Fri, 22 Dec 2000:

From: "Krage R. Olrich" <>

Subject: Wild life and too many cars on the road

I'm glad someone is looking out for

our wildlife. I was just out watching

the steelhead fish make their annual

run up the creek toward Kent lake dam.

They are coming back slowly. It seems

you may be against mountain bikers riding on trails. Many people who ride

on the trails do so to view wildlife.

They do as much harm as hikers to the

trail. The best solution

is to get these to groups to unite

because it is the rangers trucks and

heavey equiptment they carry through

these trails that do the most damage.

I have seen this more than anyone.

I wish people would open their eyes

and see where the real problems are.

People should be able to observe wildlife and take care of it at the same

time. I can help you by commuting to work by bicycle everyday. Good luck

with the wildlife habitat. Let us know

what your doing and I'll help spread

the word to help support your efforts.

Please help us mountain bikers by

not closing the trails to them forcing

them to break laws which will happen.

Designate certain trails for multi-use.

Dont close all the trails. In Marin

county their are more bikers than

hikers but the hikers are older have

the money and have the time to fight.

They should put their time to better

use by getting people together.

Sorry for the spamming you.

Mon, 11 Dec 2000:

From: JiM hOwErY <>

Subject: you are not as crazy as you seem

I do agree with some of your points that you just

made, however the ones that I took the quotes from are

very outlandish and too crazy to add any warrent.

I do not really support a wilderness area that no one

can access, it would create too many inhearant


At 06:31 PM 12/10/2000 -0700, patrick gilchrist <> wrote:

>i am a mountain biker and i dont like your articles but its hard to disagree

>with them.

[me:]That's refreshing news, coming from a mountain biker.

> (except some of the psychology BS).

It's hypothesis. But come up with a better explanation!

But anyways, where do you

>draw the line with respect to "off-road vehicles"? a bulldozer? a horse? a

>bike? a pair of technologically advanced shoes?

Good question. The problem is mostly the EASE with which humans can get into wildlife habitat. Vehicles (and animals make it MUCH easier). Shoes help a little, but it would be much harder to advocate going barefoot (though some people do). One thing at a time.

rather than telling why they

>SHOULDN'T to go riding in natural areas, why not tell then where they should


I have: stick to paved roads, where you can't do much harm!

> Urban riding offers the same "high" that you talked about before.

I agree. My favorite is to cruise through residential (no cars!) neighborhoods on a weekend morning, when everything is fresh.


>ride downtown often and am yet to put anyone in danger, but police and other

>people do not hesitate to tell me to go away.

Why? I try not to antagonize them, even though they are sometimes irrational. Have you tried Critical Mass?!

Why are so many other forms

>of transportation/recreation acceptable to the majority of people in

>wilderness and urban areas?

They aren't. But we are only slowly realizing the impacts, at least in certain quarters. Some of thet is probably fear of incurring the hostility of the ORV folks. You can see what happens when someone criticizes mountain biking! I took them on, ACTUALLY, because I really (naively!) thought that all bicyclists are environmentalists, and would want to help me, after giving it some thought, protect wildlife!

> What is it that sets mountain biking apart?

Nothing, except that I thought it was an easier problem to fix, and also the fact that many people were fighting ORVs, but hardly anyone was fighting mountain biking, or was even aware of the damage that it is doing.

>People do not like to change, if you will tell them what not to do, then

>also tell them what they should do or they will never listen to you.

I do. But mountain bikers are unusually deaf to such suggestions. Can you say "ADOLESCENCE"?! "TESTOSTERONE"?! Many adolescents are living rebellion machines. Sometimes they take harmless forms (clothes with holes in them), and sometimes harmful forms (abusing people and wildlife who can't protect themselves from them). I feel an addendum to my Psychology of Mountain Biking paper coming on.... Like men (which most of them are), they are interested in only one thing: access, or in other words, penetration, especially of delicate areas!


>you should research the north shore of vancouver (in canada)

>( ) there is a huge battle between parks/ environmentalists/

>mountain bikers.

Thanks. Can you give me a contact on the environmentalist side?

>thank you for your time,

Thanks for probably the most interesting, thoughtful, and reasonable message I have ever received from a mountain biker.

Sat, 02 Dec 2000:

From: Luciano Sponza <>

How does mountain biking pollute the air? Don't say that the car ride to the

trail does. Why don't you take a look at the millions of people that commute

to work in cars before blaming a couple of bikers. It seems that commuting

is a much bigger problem. In fact, most mountain bikers are very supportive

of environmental efforts. So don't blame and badmouth something that you

obviously know very little about.

Tue, 28 Nov 2000:

From: dolmance <>

Subject: you must be mindless or under the influence of drugs!

I read some of your reflexive and inane rantings with regard to mountain

biking. Your uneducated and knee-jerk responses to the quandary facing

wildlife preserves are appallingly deficient. You need to study Marx and

Engels for you to fully appreciate how a capitalist society works. If you

want to have vast expanses of pristine and virgin land, you must make it

profitable. Mountain biking is a major economic force, and our lobby grows

stronger each day. We can hopefully defeat the tree-hugging minority by

pointing out to the reasonable people in the world, that our efforts and

money are put to good use while your impotent lip service to an unknown

utopia is delusional at best.


Your intellectual superior,



Fri, 17 Nov 2000:


Dumb ass nature nazi!


Mon, 30 Oct 2000:
From: Charles Jalgunas <>
Subject: Re: DHers etc...this time with signature

Its not just you. Some time ago, my wife pointed out to me that some riders are out there using their bikes to enjoy the open space, but others are just using the open space to enjoy their bikes. This latter group tends to be the least informed about the land, who owns it, who takes care of it, what lives there, and what damage can be caused by their presence. Educating this group can be difficult, because they have little interest in the land to begin with.

I have not been very successful explaining to the local DHers what makes a sustainable trail, and the importance of a safe trail, even during trail work days, but have more hope for a more general, environmental sort of education, one that could reach even those who don't show up for trail work. I am currently looking for signs or posters for placement on the information boards at my favorite demonstration forest that relate to siltation and spawning habits. I am considering posting, on "unauthorized" trails, the reasons these trials need to remain hidden and little used.

We have had a lot of trail closures lately in this area, and in public meetings, I would have preferred a term more along the lines of "cyclo-tourist" or "hiker with wheels" to "mountain-biker" to describe the actions and possibilities of responsible riders. So many people associate mountain biking with gravity loss and speed, and I cannot blame them. Almost all media impressions available to the layperson will feature speed and danger. It is the most glamorous aspect of the sport, viewed from outside of the industry (Mountain Dew), and almost the only aspect a bike or component manufacturer will promote from the inside (race teams, race stats, big air & long travel ads). I wouldn't call it an age thing, nor would I say the entire sport has embraced extreme riding. This is merely the most visible aspect of mountain biking, and perhaps that should change.

Charles Jalgunas

Santa Cruz Mountains


At 08:24 PM 10/28/00 , you wrote:

Is it just me or are we beginning to realize a need to
catagorize/identify specific specialty skills within the sport of mountain
biking. Many of us traditionalists/old timers feel alienated from these new
extreme applications of riding. It is a foreign concept for me to get a lift
up a mountain and race down at ever increasing speeds. The evolution of
technology is a wonderful thing and I embrace the comfort it affords, but we
need to learn how to manage it. People are doing things on bicycles that we
never imagined years ago. This includes the stunt riding on makeshift
apparatuses that have been discussed on this list lately. I am concerned not
only from a safety perspective but also because of the implied perceptions
associated with these extreme images. I have personally fought this battle
for over ten years, and I am not sure I am willing to lose ground due to a
new image. Mountain Dew used to be the image we fought to tame, and now our
sport has fully embraced that extreme approach..., so be it. Now we have to
deal with it.
As I read and listen more I find myself trying to defend our family, but
not understanding how to advocate for our newest brethren the DHers and stunt
riders. These new uses are much harder to compare to, or relate to other
user groups. Additionally, and perhaps it's an age thing, but I would tend
to side with Don Weir regarding the engineering integrity of the makeshift
devices used for these relatively new stunts. Let me illustrate. When
mountain biking first became popular old cruiser bikes were used that had
long since lived beyond any limit of liability, specifically in the context
of the off road use. However, as off road cycling became popular and
manufacturers began to accommodate the new users, they were challenged with
producing a safer piece of equipment or risk being liable. This concern was
not a concern when the first users ventured out to try something new, just as
this latest group of thrill seekers have done. However, the issue becomes
those new comers that have been exposed to the new thrill via magazines, TV
or whatever. Not only is there a safety concern but as more people are
enticed into trying the new limits, more people are taking saws and hammers
in hand, and many of them are unqualified. To further complicate matters
they often use property that does not belong to them, forcing the burden of
responsibility on the land owner or manager.
I know this only scratches the surface, but I am not sure I have the
logical answers necessary to confidently approach land managers or other
trail user groups to support and advocate for these new uses. I hate
regulation as much as anyone, perhaps even more, but at this point of the
evolution we need to begin thinking of a strategy that will address
everyone's needs. Perhaps it is time to take a look at our "Gonzo Golfing"
buddies and consider private venues as an option. If we believe in our sport
and each of its unique extensions, we should be willing to step up and take
the responsibility of being self sufficient, and accountable.
Josh Osterhoudt
IMBA/Eastern CO Rep


Tue, 31 Oct 2000:

Subject: Re: seperate, designated stunt/DH areas
aaron teasdale wrote:

> Josh's email addresses issues that everyone involved

> in mtb advocacy and recreational land management is

> grappling with: the emergence of a new breed of

> mountain bikers. It started as freeriding. Now we call

> it downhill trials or stunt riding. Born of

> ever-advancing technology and an adrenaline-fueled

> drive to push the limits of risk, this new style of

> riding bears little resemblance to the mountain biking

> many of us know and love.

