Thu, 19 Dec 2002:

From: Bob Michaels <>

Subject: IMBA: Controling our numbers

At 12:32 PM 12/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:

Something like "Be prepared for over crowded areas and have alternatives."

Florida has some very heavily used trail systems in addition to some very lightly used trail systems. Certainly a different character to each but both are fun. The most popular trail system in the SE US is Oleta River State Park in downtown Miami Beach with over 100,000 documented users a year. Yet, it's great fun even if only about 15 miles of trail. And there's a similar trail at Markum Park in Ft. Lauderdale. Some people think I'm crazy to occasionally drive 180 miles to ride a mountain bike in Miami Beach when we have so many great trails nearby but it's worth it.

Bob Michaels

Apopka FL

From: Ken B <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,ba.transportation,sci.environment,ca.environment

Subject: Re: Regional Trails -- Yet ANOTHER Network of Destroyed Habitat

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:22:52 -0500

Personally, I don't care if bears are disrupted. Why should I? Same

goes for deer, squirrels, mice and, of course, hikers. See, I have

just as much right, as an inhabitant of this planet and so long as

that use is within the parameters of the law, to use its resources as

I see fit. Bears, squirrels, mice and hikers be damned. This is one of

the advantages of being at the top of the food chain -- everything

else either has to adapt to us being there or die. If they opt for

death, well, that's natural selection, isn't it.

I mean, it can easily be said that Bear 'A' is disrupting ME.

As for erosion... clearly he's clueless. The amount of erosion damage,

regardless of the cause, that can be done to the environment from a

trail is negligible. Period. Really, how much land, in sq. miles, are

we talking about across the world, that is tied up in trails? Not a

whole lot, I would guess. Maybe something like 10,000. Probably less.

If every one of those trails seriously eroded down to bedrock it still

wouldn't cause mass extinction (or even any extinction) or destroy

habitat or cause hurricanes in Russia. It just wouldn't and Mike knows

this. The fact of the matter is that it just doesn't matter that much.

WE care because we need to make sure that nut cases like Mike don't

get their exclusionary policies enacted. Fortunately, that's easily

accomplished by providing readily available studies showing that there

is no significant damage caused by biking. But to the rest of the

world, it really doesn't matter. Even if we ended up with another

Grand Canyon -- would that be all that bad?

Besides, Mike does more damage to the environment tearing up corn

fields in his Chevy Tahoe with leather interior than any of us do on

the trails.

Sun, 1 Dec 2002:

From: "Fish" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

References: <B4_A9.25511$> <>

Subject: Re: ladies and gentlemen, let's stop it



X-Trace: 1038702250 (Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:24:10 GMT)

Mike Vandeman <> wrote in message

> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 03:44:33 GMT, "carlos" <> wrote:

> .He 's gotten more space here latelly than j lo & affleck in the press, so

> .let's stop it, dont reply, just stop it.

> Sorry, mountain bikers don't listen to ANYONE, including other mountain


I Think a bullet in his head would help me Im just satified with the

knoledge that if he keeps on lying like he does sumone will kill him for me

Stephen Tye

Sun, 24 Nov 2002:

To: Ron Georg <>



Subject: Re: SPAM: RE: IMBA: This commercial is bad for mountain biking

Ron, I am an archaeologist for the US Forest Service, and an avid mt.

biker. Thanks for your words. I hadn't even noticed the ad in my copy of Dirt

Rag! In my professional capacity, I am constantly monitoring the effects human

behavior has on archaeological resources. What recreational activities damage

them, and how can that damage be mitigated? As an advocate of our sport in the

Recreation section of our forest, I must at times painfully admit that

irresponsible mt. biking can damage fragile resources (as can horses, ATV's

timber harvesting, etc). And all too often, protecting these resources is an

uphill battle. Over the last 20 years I have developed an excellent working

relationship with the managers on my forest. They respect my opinion and look

very favorably on mountain biking, in general. However, it is ads such as this,

if they were to see it, that could have a very negative influence on their

perception of our sport. I hope the Red Bull folks can realize how damaging that

ad can be. It looks to be on an actual site, not a Hollywood set. It is, indeed,

a VERY unfortunate advertisement, and does NOTHING to help promote our sport.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Mark Martin

