Hey all,

My wife & I are moving soon and need to unload a bunch of stuff before we do.
Her little-used MTB is for sale.  It's a pretty nice entry-level bike, actually.
If you know anyone who'd be interested, tell them to contact Caty at the email
address below.

Cheers,
Derik

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


TREK 6500 wsd Mountain Bike, bought new in 1999--retailed new for $750, now
selling for $500.
Excellent condition, VERY lightly used (250 miles max total), stored indoors,
recently tuned. Have original owner's manuals, etc.
Moving across the country and just haven't gotten into mtn bike riding enough to
justify keeping it.
Medium size frame 15"-16", will fit 5'4"-5'8" approx.
Alpha ZX aluminum superlight, 3.63 lb frame
*Rear disc brake compatibility for easy upgrades*
Front Fork suspension: Rock Shox Judy C
Shimano components
bike price includes extra set of quality road tires for riding in town.

see images for specifics
http://portland.craigslist.org/bik/35709341.html

I'm around most weekdays all day, anytime
I'm at NE 28th & E.Burnside, Portland

Please email with your PHONE number
AND when you are available to see it.
thanks!
Caty
cdkehs@...

Jodie,
I agree with you.  I have always been on that wave and I have not heard or
voiced otherwise.  I just didn't know where the idea came from that those of us
who were for being able to utilize the existing trails wanted them regardless. 
I have yet to hear anyone say they wanted no wilderness protection, just access
to the existing trails that we help maintain and preserve.
Carla Zenner

jodie.m.dierickx@... wrote:
Carla, the issue as I see it is we have to be prepared for either a
Wilderness protection which excludes mtn biking for those sections or no
Wilderness protection.  I'm up for trying to get mtn biking included in
the protection but I'm not willing to see the area non-protected if mtn
biking can't be included.

I guess I see this like prisons - everyone wants the state/feds to have
them (vs the alternative of leaving criminals in common society) but not
build them in their backyard.  I'm saying if it is an either or, I'm
willing to have it in my backyard.

--Jodie

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

    To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pumpclub/

    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pumpclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So are we talking about one, two or how many mtb's vocal members.  I have always
known that one bad apple can spoil the lot so I don't want to be included in the
lot.  So far all I have advocated for is the existing trails to be grandfathered
in, nothing more.  I wonder if your listening ear is only hearing what supports
your idea of wilderness protection.  Singling out bikes versus horses and people
is like discrimination.  We can only come to a happy medium if let go of our own
agendas and create peace with all good things in mind.  If you want to be an
advocate for the wilderness why don't you join their side and not include all
the rest of us, please don't include me with the lot.
Carla Zenner

Bonnie Lynch <mindtalk@...> wrote:
I think the problem is that so far, the mtb community's most vocal members have
communicated the message that they love the idea of protecting the forest, but
are not willing to give up *any* trail (or even potential future trail) to do
it. Kinda like the guy who swears he loves his wife, but won't miss a single
football game on t.v. to be with her. :->

Much of the issue seems to come down to whether you think that alternative
protections are legally airtight enough to prevent the level of logging and
development that many agree would spoil the mountain. Personally, I don't think
the alternative protections are strong enough, and I have reached that
conclusion by doing some homework on the various management plans and
designations and how easy or difficult it is to change the restrictions on them.
I don't have any faith in alternative designations, but I do still have faith in
the potential for compromise in defining the Wilderness boundaries. Having lived
in a place where there were only 2 mtb trails to ride within a 75-mile radius of
home, I can't help but marvel at the perspective of some who say that this
Wilderness proposal would leave us deprived of adequate riding experiences. My
problem isn't enough places to ride -- it's having time to ride all the places
that are out there.

Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: carla zenner <skiinggoddess2003@...>
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 7:24 PM
To: pumpclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pumpclub] Wilderness Proposal

Hi all!
Where did this vein of support for their side come in (wilderness protection
advocates)  that just because we want to keep access open to mountain bikes it
means that we are against preserving the wilderness?  I think this is the
twisted minds that want what they want with no compromise.  I haven't talked
with anyone including myself that was against wilderness protection.  I want to
protect the wilderness, I just think there are ways to do it while including the
support of mountain bikers and their use.  Why would we even care if all we
wanted was to be able to use the trails.  I have ridden up there for close to 20
years and not once left damage or garbage or any ill effect that would cause the
wilderness to be less than.  I guess you have to have cultivated a relationship
with the mountain to really feel that connection, otherwise it's just hot air
with no justification.  I think there is room for everybody and since I want to
protect also why can't we all be included in the fight
to protect it?  I have also ridden horses and you can't tell me that we do less
damage, I don't buy that one at all, especially when I come home to tires dirty
from what they left behind.  I want them to be included also but I don't make a
bid deal out of a little horse doo doo.
Carla Zenner

Eric <ewascent1@...> wrote:

Ditto Bonnie.

<WARNING: ironic inferance to Rush Limbaugh enclosed>


- eric

-- Bonnie  Lynch <mindtalk@...> wrote:
Derik, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks for your thoughts, and may I re-emphasize that in spite of what it says
on page 1 of our July newsletter, PUMP has *not* taken a position on the Lewis &
Clark Wilderness issue, and we have not done so as a club precisely because
there is no consensus among our members. So if you publish your views in any
forum, please do not attribute them to PUMP.

Respectfully,
Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: Derik Broekhoff <broekhoff@...>
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 8:52 AM
To: pumpclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pumpclub] Digest Number 1061

Mark,

You make a lot of good points, and ones that -- as a member of the
"environmental movement" for over 15 years -- I actually agree with
100%.  I have to take issue with the way you characterize the "movement,"
however.  You make the comparison to religious fundamentalists; not to put
too fine a point on things, but quoting Dave Foreman to explain why you
swore off environmentalism is like quoting Ralph Reed to explain why you're
no longer a Christian, or Osama bin Laden to explain why you you'll never
convert to Islam.  Fact is, there are extremists in every movement and it's
just plain dishonest to try to paint the whole movement based on what they
say.  The environmental movement is no more "extreme" today than it was 20
years ago and in many, many ways is less so.  How else to explain the
mainstream environmental groups' (and, yes, this includes the Sierra Club)
wholesale embrace of "market mechanisms" to alleviate air and water
pollution?  And as far as "extreme" figures go, many people here in Oregon
would put Andy Kerr on their top 3 list -- yet when I talked with him
several months ago, he was completely open to the prospect of trying to
work with mt. bikers on wilderness access, and even allowed that it was a
mistake to include bicycles under the category of "mechanized"
transportation under the wilderness act.

You're right that wilderness designation is not always the best
solution.  But different people have different perspectives and there is
plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.  Please don't try to
portray people who's views differ from yours as uncompromising "extremists"
-- that's exactly what an extremist would do.  It makes it very difficult
to have an intelligent discussion about these things.  There are very many
reasonable, intelligent people in the environmental movement who support
wilderness and who *don't* agree with Mr. Foreman (who was director of the
Sierra Club a *long* time ago, by the way) and Ms. Wilson.

All that being said, I second Terry's suggestion that you submit what you
wrote to the Deploregonian.  The only thing that annoys me more than people
who badmouth environmentalists are those whiners who write all sorts of
irrational crap about the impact of mt. bikes!