SNIP lots of great stuff that is right on target.

I've always looked at this this way: there is no use getting into a

distinction between "real MTBers" and DHers. I agree there is a big

distinction (with probably a huge grey area in between), but harping on

the distinction is a lost cause, and would only be an acedemic

discussion with no impact on access (and remember, access is the is the

whole point of our efforts). We'd never make any headway in a public

debate trying to make this distinction.

Rather, get back to basics. Any and all cyclists are welcome on the

trails, in fact, belong on the trails, provided they yield to

hikers/horses, don't skid, stay on the trail, and don't make new trails

without prior approval of the land owner/manager. And leave it at that.

I guess the point is that DHs are less likely to follow these rules.

However, this issue is no different from any other access issue where it

is the bikers that are killing access (as opposed to other organized

groups using false claims and information). The point is that I have

seen losing situations turned around through efforts to educate riders.

Not necessarily from full-helmet 8-inch suspension types, but instead

from folks clueless about problems riding in wet conditions, etc.

There's plenty of hope that we can prevail in these new types of "inside

threats" as well, provided we provide the same education efforts and

peer pressure.

Jon Sundquist

East Aurora, NY

Tue, 07 Nov 2000:

From: Philip Keyes <>

Subject: Re:DH/Stunt Discussion


Responding to Dan....

Since this is a somewhat freeflowing list, I think it may be appropriate to

ask the individuals who post to this list if it's OK to publish their

comments verbatim. It's bad enough to have to self-edit our comments because

of the anti-mtb lurkers (and non-lurkers), so having to keep in mind that

our comments might be published elsewhere might inhibit candid expression.

Asking first wouldn't be too much of a hassle. It gauls me that emails made

to this list can be found on certain radical extremist anti-bike sites

already [Then why did you write it???? ] (Is this legal?).



Mon, 16 Oct 2000:

From: James Connell <>

you missed the point snorni, i don't ask for or want your opinion on

anything. my post had all the substance in the subject that way poor

pissants like you can just pass over it.

i'm overdue to kick the livin shit outof a little bastard like you (or

FAGerlin). if either of you are ever in the PNW [Pacific Northwest] let me know - i'll

happily pull your nose out through your asshole.


what the hell is "SmartShock Y2K Warning"? i vagely remember seeing some

silly post about that what? a year ago. seem to remember only you and

the FAGerlin fell for it.


the way you fart on this newsgroup if you Would just blow it we'd at

least know WHY it smelled the way you do.





Sorni wrote:


> This from a guy who fell for the "SmartShock Y2K Warning".


> And you missed the point -- your SUBSTANCELESS post.


> Now go kiss your mother with that mouth -- but for once, stop at that.


> Bill "ate chile before riding but still didn't blow anything out my ass"

> Sornson


> (PS: You seem preoccupied with oral and anal activities. Overdue for an

> *outing* with the boys, Jimmie?)


> "James Connell" <> wrote in message



> > then you Should be smart enough to filter 'mikey' from the subject and

> > 'Mike Vandeman' from the body. else BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, COCKSUCKER!!!

> >

> > Sorni wrote:

> > >

> > > My Sunday night would not have been complete without this brilliantly

> > > enlightening post.

> > >

> > > (James, we FILTER the penis wad for a reason. If he offers a

> particularly

> > > funny/stupid/insipid tidbit, at least INCLUDE it in your note, or it



> > >

> > > Bill "sigh, my God, SIGH" Sornson

> > >

> > > "James Connell" <> wrote in message

> > >

> > >

> > > > Mike Vandeman wrote:

> > > > <same old mikey crap snipped>

> > > > James Connell


James Connell


Wed, 23 Aug 2000:

From: Ruger9 <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Ride where you want

See, I agree with your message, but why do you (and all MTBRs) have to

be so damn VENEMOUS about it? I just ride where I want, because I pay

the same amount of taxes as the hikers do for the upkeep of these (90%

state-owned) parks I ride in, period.


Same thing goes for my guns. I've got mine, and regardless of what laws

are passed, no one's gonna' get 'em. Period. The last time I checked,

this IS America..."Land of the Free"...?


I know it pisses everybody off, but (like gun control) it's not

something that's going to be solved anytime soon, if ever. Just keep

doing what your doing, help & volunteer with trail upkeep once in awhile

(and this does not mean building ramps & ladders..heh heh), and fuck

everything else.


Funny website:

"Ride Free, Whatever it Takes"




(formerly EricTheRed)


Wed, 23 Aug 2000:

From: "David Jones" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Ride where you want

I'm so damn tired of this pussy shit "ride on designated trails only" shit I

could scream. I ride where the fuck I want to ride. Off road riders have

been acting like a bunch of faggots for too long. I love animals, and fully

appreciate delicate plants along trail-side so I DON'T run them over. All

this pussy shit crap like IMBA is like a gun control group. "We just want

to preserve your. . ."


I, for the last three 3 years ride anywhere. .hiking trails or whatever.

Fuck it. I'm respectable when I see people. But, I ride where I want. Of

course, I've had to haul-ass a few times to avoid tickets but. . oh well.


Sat, 05 Aug 2000:

From: Besq <Besq*ns*>

Subject: Re: A challenge to you all

Ran across this at alt.hackers.malicious. If you didn't know about it, you

do now. No, I'm not involved, don't know you or anyone at this site. I

think this is pretty low so I'm sending it to you.

mike vanderman wrote:

> Below is a website that belongs to a troll that has been disturbing amb

> montain bike. He has been a pest to us for the last several years and as

> a last resort, I have decided to hand him over to you all to have a

> little fun. Thank you all in advance and good luck.


> ===

> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans

> ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting

> auto dependence and road construction.)

> More!:



Thu, 20 Jul 2000:

From: ESTOM <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Group atmosphere.


I started reading this group about a month ago. I must say I'm very

surprised with the atmosphere we have here. I'm a member of a very

similar Polish News Group (pl.rec.rowery) and let me point out some

differences I've found between them …

We filter people like Mike Vandeman for a very simple reason: they

are not bikers

[I guess you have become used to totalitarian government…] …

I think our (people from Eastern Europe) attitude towards biking is

determined by another factor. I earn about $300 a month and I've paid

for my bike $3800! It took me four years to save the money. I had to

take some extra jobs to buy it. It should give you some idea how I LOVE

biking. MTB is my life. Maybe that is also why I respect other bikers. I

know how hard it was for them to buy a good machine. Whenever we meet on

the track we greet each other. At mountain shelters we sometimes have

nightlong discussions by the fire place, we help each other with repairs

lend spare parts etc. Why ? Because we are members of a solid and honest

[solid, but NOT honest!] community.

Think about it, please.

Feedback welcome.

Greetings from Poland.


P.S. once again sorry for my poor English, it's just totally different

from Polish ;-)


Sun, 16 Jul 2000:

From: "Jason" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike







Sat, 15 Jul 2000:
Mountain Biker Mitch Monroe:

"Land Access is definitely important. As the trails become more crowded,

people start bickering and the rangers start closing stuff down. Don't let the man find your trails."


Mon 10 Jul, 2000:

Mid-Peninsula Open Space District

Board of Directors

330 Distel Circle

Los Altos, CA


RE: Minutes of the May 22 Special Meeting

President Kenneth Nitz


Betsy Crowder

Mary Davey

Nonette Hanko

Jed Cyr

Dean Little

Pete Siemens

Dear Kenneth Nitz,

… Finally, and this is to serve notice to the entire Board of Directors at

MROSD just in case anyone else is also misinformed as to the legal

status of bicycles. I object to Pete Siemens’ characterization of

bicycles as vehicles. According to the State Vehicle Code, bicycles are

not vehicles, but are devices with all the rights and responsibilities

of vehicles. I would be happy to find the specific Code and submit them

to the Board. Therefore, I respectfully request that Pete Seimens

retract his statements that bicycles are off-road vehicles - they are not.

I have provided this information in an attempt to clarify and make

consistent the minutes with the facts and history. I hope that this will

help everyone be able to understand each other better and better fulfill

the goal of a better environment for all and is not intended as a

criticism of the Board.

Sincerely Yours,

Danielle Weber, DVM

709 S Eldorado St.

San Mateo, CA 94402



July 4, 2000 Modesto Bee:,1113,174221,00.html:

"There really isn't any erosion," Farriester said. "Bicycles can't cause erosion." Jim Haggen-Smit, California representative for the International Mountain Bicycling Association, agreed. He said off-road trails and environmental protection can co-exist. Haggen-Smit said he wants all parties to come together and help determine how to correctly build dirt trails. He stressed the most important detail is to keep trails well maintained. The real culprits of erosion, Haggen-Smit said, are water and bad maintenance. A well-maintained trail doesn't destroy an area's natural habitat, he said. Gary Payton, 39, who cycles off-road daily at Dry Creek, said he believes the damage from off- road cycling is minimal.