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

From: Ron Georg


Sent: 11/23/02 10:43:35 PM

Subject: Re: SPAM: RE: IMBA: This

commercial is bad for mountain biking

Howdy, all--

I don't receive any television transmissions (we're a video-only


so I haven't seen the commercial. However, I get the drift from your

descriptions. So I also got a huge dose of irony when I turned to page 76


issue 97 of Dirt Rag, the only mag that really concerns itself with

advocacy. For those of you who haven't seen the mag, the photo is


from some trials promoters (Red Bull Communications provided the


and it features a rider bunny-hopping onto a pedestal formerly occupied by


column, which formerly held a more significant, presumably historic,


There is no context, so I don't know if the place is a true


resource, or if it's a Hollywood set. Without such context, readers are


to assume the former. That will also leave them with the implicit


that this is a fine activity--the rider is no sitcom schmuck.

Now, I can appreciate cycling as a destructive outlet. I'm also a

skateboarder, so I've contemplated the nihilistic impulse to distort


subvert society's intentions by thrashing its structures. The first time


saw a bicycle ride over a car, I was elated by the metaphor.

But I've got to say, the photo in Dirt Rag is just sick and wrong.


while I'm still pretty much on Sean's side as to the significance of


issue (I refuse to consider television significant--my head may be in


sand, but I hope that keeps it out of my butt), I have to admit that,


extension, the American Express ad is also wrong.

So, bombard them with indignation. After all, this is a credit card


satan's hand-puppet, a cartel of userers preying on the


while stroking big-business's...oh, wait, that's another soap box.

Strafe Amex, but be gentle with Dirt Rag. They just love bicycles so


they must have missed the archaeology (please don't call these


resources "ruins"--that bums out archaeologists like backward forks dry



Happy Trails,

Ron Georg


Sat, 23 Nov 2002:

From: "Anthony L Cree" <>

Subject: RE: California Wilderness Letters to the Editor


I think a big problem is the dual meanings of the term wilderness. To most

of the public, "wilderness" means land thats untouched, or relatively

untouched, by human impact. Following this definition, tons of the riding

we do is in "wilderness". And of course, when you think of this definition

of wilderness, who wouldn't be against creating more of it? The difficulty

comes in when we start using the political definition of wilderness, ie,

"mechanized transport" vs the traditional definition. I'll bet that before

becoming a mountain biker, you (and most) weren't aware that mountain bikes

were not allowed in wilderness areas. I wasn't. When I talk to nonbikers,

they're usually very surprised to hear that horses are allowed in wilderness

areas, but not bikes. But then again, they think that any rural area is

wilderness. I guess the point is that in todays world "wilderness" is an

arbitrary line drawn a map, that we can't ride past.

So, how to reconcile being pro-environment and also wanting to mountain

bike? Support non-wilderness alternative designations for areas, such as

National Conservation or Protection Areas, and I believe there's a 'roadless

area' protection status as well. Personally, I won't ever support a

wilderness area until the day mountain bikes are allowed to use them. Thats

my opinion though, and as Brian said, this is likely to evolve into a major

issue in the future.

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

From: Ken O. Bonn []

Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 6:33 PM


Subject: RE: California Wilderness Letters to the Editor

Amazingly, I happen to know one of the people who wrote in to that article,

Laurel Ames. She is the mother of my best friend from college, Jeff Ames. I

visited Jeff in Berkely, and Laurel in South Lake Tahoe, back in '88 while

on a 2000 mile bike trip (Olympia to San Francisco to South Lake Tahoe to

Yosemite via Nevada to San Luis Obispo to San Francisco). To add irony, I

was traveling on a mountain bike, and unless mistake, I interpret her

support of Boxer as anti-mountain-bike.

So..., just curious how one would interpret this. Did Boxer make some

concessions to mountain bikers? I generally think of myself as

pro-environmentalist, but it sounds like Boxer, Sierra Club, and other

so-called environmentalists are using wilderness designation to exclude

mountain bikers.