Cheers,
Derik




At 04:23 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:
>
>There are 2 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Today's letters, a rant
>            From: markflint@...
>       2. Re: Today's letters, a rant
>            From: "Terry" <terry.h@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
>    Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:14:37 -0700
>    From: markflint@...
>Subject: Today's letters, a rant
>
>The anti-mtb letters in today's Oregonian exemplify the mindset that
>turned me off to the environmental movement 15 or so years ago, after
>it had become co-opted by extremists. If you aren't in total
>agreement you are The Enemy; there is no middle ground. The responses
>to mountain bikers' concerns sound a lot like something you hear from
>religious fundamentalists who insist that you accept and embrace
>their brand of religion in its entirety, and that you are condemned
>to eternal damnation if you don't.
>
>David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra
>Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, represents this mindset
>when he makes statements such as, "We advocate biodiversity for
>biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things
>straight."
>
>Foreman also wrote:
>
>"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists
>and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land,
>halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers
>and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of
>presently settled land."
>
>Well, forgive me, but as unhappy as I am with our progress as a
>species, I'm not sure I can advocate our extinction Nor do I share
>the vision of taking tens of millions of acres of presently settled
>land and turning it back into wilderness..
>
>Wilderness advocates appear to be operating on the assumption that
>they, the supporters of wilderness, have the answer to protecting
>natural resources, and that all other methods of forest protection
>are inadequate. And of course, those of us who argue for any
>alternative to the wilderness designation are selfish, unreasonable
>consumers who want to destroy our natural resources.
>
>The letter from Barbara Wilson of Beaverton pretty much exemplified
>the "religion over science" mindset:
>
>-------
>
>I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that
>indicates bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A
>person should hike the trails where bikers have been and see for
>himself. The trails become rutted and difficult to use for hikers.
>Mountain bikers frequently go off trail, destroy the flora and cause
>erosion."
>
>--------
>
>She rejects the science and then uses anecdotal "evidence" based on
>her alleged experience.
>
>Actually there is a fair body of evidence that the impacts of
>mountain bikes are considerably less. For example, the heel strike of
>a hker's boot exerts 1,200 psi on the soil at the point of contact. A
>mountain bike tire exerts 70 psi. And while the science is fairly
>complex, employing stuff way over my head such as Chaos Theory,
>hydraulogists will tell you that erosion from a waffle boot imprint
>is greater than from a tire track. The former creates what is known
>as turbulent flow, with the water eddying in the tracks, and scouring
>soil more than in laminar flow, where it runs more or less unimpeded.
>
>The bottom line of all the research, and there is a fair body of it
>already, with more coming out, is that type of use is far less a
>factor than volume of use. To point to one user group and say "They
>are the problem," is flat-out wrong.
>
>What bothers me the most about this mindset is the total dismissal of
>any point of view other than that subscribed to by the wilderness
>advocates. You can quote research until you are blue in the face but
>they don't want to hear it. Wilderness is the One True Path, the
>salvation of our natural resources.
>
>Our world is a lot more complex than that. For every action there are
>consequences. The consequences of locking up a tract of land to
>access and use can be far-reaching and, and the "solution" of
>wilderness could result in more damage to resources, not less. Fire
>protection and prevention of catastrophic fire is one example, but a
>less visible one is the impacts on remaining resources, which
>inevitably suffer greater pressure too provide the products we
>consume and the recreational needs and wishes of those who can't go
>into wilderness.
>
>This is not to say wilderness is bad per se. There are places where
>it's appropriate, and I have supported some wilderness proposals. But
>to say it's the only way we can "save" Mount Hood is misleading.and
>dishonest.
>
>Mountain bikers are one casualty of this attempt to force a narrow
>belief system on the management of our public lands, but we aren't
>the only one. The people who blindly accept the mindset without
>questioning the information they are supplied are also casualties, as
>are all the lands affected, directly and indirectly, by the use of
>the wilderness designation to further the goals of Foreman and his
>followers.
>
>--mark
>
>
>




PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links









PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links







PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

    To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pumpclub/

    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pumpclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links








PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

    To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pumpclub/

    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pumpclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From my understanding, the ONRC made boundary adjustments for most of
the popular/published trails. The issue at hand that I'm aware of is
the 100 or more miles of trials that are not published or listed.