Parks superintendent Duane Frederick, however, said the city is looking at $100,000 to patch damage caused by off-road cycling at the Dry Creek and Tuolumne River parks. In the past 15 years, the city has spent about $5,000 to prevent BMX riding at Dry Creek andan additional $20,000 to prevent off-road cycling, in general, at both parks.


Fri, 16 Jun 2000:
From: "BGoldstone" <>
Subject: Trails
You tree hugging commy bastards get a flipping life. I pay my taxes for these parks and the upkeep. Have you ever heard of the water substance? I think its called rain. I've seen more damage from that than mountain bikes. We have an equal right to enjoy the trail anyway we want to. How did those single track trails get there in the first place? Lets see? Oh yeah, most of them are man made before mountain bikes. So... for hikers and horses to enjoy, people modified these mountains. Is that OK? Isn't that disturbing the soil? I think it is, so that makes you just as guilty. Mountain biking is my way of relaxation after I bust my ass working all week! If the trails should be closed to mountain bikes, they should be closed to hikers & horses so no one can enjoy the mountains. Why don't you focus on more important problems like... World peace, oil prices, inflation, how those cool little pez dispensers work. You need to chill out and relax. Maybe if you tried mountain biking you would understand how we feel. GET A LIFE!!!!!


Sun, 18 Jun 2000:
From: "F. B." <>

I hope your children die while you watch. They are bound to be dicks like


Maybe you will will get bone cancer!


Thu, 08 Jun 2000:
From: Tiff n Chris <>
Subject: Re: FW: Misguided Ethics

I take that my response has been publicized as a rhetorical scare tactic,

when in fact I would be happy to run across, or over any of you who should

be so daring as to stand in my way. As far as the orange loop is concerned,

I have not ridden there. The photo which I was referring to is on the NEMBA

trail near I-93, just past a long section of fire road, and over a bridge. I

recognized the valley which had been carved by Mother Nature. You can do

what you wish with your standards and opinions, I guess that I will continue

to act as a child. Anyway, it has become public that someone is dumping

nails and glass on fire roads and portions of the NEMBA trail. That wouldn't

happen to be your group's act of childness, now would it? As far as the

police are concerned, I've done nothing to warrant a ticket while riding. I

wear my helmet and stick to the appropriate trail. I'll be enjoying a nice

ride their this evening as a matter of fact, so call the troops, call the

Army, and call your Mom so that she can hold your hand while you point



Tue, 23 May 2000:

From: Patty Ciesla <imahorse@leland.Stanford.EDU>

Subject: [ROMP] no mtb content, but topical...

I just ran across this one and thought it an appropriate thought for the day:

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

- Albert Einstein



Tue, 23 May 2000:

From: Pete Fagerlin <>

Subject: RE: [ROMP] Legal action

> I have a question for the legal people out there...Is it legal to

> tax the public and then ban them from the very lands that they

> are being taxed on?

> Karen Morgan

I'm not a legal person, but I play one on the internet.

The counter-argument would go something like this:

You're not being banned, your bike is. For some of the same reasons you

can't drive your car in the preserves, ride your motocross bike in the

preserves, etc. you can't ride your bike in certain preserves.

It seems to me that it's perfectly legal, considering the fact that we can't

ride in Wilderness areas, some National parks, etc.



[I suppose it's just a coincidence that I have been saying the exact same thing for six years....]


Tue, 23 May 2000:
From: Karen Morgan <>
Subject: RE: [ROMP] Legal action
I have a question for the legal people out there...Is it legal to tax the public and then ban them from the very lands that they are being taxed on? [If you want access to the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, BE MY GUEST!]

Karen Morgan

Mon, 22 May 2000:
[Mountain Biking Lawyer responds Re: MROSD's closure of several parks to bikes]
From: "S. Francone" <>
Dear Michael and Jain,

I understand your frustration and your desire to seek a fair procedure.

I am not a specialist in the laws, if any, governing the procedure of

how administrative tribunals decide public land use issues of

municipal/public lands. Having offered this disclaimer, I am wondering

what would be the precise grounds for the law suit?

Is there a specific state statute or ordinance that you know has been

violated? I am not aware of any U.S. or California constitutional cases

which would give rise to a legally meritorious cause of action in this

situation. Does anyone know of any? Usually state and federal

constitutional due process guarantees are applied to criminal procedure

and actions directly involving divestiture of property. Perhaps

someone at the law firm, where you work would know the answer.


Thu, 11 May 2000:
From: Patty Ciesla <imahorse@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Green Alliances
I believe that the BRC [Blue Ribbon Coalition, an ORV (off-road vehicle) lobbying group] is the opposite of the direction where IMBA ought to be leading its members.

Mark asks "Does the fact that we have more differences with one group mean we shouldn't try to work with them? Shouldn't we instead try to focus on what we have in common? After all, mountain bikes are getting more and more like motorcycles all the time."

I cannot accept the idea that that because the machine is evolving to become more like motorcycles that so should we become more like motorcyclists. I say we do not need to focus on what we have in common with motorcycles. It doesn't benefit us.

Instead, we should be working to show what we have in common with hikers. We should evolve to be more like hikers in our attitudes and alliances. Instead of the BRC, IMBA should be working towards affiliations with groups more widely known for their environmental values, such as the Native Plant Society, the Audobon Society [then learn to spell it], and the Nature Conservancy, to name a few.

One of the issues that I have been concerned about lately is that many mountain bikers are woefully ignorant of the natural world they proclaim to revere. They are far too close to the Mt. Dew side of the spectrum. This is a trend that needs to be reversed, not encouraged.

I ask the list members: Can you identify all of the trees that grow in your woods? How about half of the spring wildflowers in your area? Do you know at least 10 different bird calls -- when you hear a chirp do you know which bird is making it? What makes the oaks grow on one side of the mountain and grass on the other? Do you own a field guide? A book on natural history? Or is your reading material mail-order part catalogs? You can tell the difference between an XTR and an LX derailer, and talk about the weight, the anodizing, and the bearings vs. bushings, but can you tell the difference between a stellers jay and a scrub jay and talk about the differences in stature, color, aggression and habitat?

Who will help us work to educate mountain bikers about nature and ecology -- to bring them into the fold of the green movement? [Mike Vandeman? J ] Definitely not the BRC. To my mind, it's really no great surprise that many hikers and environmental groups find little to respect about mountain bikers. We are not like them - enough. Frankly, I think we can stoop too low in trying to avoid the label "elitist". I would much rather we raise our sights and focus on what is right about our presence as nature-loving trail visitors and become more a part of the environmental community.

That is the only way to stay "out of their cross-hairs".

Patty Ciesla


Thu, 11 May 2000:
Subject: Re: Motorized alliances
Suggesting there are distinct differences between mtb use and

ORV use does not make us bigots. Saying that we should not

strike alliances with them and that "they just USE the forest" and

implying therefore that we are superior smacks of an elitist attitude.

Does the fact that we have more differences with one group mean

we shouldn't try to work with them? Shouldn't we instead try to

focus on what we have in common? After all, mountain bikes are

getting more and more like motorcycles all the time. [Thanks for admitting that!]

--Mark Flint


Wed, 10 May 2000:
Subject: Restrictions . . . and Alliances with Motorized Recreationalists
If we are to have alliances, they should be with the non-motorized trail

users. Even if we are not every hiker's favorite people, we have a lot more

in common with them than the ATV/ORV groups. We use our bikes to enjoy the

forests - the Motorized groups seem to just USE the forest to enjoy their

machines. [This seems to be true of mountain bikers, also!]


Wed, 03 May 2000:

From: "Dunc" <>

Subject: illegal trails! this sucks!

I found out that where i live it is illegal to ride my bike on the really

good trails, so ive been riding illegally for so long. This revelation was

discovered when i saw the sign and asked a cop how long it had been there.

"couple years" i was like whoa. Its a shame, no i gotta hitch a ride 40

miles out of this "illegal area". Looks like mikey v has made some pals up

in my area.


Wed, 03 May 2000:

From: (BLee670325)

Subject: Re: One Valid Reason for Mike Vandeman

One valid reason for Vandeman:

That would be so we can have a target to shoot if he ever shows his ugly mug on

the trail.



Sun, 30 Apr 2000:

From: "Rich" <>

From reading the previous posts can I correctly assume that Mike V. is a

roadbiker? Roadbiking poses a more serious threat to

nature and wildlife than mountain biking ever could!! Perusing this nations

system of paved highways and surface roads supports the

existance of said "roads". Once again I will assume that most of these roads

were built upon natural terrain also the homes of

many differant species of wildlife. From an objective point of view I will

agree that mountain bikes can cause damage to wilderness

when practiced recklessly (unfortunately as most do) but the question I pose

is this. Would you rather see a rutted out trail and a dead

bunny in the middle of the forest or would you rather see the forest cut

down to make way for the new scenic loop road and a gas

station with accompanying strip mall, the wildlife being displaced into

populated areas and being labeled vermin? By supporting pavement

you are inadvertantly causing more damage in the long run.