How does one reconcile being pro-environment and wanting more wilderness,

against the current designation of wilderness as being off limits to

mountain bikers? Should we be fighting for more wilderness AND allowing

mountain bikers in wilderness? It just seems wrong to allow hikers in

wilderness and not bikers [of course, bikers ARE allowed in Wilderness; only BIKES are excluded. Mike].

Someone please help. I am just so confused...

Sat, 23 Nov 2002:

Recent Stories By Sacramento Bee

Can a wilderness include muscle-powered mountain bikes?

By Sacramento Bee --

Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Saturday, November 23, 2002

I am a mountain biker. I have biked the Tahoe Rim Trail to the junction of the trail in Meiss Meadows. And even though this area is in the proposed wilderness bill, I support the wilderness legislation.

Why? Because I know there are other areas I can mountain bike that will never qualify as wilderness areas. In Tahoe, we have plenty of trails that are open to mountain biking. Adding Meiss Meadows as wilderness would be a benefit to the entire Tahoe ecosystem by protecting water quality for Lake Tahoe.

Wilderness protection ensures we will have places that remain untouched and undeveloped for future generations.

- Shannon Raborn, Incline Village, Nev.

Fri, 22 Nov 2002:

From: Cdoy Lundberg <>

Subject: dude.....

do you understand how much damage a ewb site like yours does to the entire sport of mountain biking. mabey you should step back from your little world of "the world revolves around the trees and me." people like you make me sick. i ride alot of trails and i run a small mountain bike tour company. if my job goes under because of idiots like you i will continue to ride my bike no matter what laws are in place. heres a revolutionary idea, why dont you get off your dead butt and try riding a mountain bike in half the places that i have or will. BITCH!!!

Thu, 7 Nov 2002:

Where do mountain cyclists fit in? Why haven't our needs been included in this presentation?

I am disappointed with cycling access both on and off the trail in Santa Clara County. In the case of our County Parks, I have long understood that bikes were unwelcome due to the tiny percentage of trails open to them, and merely tolerated, and in most cases cyclists have been merely relegated to fire-roads.

I believe that mountain cyclists are misunderstood. Mountain cyclists have been scapegoated unfairly. It was Goethe who said, "Treat a man as you expect him to be and he will improve." In the case of cyclists we have been treated as though we were diseased and unfit for nature. Unfortunately, some mountain cyclilsts, despite their better nature, have behaved exactly as the highly regulated and constricted trail systems expected them to be. These renegade cyclists are a tiny minority. In light of what Goethe said, I think that "If you treat a cyclist as an unwelcome renegade then you will get an unwelcome renegade." We reap what we sow. Luckily, mosot cyclists are above this.

We need to find and share common ground as a community of trail users. We must open more single track to multi-use staus and disperse cycling activity so that critical areas do not become overcrowded. Mountain biking is not going to go away.

Moreovoer the mountain bike community within itself need to address these issues. I propose that we join together with the Parks and Recreaction Department and develop durable and aesthetic interpretive facilities at critical trail heads and staging areas explaining and demonstrating the reason fro trail ettiquetee and conservation values. These should be used in conjunction with all trail user groups on organized field trips such as schools and other social outings to educate and reinforce ethical behavior in our precious and beautiful parks. We can even go so far as to create an interpretive trail that could interactively demonstrate all of these concepts, which I will not list here.

If the parks continue to treat mountain bikes as a fringe user group, and not as the firends in the mainstream that we really are, they will be downgrading the natural and recreational experience for the few at the expense of many. Please open more trails and disperse activities over broader areas. Consider limiting bike access inly in critical areas such as in sensitive habitats and within one mile of staging areas. The the lead and fulfill the recreational promise that our County Parks must fulfill for all trail users.

Furthermore, let us explore the possibilities of establishing dedicated bike tracks, such as BMX, downhill, and mountain cross, for the practice of these competitive disciplines.

In conlclusion, I am encouraged by what I have heard tonight, but in order to fulfill your grand vision you must include the cycling community or you will fail. [At this point I asked all the cyclists in the auditorium to stand up, which they did, to demonstrate our numbers substantiate our position.] Thank you for listening.

