
Hear, hear!!!!
I've been saying that for years. Thanks for saying it to many.
Thu,
26 Oct 2006
Subject:
Re: The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence
Mike, Good going! Well thought out letter.
--- Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote:
> October 26, 2006
>
> Re: The U.S.-Mexico Border Fence
>
> To the Editor:
>
> If you want evidence of human arrogance and
> stupidity, you need look
> no farther than the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence!
> Proposing to build a
> fence between the U.S. and Mexico indicates that,
> once again, we fail
> to recognize that wildlife are important and that
> they, like we,
> require the ability to travel. At the same time that
> we are causing
> global warming, forcing species to move north to
> find suitable
> habitat to which they are acclimated, we are
> blocking their path!
>
> Building a fence to stop immigration is like
> tightening your belt to
> prevent weight gain. Let's address the causes, not
> the symptoms:
> invest in improving the quality of life for our
> neighbors. That would
> also be a good policy for other regions, such as the
> Middle East. (Of
> course, that may require "regime change" at home.)
>
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
Sun,
22 Oct 2006:
Subject: Re: Recent anti-mtb
letters in the Santa Cruz Sentinel
Thanks Mike! Amen and Amen again!
Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote:
It seems that more and more people are seeing through the
mountain
bikers' lies.
Mike
Sun,
22 Oct 2006:
Subject:
Re: NorCAMBA Restructuring
Keep on keepin
on. Im proud of you and all your hard work.
Mon, 2 Oct 2006:
Subject: Re: Mountain Biking Threatens Wildlife
Well written and
convincing, Mike.
Sun,
06 Aug 2006:
Subject:
Re: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails
in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
Thank you for your dedication!
Sat, 5
Aug 2006:
Subject:
Re: Napa Valley College - Mountain Biking Course
Good for you, Mike! I'm in your corner against the intense destruction of our natural habitats by mountain bikers. I'm beginning to believe that the Thompson Wilderness Bill in California may be the only way to protect more of our land from these treacherous beasts that have no respect for environment or other people.
I have tried very hard to discuss user conflicts with IMBA and they won't take the time to have a conversation with me. Therefore, I have no hope of true compromise between the mountain bikers and hikers/equestrians. I will not be compromised as they wish me to be.
Wed, 2 Aug 2006:
Subject: Re: "A Comparative Study of Impacts
to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common
Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
Excellent, Mike!
Fri, 14 Jul 2006:
To:
"Tom Martin" <fatcogtom@comcast.net>, "Mike Vandeman" <mjv@pacbell.net>
Cc: ebbc-talk@lists.ebbc.org
Subject: Re: [ebbc-talk] Trips for Kids
Tom:
You apparently don't see the impact that mountain bikers have on trails
where humans walk and local denizen live. Using foul language does
nothing to make your disagreement persuasive nor does it win people to
your side. Wheelchairs can't ride on those trails as fast and are not
as numerous as mountain bikers (your guess was WRONG). Most people on
wheelchairs that ride trails do it at a pace that is acceptable and have
to stay on the trail, for obvious reasons. Also, there are FAR greater
numbers of bikers that do more accumulative damage than wheelchairs and
hikers, altogether.
I have never seen, in any of Mike's e-mails that he has a vendetta
against environmentalists. In fact I AM one and I grew up with one.
My
father has great disdain for mountain bikers for most of the same
reasons that Mike and I have. So far that's 3 environmentalists that
agree with Mike.
So why don't you speak for yourself and please keep your disagreements
on an adult level.
Thu, 1 Jun 2006:
Subject: Re: October Pumpkin Ride
Hi Mike,
> 5. Every round trip has an equal amount of uphill and downhill.
> Riding a bicycle downhill provides essentially ZERO exercise -- less
> than walking. Riding a bicycle on level ground provides minimal
> exercise -- less than walking. Permitting bikes on trails drives
> other trail users off the trails, because hiking around bicycles is
> dangerous and very unpleasant. One has to be constantly on guard to
> be ready to jump off the trail to avoid getting hit by speeding
> bikers. Continual bell-ringing or shouts of "on you left",
forcing
> you off of the trail (even though hikers are supposed to have the
> right-of-way!) destroy any enjoyment you might otherwise gain from
> being in nature. When you force hikers off the trails, you end up
> with NO NET HEALTH BENEFIT!
The above is nothing less than sheer genius! You are saying something so
elementary that even an idiot should be able to understand it. However,
mountain bikers are deaf and blind to nature and only want to do their fun and
games. They belong is some kind of park with the kids on skate boards.
Keep up the good work!
Tue, 23 May 2006:
Subject: thanks!
Hi Mike. Thanks for all your communications. Although I can't
dare to hope that many places on this planet will remain untouched by humans, I
appreciate hearing from you re many issues. In spite of the dark sides,
you manage to show signs of hope. Keep up the good work.
Mon, 8 May 2006:
Subject: ORV book
Dear Michael:
Great web site. I found it very useful and I'm glad
you have produced it.
I'm in the final stages of preparing a book on ORVS called …. I believe I can
safely judge from your web page that you will find this book of interest. I
don't know of you have seen my other book …, but this book will be similar. I
hope it will be out within a year. Watch for it.
Fri, 31 Mar 2006:
Subject: Re: Lake Oroville State Recreation Area
Excellent as always Mike. You nailed that one.
Fri, 03 Mar 2006:
I continue to appreciate your
other emails--many of them are new and often provide me with something I hadn't
considered before, so thanks again for your efforts.
Wed, 8 Feb 2006:
Mike,
This ["Wildlife Need
Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!"] is quite arguably the best piece you've
written that I have seen. I believe that it can get published, with some work,
and perhaps a comrade who cares about such things.
With your permission I will
forward to some such person, she shares all of your belief system etc.
Sun, 8 Jan 2006:
Subject: Re: eco-tourism
Dear Mike,
Having just finished a PhD,
your views on tenured
professorship are significant to me.
I would love to contribute to
your campaign on pure
habitat. What other
worthwhile community
projects would you recommend.
Also, what would
you suggest for a company that had money,
a creative soul, a saving-the-environment heart,
and needed to make some income to survive?
Did you see any opportunities
in Australia? Any
greater issues? I was
half-thinking of trying to shout
the virtues of our eco-tourism model to other nations,
especially the Carribean- but as you
suggest, staying
out is best.
Another research project I had in mind
was to examine indigenous cultural narratives to
establish more appropriate conservation strategies-
But certainly, lots of stories
about hunting emerge
(even
though they maintain superior community narratives).
There's an excellent market
called CERES in Melbourne,
which shows children how to calculate and then
reduce their ecological footprint. Perhaps this is a good
model to export?? Do
stone age economics appeal?
Thanks for your insight.
p.s. Also good to have some
solidarity on the anti-car issue-
am I to assume you're not a vegetarian? speciest
reasons?
what do you think of Peter Singer?
Sun, 8 Jan 2006:
Subject: eco-tourism
Dear Dr.Vandeman,
Such
brilliant work, thank you. Fervently keen
to know your views on eco-tourism. Australia
has set world standards, but again, perhaps
less of us in natures is ideal. In Phillip Island, eco-tourism
measures actually saved the penguins by taking back the roads,
pushing back the houses etc.. at one
level we see the horrors of
new roads and housing developments, at another, we see
some
benefit in eco-tourism, even if it indulges anthropocentric
demands.
What sort of jobs do you see
as 'ethical', what sort of businesses?
Our ethical obligations are
enormous and I often find it hard to see
a compromise.
Kind regards,
… (Melbourne, Australia, often Tokyo)