Unlike many people I dont ride mountain bikes to get in touch with nature I

could honestly care less. I like to ride mountain bikes because it is much

more enjoyable to me than the flat terrain a road could ever offer. It is

good that you realise that many humans are selfish and

motivated by selfish desires. I am one of those selfish humans i dont do

trail maintanence because it cuts out of my riding time,

i dont slow down or yield for hikers/runners and i dont stay on designated

trails. There are many mountainbikers who do though.

It is wrong for you to group people like me with those people who do their

part to keep nature pristine. The acceptance of being a selfish

being opens up whole new ways of thinking. The valid reason mountain biking

should be allowed for me is because I want to do it and

no one has stopped me yet. I dont enjoy nature without "a large piece of

machinery" anyways but, no need to pity me Mike, I can enjoy life without

enjoying the woods.

please excuse any grammatical and spelling errors.


Richard P.


Fri, 28 Apr 2000:
From: DSatt <>
Subject: Re: Does Anyone Have A Valid Reason Why Mountain Biking Should Be
I will NEVER forgo mountain biking because a environmentalist tried to convince me that its detrimental to nature. People first.


Fri, 28 Apr 2000:

Subject: Re: The Effects of Mountain Biking on Bald Eagles

From: "Jeffrey W. Ryan" <>

So what, people die. Wildlife dies. We aren't going to kill the earth. We

may make it difficult for ourselves to live here for very much longer, and

that's what I'm concerned about. Saving a Bald Eagle I could give a rats ass

about personally.



Fri, 28 Apr 2000:

Subject: Re: New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

From: "Jeffrey W. Ryan" <>

First. Wildlife needs to have a life cycle, which includes death.

Two, I'm not out riding my bike for the benefit of other trail users, just

as hikers are out for the benefit of other hikers or other users. Since when

was hiking a philanthropic action?



Fri, 28 Apr 2000:

Subject: Re: New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

From: "Jeffrey W. Ryan" <>

> From: (Mike Vandeman)

> Organization: World Without Cars

> Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.backcountry,rec.bicycles.soc,sci.environment

> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:04:08 GMT

> Subject: Re: New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

> The sweetest, most polite mountain biker still rides off-road in

> wildlife habitat, and hence harms habitat and wildlife. You continue to

> ignore this, because you don't know anything about biology. Or maybe

> because you know I am RIGHT!

Everything dies Mike. Get a grip and stop crying. To expect that we will one

day wipe out all life, and the earth will no longer exist and replenish

itself is quite arrogant. If you a true reverence for nature, you'd know

that nature cannot be destroy by created us, and it can take us out

of the game anytime soon.



Thu, 27 Apr 2000:

From: "JesseO" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Ride Motivation

Paladin, you've done it my friend! Tomorrow morning, I'm feeling like an

epic. What a motivating post! Beautifully written too! Thanks millions!

The long loop this time...I'm thinking yes!

Ride on...



Paladin <> wrote in message

> When you're off the bike, you so quickly forget your core passion and what


> energizes and animates the rest of your life. Your mind gets dulled,

life saps

> your energy and makes your muscles sit limp and slack. You so quickly


> what really counts: to be all alone against a grade, nothing but your


> breath, straining muscles and turning tires, fighting to hold a line

against all

> that nature can throw in your face, and to conquer! To remind you how


> alive you are on your bike, and everything else is a distant memory of


> lesser beings sit hypnotized sacrificing their lives at the pagan altar of


> with noting more ambitious than to spend paychecks and die.


> You're digging deeper into your heart and soul and muscle fiber than

normal life

> ever requires! You come out stronger, happier, more alive, more able to

> dispatch the hassles of life that will rob us--that will chain us down to

> medicrity--if we just sit there and dream. You my friend, were made for



> Now get off that tired butt and kick yourself into gear, soldier! You're


> of sterner stuff! Your destiny is calling outside that door.


> Saddle up.


> Paladin



> JesseO wrote:


> > You know, lately I've been having trouble getting motivated to ride. I


> > riding, and when I do get myself out, I have a great time, but lately


> > been hard.

> >

> > With the rain, and the lack of riding partners, I find myself


> > whether or not to break out my trusty steed and warm 'er up. I wonder


> > some days it is almost a giddy excitement, waking up and remembering


> > you've got a ride to go on, and others you have a perfectly good


> > to get out there, and rather stay at home doing nothing.

> >

> > C'mon folks, kick some good vibes my way. Have any motivation to spare?


> > you really need to not think about the 1track, and get back to work,


> > that yearning to me!

> >

> > Ride on...

> > Jesse


Fri, 28 Apr 2000:

From: Chip of Known Space <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Trail Etiquette?

I ride a trail that has many steep european type turns where once

you commit to going down you can't see around the corner. It's

narrow single track. If you're coming down you're not going to be

able to stop without risking falling off a 20 foot cliff into a river;

it makes more sense for the uphill rider to try to get out of the way.


Likewise, it seems to make sense to perhaps yell out "coming down"

before going down these turns, since theoretically one day you could

meet another rider at the bottom of the transition of one of these

things (they transverse down and back up the side of a river bank) at

a high rate of speed....


Sat, 22 Apr 2000:
From: (Dan THE MAN Dow)
Subject: Re: Another Mountain Biker Proves That They Are Liars
I'm trying to figure out how MTB'ers cause less damage than Hikers?

We go faster, and skid I agree.

That is why I stay out of wilderness areas!

Dan Dow


Mon, 17 Apr 2000:

From: Kenneth Ahn Jensen <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Wide or Narrow Tire for Mud?

I agre with the narrow folks too.

We have about two months of dry weather each year, july +august, so

mudperformance is a key factor when choosing tires here.

I run Panaracer DusterPro's 1.9", and they are super in the muddy

woods of Denmark, particularly the rear is great. I usually have an

advantage over my buds who ride Velociraptors and Ritcheys, when going

up the slimey hills.

The DusterPro is a fairly light tyre as well, about 510grms for the

folding version.




Sun, 16 Apr 2000:

From: "MarkB" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Wide or Narrow Tire for Mud?


I've found it's not just the width but the size of knobs, spacing between

them, tire

pressure and even the kind of mud you're going through(puddles, long

sections or steep hills).

It's probably different for everyone and everywhere but I'll give you my


I like my 1.7 Specialized Team Extremes front and rear in the mud, hardpack


the loose stuff.

They have huge widely spaced knobs and can by pumped up to high pressures.

I've found they shed mud very well, especially when pumped up tight and yet


huge knobs grab a hold of the mud base, roots, and rocks extremely well.

They also weigh 480g.(very light)...they've served me well, but it's been

tough to

convince other riders that a 1.7 high pressure tire is good for the mud. I

guess I'll

keep it my little secret.



Don McKinnon <> wrote in message

> What are the pros and cons of running say a 2.25" vs. 1.9" rear tire for

> loose soil/mud conditions? I understand that the narrower tires can dig

> down to grip below the mud and are less likely to cause mud build-up on

> the chain stay. What is the best mud/soft conditions mud tire?


> Don


Thu, 13 Apr 2000:
From: Dave Lines <>
Subject: Re: Our Attempt To Deal With Unauthorised Trail Building (long)
Hi all,
How's it goin'? It's been a while comin' but I'd like to comment on

unauthorized trails. The general public often associates mountain bikes

with venturing off-trail. Public association of unauthorized trails with no

bike access is easy to argue. No access leads to unauthorized trails. To

stop unauthorized trails, improve access. Seems simple enough.

But what if unauthorized trail building continues to occur at a now

sanctioned riding venue? The recent situation at Hartland

(in Victoria, BC) is very important because the association of authorized

mtb access

with unauthorized trails is a pretty tough hole to

dig our way out of. If access is authorized and yet unauthorized building

continues, is that simply confirmation of environmentalists biggest fears?

That bikes go anywhere, snuffing out local species as they go. Tear up

steep get the picture.

First, I'll declare my biases. I used to be one of the unauthorized trail

builders at Hartland back when we lovingly called it "The Dump" (it's

adjacent to Victoria's landfill). Some of the trails my friends and I built

were learning experiences with sections that I wouldn't repeat; others, I'm

very proud of.

I haven't built an unauthorized trail there since August of '96. (Though I

continue to do trail maintenance.) I later became an active member of SIMBS

in order to learn more about trail building and maintenance. I helped out

at most of the trail work days, attended a clinic with the Trail Care Crew,

as well as attending the 14th National Trails Symposium in Nov '98 in

Tucson. After volunteering for SIMBS for over

one year and experiencing a number of unfortunate incidences, I felt the

cost of volunteering my time for them was too high. When the fun's gone, it

feels like work. Hell, I can get paid to do that!

I offer this message as a contribution to the efforts to stem the tide of

unauthorized trail building. I'm not simply taking a swipe at Victoria's

South Island Mountain Bike Society (SIMBS). I am contributing some

constructive criticism from someone who's "been on the inside."

Unauthorized trail building does not occur in a vaccum. There are

circumstances that can exacerbate the problem. While I agree with their

message regarding the closure of unauthorized trails and its language, a

review of recent history can illuminate some

areas that can be addressed by any volunteer group or land manager prior to

arriving at this unfortunate stage. Removing the temptation to build

unauthorized trails is better than trying to reclaim them later.