Paul Nam, President, ROMP

Mon, 28 Oct 2002:


From: "Sean O'Neil" <>

Subject: RE: IMBA: advocacy priorities


Thanks for the view from western NC. I've never ridden there and

wouldn't know the first thing about your access issues. Sometimes, we

folks in the well-logged Rocky Mtns forget that USFS has logging roads

in the SE USA.

Even though I grew up and began MTB riding in Maryland, I can't imagine

wanting to ride mtn bikes on doubletrack. I would be a roadie if that

was the only mtb riding available to me. To me, the essence of mtb

riding isn't the small distinction of being on dirt instead of pavement.

In fact, I consider that the **much more elitist** NORBA XC racing view

of mtb riding -- make it like road riding but with a dirt surface.

Those who feel this way have my sympathies, but not my empathy!

For me, mtb riding always will be about singletrack. If that means

folks in western NC find me an elitist, I'm willing to accept the label

-- but don't think that means I have no empathy for your struggles. I

simply don't understand them. I'd like to think that "elitism" indeed

can be positive, especially when it pushes the experience to new

challenge levels. It's not always dismissive, nor is it always negative

or hateful. When I say I live to ride singletrack, I am speaking

honestly. I'm NOT judging other people. I'm only judging their trails

and comparing their optimal experience to mine. Folks should be careful

to avoid thinking my position is one that derides other mtb riders.

If I were to settle for doubletrack riding exclusively, there would be

little challenge for me, and therefore no fun in it. In my little

riding world, riding isn't about cardio fitness. It's about fun derived

from technical challenge. IMHO, cardio fitness is the world's happiest

side benefit from doing long rides on technical terrain. That's why I

live where there's a lot of mountain terrain and a fair amount of

singletrack. Couple that with the fact that USFS, BLM, and state park

authorities all allow mtb access on any logging/fire road that isn't

closed for seasonal biohabitat reasons (we have some seasonal closures

for elk on nearby lands). That explains why I don't have any interest

in expanding merely **any** access, and instead focus on technical

singletrack. That's where my area needs more trail construction and


I believe that the double-track/old rail bed kinds of rides are well

available in any part of the country that has open space in rural areas.

Of course, I could be dead wrong on that. But either way, for entry

level up to mid-intermediate level riders, I empathize with the fact

that such riding can be fun to the extent it differs somewhat from road

riding and doesn't expose one to the possibility of death by motor

vehicle. However, at some point, it becomes an exercise in fitness

alone, because it doesn't take much challenge to ride such dirt

sidewalks. IMHO, one cannot really improve one's riding skills if one

merely rides railbeds and doubletrack.

My last view on this issue of regional access and whether to ally with

ORVs, et cetera, is this: Rather than worry about what entry level

riders want, IMBA should be helping to push the boundaries of technical

difficulty in the mtb world. The recent freeride-oriented conclusions

from the Utah summit are the best news I've seen from the top

organizational level of IMBA since I started riding mtbs in 1989. At

last, IMBA is recognizing that there are top-level riders who don't live

to ride doubletrack or race NORBA XC. I and my riding friends are among

those who fall within this category. Without question, we want more

technical challenge -- NOT just more raw trail mileage. IMBA should be

commended for realizing that there are MANY pinnacles within mtb riding.

NORBA XC is NOT the only pinnacle.

Sean O'Neil

Missoula MT

Fri, 25 Oct 2002:


From: woodjazz <>

Subject: RE: IMBA: Cactus Forest Trail update, opportunity for comments


I have not yet read the EA or sent a comment but will certainly do so. I

have been following the Cactus Forest Trail thread since the trail was

closed. Four or Five years ago I had the opportunity to ride this trail in

April when all the Saguaro are in bloom and having been an exceptionally wet

winter the wild flower displays were beautiful.

The closure is obviously the result of a very self-righteous watchdog group

that seized an opportunity to create and wreak havoc. We probably can't even

begin to estimate the amount of tax dollars that were wasted not to mention

IMBA resources and time by all those involved.

