Re: Typical Mountain Biker Demonstrates Their Inability to Learn

> .I absolutely agree that there are places where the damage is significant
and
> .needs to be repaired. It would be foolish to say that we can continue
> .recreational activities ANYWHERE without any maintenance activities
> .following along behind. But, there isn't a single moutnain bike track
> .anywhere (or any other kind of vehicle route for that matter) that is a
> .total environmental wasteland from one end to the other. Not one, not
> .anywhere.
>
> That's an obvious lie. You obviously haven't seen every trail. The fact
that you
> have to lie to make your case proves that you don't HAVE a case.
> ===


I have seen enough "destroyed" trails to know that they are not destroyed at
all. I have seen trails closed for miles when the only real damage can be
measured in feet, and the damage can be cured by a few hours of volunteer
service by the people that use the trails in the first place.

I can take you today to a trail that is a historical route that was used by
the settlers that came west from St Louis, and the trails is now closed due
to rantings like your's. The irony is that the very animals the closure is
meant to protect are actually blocked from gaining access to the limited
water supplies because the lack of visitation and vehicle travel has allowed
the underbrush to become so thick.

Rantings like your's are a danger to society. You haven't a clue what you
are talking about most of the time, and you get reactionary people to buy
into your rants. The problem that I have is that I agree with the basic
premise of what you have to say, but I disagree completely with the
conclusions you arrive at. I think that most of us here would want to
preserve the environment if given the chance, but we do not agree with you
on the extent of damage that recreation creates. Nobody here would dispute
the notion of a freeway or a housing tract and the impact these sorts of
things has, but we use decades of personal esperiences to judge that
responsible recreation is not the severe environmental threat that whackos
that you represent say it is.

You are a threat to society more than society is a threat to the
environment. The really sad thing is that you think you are saving lots of
stuff, when the reality is that you are saving almost nothing. While saving
almost nothing, you are blocking about 90% of public lands from the public.