I think the big issues here are getting authorized access to singletrack

trails, and keeping your volunteers. The way I've seen it, the problems


unauthorized building at Hartland

are directly linked to:

1. Limited local access to authorized riding areas

2. Lack of respect for others who hold dissenting opinions

3. Inconsistently applied procedures

In Victoria, well actually, around Victoria but I digress...In Victoria,

although there are many beautiful and entertaining places to

ride, there has traditionally been limited opportunities to ride on

authorized trails. The formation of Mt. Work - Hartland Regional Park

(Hartland) was a welcomed development for which off-roaders throughout

southern Vancouver Island are grateful. Trail development at Hartland prior

to the formation of the park was done by around six different groups of

workers who worked independently and without consultation of the other

groups for the most part. They built on the foundations laid by motorcycle

and hiking trails, and old logging roads. Considering the lack of planning

that went into

the trail network, we're lucky that it turned out as nice as it did. Until

the formation of the Park at Hartland, all trail work there was

unauthorized. Unfortunately, since the formation of Hartland in the spring

of 1998, all of the

new trails there have also been unauthorized. Old habits are hard to break.

It's my opinion that if there had been more authorized access to singletrack

for cyclists in Greater Victoria over the last, oh, 10 or 15 years, the urge

to "poach" closed areas and the desire to create new, unauthorized cycling

trails would not have been so great. The growth in demand for trail access

could have been answered by folks other than the renegade trail builders.

Environmental, social, and public relations problems associated with

unauthorized trail building all could have been less severe if only cyclists

had a history of authorized access to more multiple-use singletracks. Trail

use by mountain bikes could have been managed by professionals rather some

guys with a couple of tools and a cool idea.

When Hartland was formed, through an agreement SIMBS became a partner with

the Capital Regional District Parks. CRD Parks is the land manager and

SIMBS maintains the trails, among its other obligations.

Around this same time - say, fall '97 to spring '98 - almost all of the

people who did trail work at Hartland got on board and started working with

SIMBS. A couple dropped out quickly due to conflicts between members - in

the meetings and on the trail work days. One dropped out quick because he'd

heard (accurately) through the grapevine that some member(s) had been

slagging him at a meeting (he was absent). His reaction: "%$@^&* this."

For a while, it was assumed that he was working on unauthorized trails.

Eventually, I saw him working on an unauthorized trail. We had a talk

and I found out why.

During my active tenure with SIMBS, (spring '98 to fall '99) I frequently

was at odds with some members over issues such as maintenance standards,

planning, procedure, and environmental issues. At one

point, after some of these discussions, a member claimed I'd been

disrespectful to him. In life, we've all gotta learn that criticism,

dissent, or simply asking tough questions is often necessary and is not

often disrespectful. In a volunteer organization, we've also gotta learn to

respect the opinions of those who want to participate or they will choose to

stop participating.

Another way to alienate volunteers is by the inconsistent application

of procedure or policy. In the fall of '98, the former chairman of the

SIMBS Trail Committee, and

the current chairman of the committee were among the group that participated

in the construction of an unauthorized new trail, the Skull Trail. There


man-made structures on this trail, but no stunts. It was built at a time


other trail workers were told that there was a moratorium on trail building

at Hartland until SIMBS had a policy in place to deal with their concerns

and the approval of the CRD Parks folks. The Skull Trail has never been the

subject of a discussion concerning closures - in fact, two of the trail's

other builders

later received thanks from SIMBS in the form of a bottle. These events did

not sit well with some of the other trail workers.

Also, since Jan, '99 some sections of trail at Hartland have been

arbitrarily closed without planning, discussion of alternatives, or the

approval of the SIMBS' Board. CRD Parks did not call for the closures.

None of these closures occurred on the

unauthorized trails that had been built since the formation of the Park in

early '98.

Personally, I welcome the steps that CRD Parks has recently taken to deal

with the unauthorized trails at Mt. Work - Hartland Regional Park. The

Parks staff have done a great job of trying to cater to the needs of

mountain bikers at Hartland. (Rest assured, I have criticisms of them too,

but really, they've been a pleasure to work with.) I have no doubts that

any of their policies regarding trail closures will be based on objective

rationale, and will be applied consistently.

In his original post, Jim raises the credibility issue. Like any

organization, the credibility of SIMBS, and that of the great big mountain

bike community, rests upon the actions of its members. As long as some

folks are too busy/cool/disgruntled/ill-informed to participate in processes

to achieve and maintain access, we will all have to deal with the PR fallout

from their unauthorized trail building. As long as SIMBS is the only game

in town

for participating at Hartland, its internal activities will have a great

influence on whether or not otherwise enthusiastic volunteers step off and


whether people take matters (and mattocks) into their own hands.

OK, the summary? Reducing the threat of unauthorized trail building and its

potential consequences by:

1. Promoting/maintaining access to enough trails in your area to provide

reasonable options for people with different skill levels and goals.

2. Promote or maintain access to enough trails to provide ride options for

people in their own

neighbourhoods, especially kids without vehicle transport to a trailhead.

3. Get the trail workers in your area on the bus, and keep 'em there.

Mutual respect. Be consistent. It's supposed to be fun, eh. The more

workers that are on your program means there'll be less workers out makin'

unauthorized trails.

I hope all you readers are still awake. I hope this can help in your

neighbourhood, too. Thanks. (Yes, that's really how we spell it here.

"Labour" and "colour", too. Just don't ask me to say "about.")



ps... I'm critical of SIMBS, but don't think they're evil. While criticism

is appropriate, they still do good things, too and they still have plenty of


folks working for them.

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

From: Jim Richardson <>

To: Philip Keyes <>; <>; Iistserve of

IMBA <>; <>; Trish

McNamee <>

Date: March 24, 2000 9:45 AM

Subject: Our Attempt To Deal With Unauthorised Trail Building

>Here is an article / posting we have prepared to communucate to the riders

>and trail builders in Victoria, BC.

>feel free to use any or all of this in any publications.

>Any suggestions on alternatives or constructive criticism welcome.




>SIMBS is South Island Mountain Bike Society

>CRD Parks stands for Capital Region District Parks.

>SIMBS has a licence agreement with CRD Parks to do trail maintenance,

>monitoring, trail planning, and issuing park use permits in Hartland.

>Hartland is the name of the "Mountain Bike Park" in Victoria, the capital

>city of BC. It is primarily sweet, very challenging single track with lots

>of up and down, but only 600 feet of total elevation change from top to

>bottom. The trails are concentrated in a relatively small area, and there

>is so much varied terrain that in 2-3 hours you can only ride about half

>the trails once. There is a detailed map available. Hartland is most

>suitable for intermediate to advanced riders.






>There has been a lot of unauthorized building at Hartland in the past few

>months, including several new trails, and a number of constructed ladders,

>catwalks, ramps and drops.


>These trails were developed without consultation with CRD Parks or SIMBS.

>Since SIMBS's mandate is work with CRD Parks in the development of all

>trails at Hartland, this is cause for concern.


>This activity has generated extensive debate within SIMBS, and in the CRD




>SIMBS mandate is to ensure the needs of mountain bikers can be met with as

>little impact on the environment as possible. Our job is also to ensure the

>trail network is sustainable, and cohesive. If trail-building is not


>and co-ordinated, possible results are too many trails, or poorly planned

>trails that need constant maintenance.


>Unplanned trails cause rapid deterioration of the park. This in turn, may

>affect public support for mountain bike access to other areas, which we


>to accommodate the growth in riders.


>As the only legally recognized park for mountain bikers, Hartland is an

>integral part of local mountain biking. The credibility of SIMBS - and

>mountain biking as a whole - rests in all of our hands.


>That's why in principle, SIMBS supports decisions by CRD Parks to close any

>unauthorized trails that go out of the riding area, are unsustainable,

>threaten the long term viability of the trail system, or threaten the



>That's also why SIMBS has agreed with CRD Parks to the removal of the

>constructions that have been recently built to the west of South Ridge

>Trail, just south of the intersection with Hot Cherry.


>This was a difficult decision that was not taken lightly. We understand the

>desire of some extreme riders for these "North Shore" style challenges.

>However, we agreed to the removal for several reasons:


>1. They were unauthorized, and therefore illegal. CRD Bylaw NO. 2721 does

>not allow unauthorized construction in parks

>2. Live trees were cut down in the construction - that's bad form, and it's

>no good for the environment.

>3. Nails were used in live trees - also bad form.

>4. There were concerns about legal liability

>Jim Richardson, 35 Cambridge Street, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8V 4 A7

>(250) 383-7664


Tue, 11 Apr 2000:
From: Gary Sprung <>
Subject: Wildlife and recreationists
This topic is very important to the future of recreation. We need to

honestly consider it and open our minds to the possibility that we are

harming wildlife, just as logging or sprawl is harming wildlife.

There is substantial evidence that recreation does harm wildlife. Not in

every case, not everywhere, not every species. Obviously pigeons, racoons

and deer are well adapted to human beings. But other species do not adapt

and have been seriously harmed by a variety of factors, including


One study of the list of endangered species in North America found that

recreation was second only to water projects as a cause of species

decline. (I have not seen this study and do not know about its


For a thorough review of the topic, see the book "Wildlife and

Recreationists," Richard L. Knight and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, ed., Island

Press, 1995. This book has a subtitle, "Coexistence through management

and research." That's extremely relevant to Chuck Ramsey's question. How

do we recreate and enjoy observing wildlife while not harming them? We do

not have clear answers at this time. This science is young.