I was shocked to find out upon its' closure that this small piece of trail

is the only MTB trail in the whole National Park system.

The PEERs' are little more than thieves. We all know if you work hard and

acquire anything worth more than a nickel somebody is there ready to steal

it from you. If you have a little piece of singletrack somebody wants to

close it.

It's amazing just how hard you have to kick, bite, scratch and fight to

keep anything. [sounds just like a mountain biker, doesn't it?]

I'm looking forward to riding the Cactus Forest Trail again.

John Silva


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

From: "Mark Flint" <>

To: <>; <>; <>;


Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:44 AM

Subject: IMBA: Cactus Forest Trail update, opportunity for comments


> The National Park Service has completed the Environmental Analysis

> for the Cactus Forest Trail in Saguaro National Park. This trail, the

> first National Park singletrack designated as open to mountain

> bicycling, was closed in April after a complaint from Public

> Employees for Environmental Responsibility. (A PEER board member

> discovered the NPS hadn't followed the red tape road in opening the

> trail nearly 12 years ago.)


> The recommended alternative is Alternative B, which is to reopen the

> trail to bikes.


> You can view the EA and submit your comments by going to:




> This is an Acrobat file, and the first page is a letter from Park

> Superintendent Sarah Craighead that includes snail and email

> addresses for sending comments.


> Comments can be brief: "I have read the Cactus Forest Trail EA and

> support the preferred alternative." It probably wouldn't hurt to

> point out that there were no problems during the 11 years the trail

> was open to and used by bicycles, and that impacts from bicycles are

> not significantly different from impacts caused by other users. (I

> did find some of the conclusions in the EA curiously unscientific,

> but I'm hoping Don Weir can seize upon those and educate park staff

> as to the difference between valid research and unsupported

> generalizations/conclusions.)


> Barring any surprises, the trail should be reopened to bikes next

> April. This is a big improvement over the initial NPS timeline, which

> would have taken at least three years -- and given the park's track

> record, could easily have stretched to five years or more.


> The shorter timeline is a direct result of pressure from IMBA, which

> hired a law firm to convince the NPS that a lackadaisical or one-

> sided response to the closure would not be tolerated.


> Losing this popular trail for a year was bad enough. Thanks to IMBA,

> though, we've been spared years in Limbo. I encourage everyone who

> cares about protecting trails to contribute to the IMBA Legal Defense

> Fund. The next closure could be in your back yard.


> --mark



26 Jun 2000:

Bad-O Post!

Great write up dude. We might as well have been looking over your shoulder as you navigated the treacherous terrain. Kinda sux about the hikers. Definitely an attitude from

them there. "Those dirty mountain bikers, waaah!" Reminds me of when our regular group was poaching a particular trail in the San Gabe's. This little blond hiker, tan, with hair

in pigtails and all, must've told each and everyone of us, as we passed her, "Bike's are illegal on this trail", bikes are illegal, blah, blah, blah. We were all nice, we didn't

bomb by her, but the little tree hugger, saw her civic duty before her.

I'm going to visit the site Dusty Bottoms told us about later. The anti-MTB site. Kevin Mitnick, where are you,

when we need you? I feel ripped off at times, when encountering the little brown square, white bike and slashed circle. I defy the authorities to show me, where we do damage.

Even Vibram soles do damage. If they didn't, the trail wouldn't exist in the first place. In fact, we help the trail, by packing down the damage, the hiking boots cause.

My favorite haunts, Ave P land, has lots of MTB use. It's not maintained whatsoever. There aren't any people swallowing ruts caused by us. Despite the heavy use, there's

very little damage at all. The heavily used sections actually get packed down.

Sorry guys, but I know how El Santo feels when you get chastised by a PC Hiker. I try to be nice, and I try to educate. The funny part is, that a lot of the trails allow horses.

We all know how much damage a horse does. I think it's kind of hypocrisy on the part of the hikers. Well I've grinded my axe or wheelset here.

Glad your ride was bichen. Thank God I live in the High Desert, because we have so few Bi-peds.

Posted by STP a 41 year old Cross-Country Rider riding a Diamondback Zetec from Lancaster on 6/26/00

2 Jul 2000:

Subject: Responsible trail poaching

* Paging Terri Avillar

Thanks for your reply Terri. While I agree that poaching isn't the best way

to go about getting trails opened, it gets people talking about Tam in a

place where not too many people are exposed to the trail use issues up north.

Where there is interest there is organization, and where there is

organization there is pull for things to get changed.

Simply put, Wheeler shouldn't be illegal. There is no place for trail erosion

to occur (the entire thing is a rock chute), and you can't get going fast

enough to actually get out of control and hit a hiker. It poses no threat to

the surroundings or to the other trail users. I am guessing it is illegal

because of the 48 inch-wide technicality, but I am not sure. I think I

poached it responsibly, if there is such a thing. I did it very early, no one

else was on the mountain, and I was prepared to shell out the $70 for the

ticket if I got stopped. I agree that it is a load of crap that this kind of

trail use is currently our reality. I would much rather have slept in and

ridden it later in the day.

I have no interest in getting Tam closed to bikes. I deliberately didn't post

this trail in the 'trailheads' section because it would get ridden way too

much. In the message board it will get buried with a little time. But now

some people know.

Be the ball.

Posted by El Santo on 7/02/00

Thu, 10 October 2002:

At Home On My Hill Beside The River

"The old river rested in its broad reach unruffled at the decline of day, after ages of good service to the race that people its banks, spread out in tranquil dignity to a waterway leading to the uttermost parts of the earth."

Joseph Conrad, "Heart of Darkness"

I'm sitting on an ancient slab of basalt rock overlooking the St. Lawrence valley. It's a glorious October afternoon. A fiesty wind is blowing the autumn drenched trees about like swaying delirious fans at a rock concert, while bilious clouds slide across the sky like an orderly flank of attacking tanks. In the distance lies the river, a physical and metaphysical divide between two countries. Across the river valley, the top line of the Appalachian range; at my back, the Laurentian Shield (some shield; the northern winds howl down atop us as if there were virtually nothing between here and the North Pole). I am, as usual, absorbed in a moment of exquisite tranquility sitting at the south side summit of the Rigaud ridge. My only disconcerting thought is this: someone else who appreicates this spot got fined $300 for, like me, coming here on his bike.

At this point property and possession are an insult to me. I feel at one with the native concept that one cannot own what the gods have created and given to all of us. So what if I choose to take my bike through the forest to arrive at this spot. I am angry because I have done no harm; on the contrary, I care for this place as if it were a communal home, a sacred spot beside this majestic river.

It is good here. I come to rest and repose here after an arduous ride over what not only I but others consider world-class singletrack (I say this after having done Moab, Durango, Italy, Chile, Canmore, Kamloops, North Shore......). I don't know what I would do without this place. Of course, I do know: I would find another place, become yet another MTB trail refugee. But I would never leave this place in my heart. Unlike Conrad's river, my river beside the trail is a river of shimmering light and inspiring movement.

But it is the mountain that has truly captured my soul, a physical place that has filled the void left behind with a distantly remembered childhood, the playground of innocence some of us were fortunate enough to experience and somehow preserve in our dreams of a sanctuary above the fray of daily


It's like this. As a child, I enjoyed countless hours hopping from one rock to another along a rocky shore, or skipping stones across a frigid lake, or climbing the tallest tree, or..... As an adult, I enjoy clearing tough climbs, banging through tight berms and hoisting up the front end over a cool drop-off. It's all the same: At peace with one's self in nature's


Today I have kids. They don't want to grow up too fast. I can't blame them. The absence of barriers, of guile, of cynicism...who would ever want to leave this state of grace.

So when someone wants to fine me $300 for this, I get angry. But somehow I have transformed this anger into a lament for all the other emotional refuges that are under siege. And I defy.

Yeah, try to catch me.


Thu, 10 Oct 2002:

From: "Slacker" <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Lament for the trail under siege

"MTBguy" <> wrote in message

> I wrote it all down here.