I personally believe that science will increasingly demonstrate

recreation impacts on wildlife. Sometimes, it will indicate that we need

to stay out of certain places; or that we need to reduce our numbers in

certain places, such as prime grizzly habitat; or that we need to avoid

certain places at certain times, like elk calving areas for one month in

the spring. However, it's also likely that we can coexist, provided we

have better knowledge, smart management, and a sense of responsibility to

the creatures with whom we share this planet.

Almost no science has been performed that COMPARES wildlife impacts among

user groups. This is a key point that IMBA is frequently raising. If a

land manager proposes to close a trail to cyclists on the basis of our

impacts to wildlife, then that land manager probably should close the

trail to all users. Discussions of comparisons are largely hypothetical;

ideas not supported by empirical study.

I have not yet seen the grizzly bear study that allegedly justifies the

closure of the Bryant Creek Trail to cyclists. The allegation there is

that we cover more ground and invade habitat to a higher degree. I'll be

interested to see whether or not that study compares the distance impact

with the duration impact. If hikers are in the habitat for longer periods

of time, they may be causing comparable or greater impacts than cyclists.

If so, why ban cyclists and not hikers?

Also needed and missing is comparison of the impacts on wildlife of

recreation versus other land uses, such as highways. In the White River

National Forest, Interstate-70 has a huge impact on wildlife. So do other

major highways and increasing sprawl. These impacts could be orders of

magnitude greater than recreation impacts, but we don't really know.

IMBA supports research that investigates these issues. We are promoting

the formation of a science committee that could discuss, promote, monitor

and evaluate such research.

I tend to speak about the seriousness of the impacts when I speak to

recreationists. When I speak with conservation activists, I ask them to

have perspective on this. I ask them to compare the impacts of recreation

to highways and sprawl. Conservation activists also need to keep in mind

that recreation is the foundation of the conservation movement. John Muir

was an ardent hiker. People need to get out in the woods if they are to

feel passionate about preserving Nature.

For more info, see:


Gary Lowell Sprung

Communications Director

International Mtn Bicycling Assoc.

PO Box 1212

Crested Butte, CO 81224



Tue, 11 Apr 2000:
From: Patty Ciesla <imahorse@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Horses instinctively do not like to have scary things above them, like lions, tigers and mountain bikers.


Thu, 30 Mar 2000:

From: "Ü" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Playing tag with bike cops???

I think about that all the time. I would love it!

Seriously, the other day in class I started chatting with one of my friends

about it. But it was decided that they carry so much stuff on their bikes

that they were at such a disadvantage.



Wed, 29 Mar 2000:

From: (raven)

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Playing tag with bike cops???

that sounds pretty cool

if you ever try it let me know how it turns out

i wouldnt mind trying something like that but here we have no cops on


>Has anyone else ever thought about doing something slightly illegal while on

>their bike, just in the hopes that a bike officer would give chase? Maybe I'm

>a little bit in left field with this one but it's seems like it could be fun.

>I know there are dangers involved, as there are in all things that are more fun

>than they should be. I just want to test my abilities against someone who gets

>paid to ride their bike for a living, but not a professional racer. Someone

>who ges paid to catch people on their bike. The cops here at my university

>ride around like they're bad asses on the new full suspension treks they've

>got. I wonder how my legs and my hardtail woudl match up against them. I'm

>sure i've got the lungs and the legs on them, but it'd still be fun. I see it

>as a Dukes of Hazzard kind of thing I guess, if that makes any sense. Anyone

>else have any weird riding daydreams? Maybe it's just me, something brought on

>by the unbelievable lack of biking in Florida.




Thu, 30 Mar 2000:

From: "oz" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Playing tag with bike cops???

On a regular basis I ride the wrong way down one way streets or go through

reds just so I can get chased. I mean you can't out run a radio, but what

are they going to say " a guy on a black bike wearing cut off army pants and

a black shirt." That's half of a cities courrier population. I like to

keep them right behind me for a couple of blocks, then cut through a park or

in front of a building with stiars, or any other kind of drop off or

obsticle, I jump the stairs, and I am gone. I ride a full suspension bike,

and I compeet in down hill races. A cop might be able to bike on flat

ground, but none of them have the guts or the skill to follow a good biker

through something like a loading ramp. Even a small set of maybe three

stairs will make a cop stop, get off his bike, and walk . I have even

stopped at the bottom of a big set of curved stairs and wated for a bit.

The cop stopped at the top, and went back the way he came. As long as I am

going to have points added to my drivers liscence for not stopping at a red

or riding down a sidewalk I am going to try to get away. I have only been

stopped once, for no bell. I coulden't get away, I didn't even see the cop

as I got off my bike, and started to lock it. My bike weighs more than 35

pounds so it's not that light, but a cop has got at least 35 pounds of

equipment to carry around besides his bike, that isn't realy designed to be

ridden off concrete drop offs or down stairs.

I have enough sense not to try this sort of thing in my car, but as long as

I want a bit of a thrill in my life that I can't get any other way, I will

still try to get away from the cops.



Thu, 30 Mar 2000:

From: "Zapata" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Playing tag with bike cops???

Did that once.. Was riding on a trail that wasn't suppose to have bikes on

it.. Came out the other end and there he was looking like the cats ass.. He

saw me just as a slamed the brakes pulled a 180 and took off the other

way.. Had just nicely gotten out the other ensd and off my bike to have him

come around the corner panting.. He wanted to give me a ticket but I guess

unless he can stop me on the walking only trails he can't give me a

ticket... So he laughed and said he'd have to work on his high speed

chases.. And left.. i got lucky mind you... If I hadn't been paying

attention when I came out of the trees he would have had me and would have

ticketed me... Plus I probably got lucky that I could outrun him...SYL

Jack (Zap) Pound


Thu, 30 Mar 2000:

From: Speedy Fast <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,sci.environment

Subject: Re: Volunteers Needed for National Photographic Survey of Mountain Bike Damage

On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 06:39:26 GMT, (Mike Vandeman)



>On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:24:51 GMT, Speedy Fast <>



>.On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:35:44 GMT, (Mike Vandeman)



>.>Photographs speak a thousand words and are hard to argue with. They show in

>.>graphic detail what words alone can only suggest. The damage done by

>.>Mountain Bikes to our trail systems, parks and forests is often brushed off

>.>as nonsense by Mountain Bike groups who claim they don't cause any more

>.>damage than a hiker. We don't think that is true and have a photographs to

>.>prove it. Please check out the evidence at


>.This is great and dandy and all. But how do you ban mountain bikes??

>.The USA is a free country.


>That's BS. Off-road biking is banned in most parks.


Yeah banned. But rules are made to be broken :)


>.Are you going to put officers along the trails handing out tickets?


>Yes. You can get a ticket whenever you are seen off-road.


Yeah... anytime I see a police offer on my MTB I just take off! You

can't put cops on bikes either. That would defeat the purpose.


Thu, 06 Apr 2000:

From: Don Weir <>
Subject: RE: How are mt bicyclist a bigger threat to


Unfortunately your views have been the norm in reactions regarding the

Grizzly Bear. After extensive discussions with Parks Canada and lead

researchers the issue is not whether the Grizzly Bear will fight. It will

but its normal reaction, with most of the Grizzlies on the East Slope are

not tolerant of human activity, (except when habituated) is to shun human

activity and moving into far less productive areas especially if the animal

is a sow with cubs (boars seem to be less prone to disturbance). This has

resulted in a marked decrease in reproductive success. This is manifested

by the severe population declines - 1000+ in 1970 and down to just over 350

today in the regions stretching from Jasper to the Montana Border. Also of

concern is that the animals are becoming isolated resulting in a grave

concern pertaining to inbreeding.

Habituated bears are also of grave concern from a safety aspect. A Grizzly

has no natural predators. An habituated bear is a bear that in the vast

majority of cases become a problem bear. The vast majority of cases of bear

maulings by Grizzlies have been by animals that have been relocated at least

once and unfortunately the end result is that these bears have to be


Donald V. Weir

#303, 9920-90 Ave, NW

Edmonton, AB

T6E 2T3


Ph. 780-439-5130

Fax 780-992-1473


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

From: Jim Burt []

Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:09 PM


Subject: Re: How are mt bicyclist a bigger threat to


No offense, but a discussion with a ranger is not scientific evidence that

mtn bikes are impacting the grizzly habitat.

I've hiked plenty of trails where I was grizzly bait. And honestly, if the

only creature that we might be negatively impacting is a creature that can

(and will) easily fight back (and in most cases win), I'm not too concerned.

Grizzlies haven't been too concerned with hiking trails or staying out of

campsites. So, I fail to see the connection being drawn to a 'deeper

penetration in the woods' by mountain bikes as disrupting their habitat.


>>> aaron teasdale <> 04/06/00 02:39PM >>>

> wildlife than others?

Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:15:18 -0700

Up here in Montana we've got lots of bears. I've

encountered them numerous times while riding. Even

unintentionally scared a black bear up a tree once. As

far as bears are concerned mountain bikers are,

without a shadow of doubt, a bigger threat than


I learned this on a recent trip across the Canadian

border to Waterton National Park. A few trails in the

park, God bless the Canadians, are open to bicycles.