> MTBguy

Sometimes you just gotta say, "Screw the rules!"



["The more singletrack the better, I'm not too hot on climbing on fireroads."

I guess "the thrill is gone" from road riding, for these jaded bikers. Then what are Lance Armstrong and company doing?



Fri, 20 Sep 2002:

From: "Nicolas Pottier" <>

Subject: Crystal Loop .. anybody got favorite routes?

Thinking of doing Crystal Mt Saturday, but haven't done it before.

Will be picking up a green trails for the area tonight, but was looking for

recommendations for routes. The more singletrack the better, I'm not too

hot on climbing on fireroads.

Thanks ahead of time,


Sun, 15 Sep 2002:

Subject: Forward on downhill



Our mountain bike trails are being trashed, and mountain biking is

getting a really bad name! I've been riding for 15 years now and

have seen how increasingly degraded trails have become, especially

those steep and dusty interior trails. I'm sure that the coast is

the same way, and I want to point out that given another 15 years of

riding and trail building, we will be faced with some serious soil

deterioration and mass wasting problems. I have to say it, I put

heavy emphasis on the "car drop" downhill types with your moto-cross

type bikes. Maybe I'm biased (or jealous), since I ride up

everything I ride me a purist then. I have seen such

degradation to our local trails due to increased use by the car-drop

types. Now, I see more trails being built for just such riders.

The North Shore deal, where the city cut out all of the stunts, may

be an indicator of what is to come. I can't see this type of trail

building being allowed to continue, given liability and safety

issues. Compounding this problem is the Liberal Government's

mandate of "selling off" our public lands. This may result in

private industry getting involved with this issue, and they may not

be so nice. So, what I think should happen is to STOP building

these trails! Keep with the existing trail infrastructure in your

neighbourhood, but don't go cutting up other areas. With an

increasing number of riders out there, we should be thinking, TREAD

LIGHTLY, not "trash all".

Monty Horton

Nelson, BC, Canada

["NEVER tell the Canadian Customs you are doing volunteer work. You will not be let into Canada as you don't have work papers. They will let you in if you tell them you are hiking or mountain biking."

As I said, mountain bikers are so addicted to their sport that they are willing to risk breaking the law and going to jail, just to continue mountain biking -- just like a drug addict! I wouldn't be surprized if the physiological effects of heroin addiction and mountain biking are similar. Anyone care to do this research?


To: mmba <>


Subject: [MMBA] Stokely Creek Ontario Trail Clean up Weekend

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:33:51 EDT

List-Help: <>

List-Unsubscribe: <>


The Stokely Creek XC ski lodge is having their annual trail cleanup

weekend this October 19-20. Workers stay in the lodge and are feed for free,

and Stokely Creek is famous for it's food. Dress like a lumberjack because

that's what you will be doing.

After lunch Sunday you are free to mountain bike or hike on their

trails. This is one of the four largest XC ski trail systems in North

America, and the only one of the four with no roads inside it. King Mountain

has a higher vertical than nearby Searchmont, but is 100% wilderness.

They have some branch cutters and gloves, but if you MMBA volunteers can

bring your own stuff.

Stokely Creek Lodge is about 30 minutes north of Sault Sainte Marie

Ontario. Their toll free number to reserve lodging is (866) 786-5359.

One more thing. NEVER tell the Canadian Customs you are doing volunteer

work. You will not be let into Canada as you don't have work papers. They

will let you in if you tell them you are hiking or mountain biking.




Wed, 21 Aug 2002:

From: "G.T." <>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike

Subject: Re: Point Mugu State Park Pictures

NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:42:30 EDT

Xref: alt.mountain-bike:331859

bruce edge wrote:

> What's good to ride in the topanga area?

> I've been up and down dirt mulholland (boring) and the famous "hub" area

> is also pretty friggin dull.

> Any good nasty technical stuff out there?