While we enjoyed the trails immensely, my friends and

I lamented our inability to legally connect trails

into large loops. The trails there are some of the

most beautiful in the world and the potential for huge

backcountry loops is huge. We wanted to ride those

loops bad.

Then we met a ranger and had a good talk. We told him

of our desire. He explained that the park was under

incredible pressure with visitation increasing yearly,

heavy logging all around the park's borders, and an

increasingly shellshocked grizzly bear population. "We

haven't seen a grizzly in this half of the park all

year," he sighed, a trail map spread across the ground

at our feet. This area of Canada is one of the

grizzly's last remaining pockets of viable habitat.

The problem with bikes, the ranger said, was that they

penetrate so deep, so quickly into the backcountry.

Humans, regardless of their mode of transport,

profoundly disturb grizzlies.

The ranger was a big mountain biker too. He tipped us

off to the best ride in the park. We still wanted to

ride those big loops, and I still think a user-nuetral

permit system would be more equitable, but after our

talk we understood.

In grizzly habitat mountain bikers have a greater

impact than hikers.

Aaron Teasdale

Montana IMBA rep


Fri, 31 Mar 2000:

From: monsterz <>
Subject: re your artical
You are joking aren't you?

Do you have any fun in your P.O.S life?

You do not have to worry! you are not a man ! you are a pussy! one big pussy

I hope you do not have offspring because they will be as stupid as you.

IM VERY SORRY! but what is your problem?

I have 100 acres of land that my kids and I ride our dirt bikes on and the deer/bear/snakes/whatever's don't give a shit!

we are there you are not! you do not know what you are talking about!

the animals on my land love it! but you would not no because your head is to pointed.


Wed, 29 Mar 2000:
Subject: Re: Do not agree....
Moutain bikers have a better image than NERDS!!!!!!! Once your habitat dies I should go there and mountainbike all over the terrain and piss all over it

Mon, 27 Mar 2000:


Subject: Re: Do not agree....

Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Its not pure and simple!!!! We are not all the same buddy!!!! We do hurt some

earth here and there, but if there were no parks we would tear up even more

earth because no one can controll it. At mammoth they can regulate usage. I

hope your habitat dies


Wed, 22 Mar 2000:

From: aaron teasdale <>
Mark Flint wrote:

"--IMBA's primary mission is (or should be) to protect

access for

mountain bicyling."

To this I would add that IMBA’s mission is also to

protect the experience of mountain biking. My favorite

mountain biking is on land as little affected by the

hands of man as possible. Wild land.


Tue, 21 Mar 2000:

From: madeleine hormann <>

Subject: Re: Monte Bello ride today

I rode Sunday at Wilder and UCSC. It was beautiful weather, but it was

horribly rutted. Time for some trail work at Wilder.

[as though "trail maintenance" is all that is needed to "fix" this problem!]



Feb 28, 2000:

From: Scott

Eco systems are more powerful than bike tires and horse dung, one volcano in Washington layed flat more trees and trails in 2

days than 10,000 bikes ever could.


Tue, 7 Mar 2000:

From: "Sorni" <>

Subject: Re: Your first Mt Bike memory...

And yet we kept doing it! Tells ya a little something about us, doesn't


Bill S., Addictive, Self-destructive and Loving It in GOTTA RIDE TODAY San



Thu, 09 Mar 2000:

From: Rod Brown <>
Mountain bikers,

Today is the day to make your voice heard to prevent the MROSD trail closures.

To make sure our rights are not trampled, each of us _must_ do the following:

1. Send MROSD an email ( if you have not sent them an

email or letter already.

2. Attend tonight's public meeting from 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm at the Los Altos

Youth Center, 1 North San Antonio Road (behind City Hall). Directions:



The bike-haters will be there. Will you?

Rod Brown


For more details on this issue, visit


Middlessex Fells Reservation



Nearest Town:


Directions to


Exit 33 Interstate 93 or Route 28 to South Border Road in Medford. Parking available on several lots on your right. Parking also

on Route 28 in Stoneham at the sheepfold.

Trail Description:

Great mountain biking 6 miles north of downtown Boston. Rolling hilld, Tons of fire roads and some moderately chalenging

singletrack on the NEMBA Loop which is very clearly marked. There are tons of great illegal singletrack but you would not want

to ride those trails, would you (wink... wink... nudge... nudge...)

Trail Length:

8 miles

Trail Type:

Singletrack & Fire Roads

Skill Level:


Web Link:

Submitted By:

Micheal Y.

sean from quincy

Date: January 9, 2000

Trail Ridden: Once a week



A great blend of fireraods and single track My girlfriend was introduced to

singletrack here and the facr that she could get wee easy sections really

helped her confidence. However, as evening approaches so do loads of

gays. Was once told that my ass " looks dam fine." Really helped in the

sprint home finish.

Gregory from

Date: December 12, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Recommended Route:

Whit Trail/ Lake Trails


Other recommended trails in the same area:

Lynn Woods or Blue Hills



Technical up and down on the whites, fast and fun on the lakes. The

"Fells" used to be my favorite place to ride. Lot of tension in this park! My

best advice to anyone wanting to ride the Fells, get a good night light set


Billw from Somerville, MA

Date: September 3, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Other recommended trails in the same area:

Lynn Woods



Good fun trails. Very convenient to the Boston area. The trails can be very

rocky so be careful. Easy to get lost if you want to. Highly recommended

for all levels of riding.

Pete from Somerville

Date: August 9, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a month

Recommended Route:

Firetrails and legal singletracks


Other recommended trails in the same area:

Minuteman Trail (paved), Davis Square to Concord, during off peak hours only. Pedestrians and rollerbladers take over on weekends and nice nights.

Early weekend mornings are great riding towards Walden Pond.



This is a fantastic area for hiking, jogging, AND biking. The negative

attitudes displayed on this page are not representative of Fells riders. Only

the occasional biker gets territorial or scares a pedestrian or fellow rider.

On most rides you'll have to slow down to pass someone, but there is

plenty of open trail with no traffic. The better single track is largely on the

Winchester side ten to twenty minutes from South Border Road, Medford

entrance. before the MDC eliminates non-fireroad biking in a couple years.

Bill from Arlington

Date: July 26, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Recommended Route:

Follow trail to the Winchester Reservoir


Other recommended trails in the same area:




I just started mountain biking and found the Medford Fells to be one of the

nicer trails. Watch out for rocks!

bikewmn from boston

Date: July 12, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Recommended Route:

first time....i stayed on the mtnbike loop. after that, i ventured off to the orange, blue, white, and unmarked trails. much more challenging and

interesting. just watch out for broken glass (purposely put there to keep bikes away?) and annoying hikers that think they own the place. oh yeah, and

the gay men who like to have sex out there, unless you're into that!


Other recommended trails in the same area:



i have not been riding very long (less than a year) in terms of serious

off-road riding. i have found the fells to be a great place to learn technical

skills, balance, and build confidence. Also, now that i am a better rider, i

still have fun here...there is always something to ride that is challenging.

For someone trying to improve their skills, i think this is a great place to



The place is pretty empty during the week, which is nice, but gets crowded

on the weekends, atleast on the main trails.

rs from medford

Date: July 5, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Recommended Route:

orange resevoir trail is fun


Other recommended trails in the same area:

ride anywhere!



since i live only a few blocks from the fells, i tend to do most of my riding

here. you can ride fire roads until you're blue in the face, but the best riding

to be had is on the singletrack. the orange,and white trails are for hiking

only, but i don't care, there's room for everybody. things to be aware of:

hikers sabotaging the trails with glass,or roofing nails, MDC trucks do

patrol the park(you could end up in court if caught), naked gay joggers,

trash leftover from a teenage party---but its the mountainbikers that are the

problem here! right!

JK from Somerville

Date: May 19, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Recommended Route:

Mountain bike loop.

Illegal singletrack


Other recommended trails in the same area:



I've ridden up here a lot in the last few years and have to say that it keeps

getting worse. Erosion has made some good technical singletrack almost

unrideable. Its convenient (10 minute ride from my house), but crowded

with yuppie gearheads and mean hikers. I recommmend coming here only

if convenient to where you live. Its not worth going out of your way.

Kevin from Arlington

Date: February 4, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Recommended Route:

Let's start with the Nemba Trail. I understand everyone loves to ride on the closed trails. On occasion I will myself. AND I'M a NEMBA member.

However, after participating in several trail maintenance days, I've come to work with the MDC crew. My understanding is that within a few years the

park will be closed to bikes if erosion and illegal riding continues. I'm no ones mother, just something to think about.


Other recommended trails in the same area:

The place is intermediate with ups and downs. I've riden there since 1992 and after several rides it can get old. Try Oregon, The state rocks!



Mid spring and late fall is best time to ride. High summer is like riding on

asphalt. It gets real dry and hard. As others mentioned, Gay sex is hot to

trot in the Bear hill area. Word to the wise. I happened upon some

unsuspectings myself.

Simon Jones from Woburn

Date: January 25, 1999

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Recommended Route:

Hum, follow the NEMBA trail the first time, after that

break off onto the walking trails etc, there really fun.


Other recommended trails in the same area:

Go to Lynn woods, more to do there.



Its close to my home, I can ride there in 15 minutes and is great for that

after work spin. Been doing it twice a week all season during 98 and cant

get enough.


Be carefull about after dark, because of the "sexual thril seekers" the cops

do arrest people after the park is closed, even guys putting their bikes on

the roof.

john from dorchester

Date: November 2, 1998

Trail Ridden: Once a week

Recommended Route:

If your a very early riser.just go and ride.I personally don`t see any harm in going where you want.There isn`t a lot of wet areas and if there is a little

wear and tare on the trails,it happened long before bikers were enjoying the area.Nemba is a good cause and there trail maintanance is exceptional.But

my days of kissing ass to stuck up people are over.I`ve been riding here since 1983 and smiled at most of the people hiking in the area.Until

resently,listening to people snicker, or call me asshole.I`ve had it.So get out and ride nice and early and ride,before the so called nature lovers arrive.


Other recommended trails in the same area:

the tar to the fellsway.Less cars parked,less attention




Lee from Quincy

Date: November 2, 1998

Trail Ridden: Ridden Once

Recommended Route:

Follow the Red bike trail signs


Other recommended trails in the same area:

Lynn woods...

also, go to the parking lots closer to Rt. 3/ Rt. 28- the larger half of the reservation- the smaller parts isn't as good...



As mentioned below, it is very easy to ride around on boring fire roads all

day. There are a bunch of single track trails off the fire roads that are fun

and challenging, and easy to find. It can be fun to ride...

Tom from Cambridge

Date: October 21, 1998

Trail Ridden: Every few months

Recommended Route:

Go with someone who knows where the good stuff is. It's easy to end up riding around on boring fireroads.


Other recommended trails in the same area:

It's a watered down version of Blue Hills, conditions are very similar it's just much less hilly.



Be careful! It's an OK place but there is a large gay population that goes

there to meet and also for male prostitution.

Dave from Boston

Date: October 20, 1998

Trail Ridden: Once a month

Other recommended trails in the same area:

Lynn Woods!!!!



Try the mountain biking loop. It is good, some nice stuff to ride on. There is

plenty of illegal singletrack to be had. There are rangers around I have

heard so don't get lost...


Mon, 05 Mar 2000:

CORBA members have given thousands of hours back to the mountains by building new trails (


Sat, 04 Mar 2000:

From: Ross Finlayson <rsf@CS.Stanford.EDU>
The California State Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting this Wednesday, March 8th to consider adoption of the Castle Rock State Park "General Plan". This plan doesn't address mountain biking directly, but its adoption will pave the way for a subsequent, more specific "Trails Plan" which will decide the use of specific trails, possibly including some mountain bike access. For this reason, ROMP has supported the General Plan, but some environmental groups (such as the Sierra Club) have opposed it, in the hope of giving more of the park a wilderness-like designation (which *would* be bad for mountain biking).

Mon, 2 Feb 2000:

From: Alex MacSwain <>

The Money Pit By Alex MacSwain … [I] often find myself poaching illegal trails on Mt. Tam. Busted twice totaling $150.


Sat, 26 Feb 2000:

I don't have a problem with downhillers, to each their own, but I personally

have a problem with these full faced helmets that the downhill set use for

cross country riding. They no longer look human, maybe they could at least

take the helmets off when they speak to others. They really look bad

especilly to hikers.

Craig Mckinnon


Thu, 24 Feb 2000:

From: Leonard Francies <>
Mike Brixey's reply to my comments regarding "always dismount":

"Is this really a reasonable compromise? As long as trails are permitted for

multi-use, bikers should not be expected to dismount whenever a hiker is

encountered any more than a horseback rider would."

I'll reply to this "posing" as a hiker,

Do mountain bikers really ever try to understand or care what the other

person thinks? Do mountain bikers ever truly put themselves in the other

person's shoes when they consider what it feels like to stand there in the

middle of the trail and wonder if the bike is ever going to stop?


Wed, 16 Feb 2000:

From: Fraser Munro <>
Subject: Re: Fascinating Abusive SPAM from a Mountain Biker

well, you fuck pigs. Pig Fucker.


Thu, 17 Feb 2000:
From: Alex MacSwain <>
Subject: Re: race schedule
I think the quick and dirty solution, to avoid the bureaucracy of local

watershed, fire dept., insurance etcc., is to have underground races early

a.m. and the $ goes towards party afterwards similar to the THC classsic.


From: "Richie" <>

Mon, 14 Feb 2000:

Go fuck yourself.

Bikers arnt the problem, people like you are, since when was it headline

news that Mountain Bikers were a serious threat huh??

Go spend your time on a more worthy cause such as the homeless or something,

leave us alone.


Your an arse-hole, and i bet im not the first person to tell you.




NOMBA's Mission

NOMBA's mission is to promote mountain bicycling opportunities through enviromentally and socially responsible use of land.

NOMBA's directors believe that mountain bicycling will become the leading use of trails networks in the U.S. and much of the world. It is

critical that the mountain bicycling community be represented at all levels of public land management.

NOMBA further believes that as mountain bicycling continues to gain legitimacy as a form of outdoor recreation, nature appreciation, and

transportation, it will earn greater acceptance in the enviromental community. For mountain bicyclists to merit this acceptance, they must

ride with concern for the enviroment and other trail users. The cycling industry must promote this attitude and reflect it in advertising.

NOMBA must promote responcible riding through education. Furthermore, NOMBA must become a strong advocate of land

preservation policies. To accomplish this mission, NOMBA is working to form and maintain strong relations with:

--- land managers at all levels.

--- other cycling and enviromental organizations.

--- the international cycling and outdoor industries.

--- the greater community of mountain bicyclists.

--- affiliation with other organizations.

Read and follow the IMBA Rules of the Trail.

NOMBA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of resposible mountain bicycling, and the opening and maintenance of trails in Northeast


NOMBA is affiliated with IMBA, the International Mountain Bike Association.


From: (Rollfast 2)

09 Feb 2000:

Hikers are NAZIS


From: "Richie" <>

Subject: Re: Mountain Biker Proves Once Again That Mountain Bikers Lie CONSTANTLY

Sun, 6 Feb 2000:

what a load of bollocks.

I didnt read it......but it looked like an crappy argument.



Sun, 06 Feb 2000:

From: TKH <>
Subject: Re: Bikes on US Fish & Wildlife land?

My experience of USF&W refuge management and bicycles would suggest that the

refuges may be subject to situational management, depending on the needs of

wildlife and thier habitat. I hope that this is the case.

Northern California has several refuges along the Sacramento River Valley

that provide for thousands of migratory waterfowl as well as other

wildlife. I frequently visited the one near Chico/Willows. At the time

(late 1980's) there was a visitor's center and a self-guided auto tour.

Bird watchers were instructed (recommendation, not strict prohibition, I

think) to stay in vehicles--because the critters don't recognize Dodge

Caravans as predators, but pedestrians cause alarm and flight behavior.

Periodically, there were blinds where people could observe, photograph, and

sometimes hunt.

I frequently rode my mountain bike along the canals that are everywhere in

that valley. Once, I rode the auto tour route along the gravel path in the

refuge. The regulations for visitors were posted at the visitor's center

and along the tour route. I recall regulations/recommendations discouraging

hiking in some areas, but nothing addressed bicycles. The time I rode the

route, I noted that my presence on a bicycle had much more (than when I went

to bird watch from a vehicle) of a disturbing effect on the birds. As I

rode, flocks of birds would take flight, and this had a rippling effect

which caused more birds to flush and orbit until they saw that I'd passed.

After that experience, I decided that it was not appropriate for me to ride

my bike in the wildlife refuge--because of the site specific circumstances.

This was a wetland that was popular with bird watchers in the winter, and I

didn't want to make enemies for bicyclists. Perhaps if enough bikes rode

the route, the birds may become habituated over time--but I chose not to

ride there.

Here in Arizona we have a number of National Wildlife Refuges that contain

vast acreage in Sonoran Desert or Savannah where access is allowed to

highway licensed vehicles (and I presume bicycles). One of these areas is

the KOFA (King of Arizona) Refuge. This area contains miles of two track

and four wheel drive routes in lush Sonoran Desert that make excellent

bicycling adventures. My wife and I have camped in this refuge and ridden

the 4x4 trails to our hearts content, with no adverse effect on the animals.

That refuge was established primarily for Desert Bighorn Sheep, and they

prefer steep cliff faces and mountain slopes. The 4x4 routes did not cause

any adverse effect on these habitats, and most were open to public travel.

This is a situation where bicycles should not be prohibited or discouraged.

I would hope each refuge would have a site specific plan, rather than

blanket ban on any particular use.

Terry Heslin

Phoenix, Arizona


Sun, 2 Jan 2000:

From: "Fraser"

People have been riding bikes off road for years now, and

there is nothing you or your little PHD assstuffed (SP?) friends can do

about it. Isn't it true that some rain forests can only survive by being

(naturally) burnt down every 10-15 years? Well, eventually the environment

is going to get accustomed to mountain bikers, and small animals will not be

able to survive without periodically having their brains liberally

splattered across a pair of Tioga knobblies etc. etc. Evolutionary BULLSHIT.

(If i have offended anyone feel free to disappear up you own arse)