It's all relative but Bent Arrow and the secret trails that drop off it are

all great but short. The firebreaks on Rustic/Sullivan ridge and Westridge

have some steep, highspeed, rutty, whooped DH type stuff, and there are a

couple of bootleg trails that drop steeply into Sullivan Cyn. For really

nasty trialsy stuff and testing your trail finding skills Rustic Cyn is

great. And the only good legal singletrack ride is out Backbone from the

hub, and either back up it or up Rustic/Sullivan ridge. Part of the

LoSoCal crew have done Backbone with me and were happy with it.




Sun, 28 Apr 2002:

From: "Team Brown" <>

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

Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Advocate Illegal Biking! (was Re: Damn MV, you're a loon)

Yup Mikey, I do advocate riding where you feel you want. It is a right of

everyone to ride on this earth, and it is not for the Mike Vaderman's or the

Senator Boxers to tell me what to do, when to do it, or how to do it.


Time is going to come when we have to take a stand, and I am not talking

about in court or in a meeting. I am more then ready Mike, are you?


Tue, 19 Mar 2002:

From: "CycleJay" <>

Subject: Re: Mountain Biker Thinks Mountain Biking Is Here to Stay


It is simple..


As long as there will be mountains, there will be people riding on them with

mountain bikes..

Thats all there is to it, bans or not, people will keep riding trails.


So get a life & deal with it.

There is NOTHING you can do to stop it.

It's just like the air we need to breathe, its not going to go away..

It's just like the water we need to drink, its not going to go away..

It's just like the food we need to eat, its not going to go away.. etc.


It's like good & evil, its not going to go away..


Just because you want it to..

And as far as riding on paved roads, I for one will not ride my mt. bike on


I did not buy it to ride on pavement. That's what my road bike is for.


I respect the trails I ride on and I do not ride in a damaging manner..

I help maintain them if/when I can.

I do what I can legally to help protect the trails we have & possibly create

more. [i.e., destroy more wildlife habitat!]

I love the natural environment just as much as anyone else, and I will do

what I can to protect it [from everyone but yourself!],

so the natural environment & everything in it (except you), is around as

long as possible.

Enough said..




Tue, 05 Feb 2002:

From: Richard Anderson <>
Subject: Re: ACTION ALERT ! ACTION ALERT ! Skykomish Wilderness
As an outdoorsman (biker, backpacker, hiker, cross-country / downhill

skier), I find it hard to oppose protection of public lands. Whether this

particular area is best administered as a National Forest, National

Recreation Area, WA state DNR land, National Wilderness, etc. is a complex

issue. Taking a position that any designation that restricts bicycling is a

myopic, one-sided position.



Tue, 05 Feb 2002:

From: Erik Schultz <>
Subject: RE: ACTION ALERT ! ACTION ALERT ! Skykomish Wilderness

The land isn't being locked up. You can use it. Just use your legs and not

your bike. If bikes come in, so do ATV's.

Tue, 05 Feb 2002:

From: Niels Joubert <>

Subject: Why Off-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited

Well, according to your document, all MTB'ers are people who ride out with the sole purpose to destroy mother nature. I would like ot inform you that this is not the truth and that we MTB'ers ALL strive to minimize impact on nature.

But then, even if we are prohibited to go anywhere, that certainly won't stop us. Then we all will start freeriding.


Tue, 29 Jan 2002:

From: "John Muchdoch" <>

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry,sci.environment,ca.environment

Subject: Re: What Passes for Communication, among Mountain Bikers: "Ok, cheese dick"

mike vandeman is a faggot, in case you

don't know.

say anything more and i'll put a knife in

you so fast you

won't know what happened. got that ass


Tue, 29 Jan 2002:

From: "John Muchdoch" <>

Newsgroups: ca.environment,sci.environment,talk.environment

Subject: Mike V, useless dipshit

I did a google search on Mike and that useless dipshit has been

posting the same old fucking dribble since the early 90s.

What a cocksucking useless loser that fucking shitwad is.

Even people in the environmental groups are sick of his shit.

I'm going to be riding my mountain bike Mike, what the fuck are you

going to do about it? Yea that's what I thought, you can't do anything

you useless lame fucking piece of horseshit. I laugh in your fase,


FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!! ha,ha,haaaaaaaaaaa.....Loser