I think we all agree on the spirit of the wilderness act, is just the
letter of the act that has everyone in an uproar.

bd
On Jul 7, 2004, at 12:24, Daniel A. Wright wrote:

> Back in April, after the Wilderness proposal was announced, an ONRC
> representative went to the CAMBA website and posted a detailed list of
> possible boundary adjustments that would save most of our trails.
> Anyone know what happened to that idea?  It seemed like the ideal
> solution.  Now it seems like we're stuck in an either/or scenario in
> which we're likely to get screwed.
>
> Did the ONRC float the boundary adjustments do this to placate
> opposition and keep us quiet long enough to get their original
> proposal through?  Geez, I hope not.  I've been a supporter of their
> efforts for a long time.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back in April, after the Wilderness proposal was announced, an ONRC
representative went to the CAMBA website and posted a detailed list of
possible boundary adjustments that would save most of our trails.
Anyone know what happened to that idea?  It seemed like the ideal
solution.  Now it seems like we're stuck in an either/or scenario in
which we're likely to get screwed.

Did the ONRC float the boundary adjustments do this to placate
opposition and keep us quiet long enough to get their original
proposal through?  Geez, I hope not.  I've been a supporter of their
efforts for a long time.

Meanwhile, after fuming over the letters in the Monday Whoregonian,
I've submitted my own:

---
Recent letters (July 5) libel mountain bikers as selfish,
irresponsible, destructive and "unnatural."

We're not talking about motorcycles here, or even about the false
"extreme sports" image of biking promoted by greedy advertisers.
Bicycles have no screaming engines and spew no smoky exhaust.  They
cause no more trail wear than boots: I see more damage from hikers
cutting switchbacks than from bikers riding irresponsibly.  And as a
group, cyclists are no more guilty of having high-tech equipment and
speeding to trailheads in SUVs than are hikers or cross-country skiers.

Like hiking and skiing, mountain biking is a clean, quiet, pleasant
way to enjoy nature.  I enjoy all three activities, so I would know.
It's a shame that the new Wilderness expansion proposal would
eliminate mountain bike access around Mount Hood, when minor
adjustments to the boundaries would preserve it.

---

I'm a regular letter writer (3 published this year so far) so I've got
3 more of them (different angles on the wilderness proposal) in the
drafts folder, ready for submission.

- Dan, aka GlowBoy

Bonnie,

Have him check craigslist on a daily basis:

http://portland.craigslist.org (click on bikes). He
can even post a "Wanted" add. Plus new bikes get
posted daily.

btw: did we elect a new boardmember last week?  I
missed the meeting.

--- Bonnie  Lynch <mindtalk@...> wrote:
> I have a buddy, John (not my husband John), who
> loaned his Cannondale Super-Vee to a friend
> recently. The friend put the bike on MAX to bring it
> back to John, but exited MAX without remembering
> that the bike was there. The bike found its way off
> of MAX, but no one knows where or how.
>
> So after he's finished wringing his friend's neck,
> he'll be looking for another bike. He's big (over
> 6', 225 lbs.), and wants something for
> general-purpose XC riding. Used, but not abused,
> large or XL frame, dual susp., and decent
> components, for around $700 or so. We already told
> him to check out Sellwood Cycles, but if anybody has
> other suggestions or leads, send 'em to me and I'll
> pass 'em along.
>
> Thanks,
> Bonnie
>
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Carla, the issue as I see it is we have to be prepared for either a
Wilderness protection which excludes mtn biking for those sections or no
Wilderness protection.  I'm up for trying to get mtn biking included in
the protection but I'm not willing to see the area non-protected if mtn
biking can't be included.

I guess I see this like prisons - everyone wants the state/feds to have
them (vs the alternative of leaving criminals in common society) but not
build them in their backyard.  I'm saying if it is an either or, I'm
willing to have it in my backyard.

--Jodie

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think the problem is that so far, the mtb community's most vocal members have
communicated the message that they love the idea of protecting the forest, but
are not willing to give up *any* trail (or even potential future trail) to do
it. Kinda like the guy who swears he loves his wife, but won't miss a single
football game on t.v. to be with her. :->

Much of the issue seems to come down to whether you think that alternative
protections are legally airtight enough to prevent the level of logging and
development that many agree would spoil the mountain. Personally, I don't think
the alternative protections are strong enough, and I have reached that
conclusion by doing some homework on the various management plans and
designations and how easy or difficult it is to change the restrictions on them.
I don't have any faith in alternative designations, but I do still have faith in
the potential for compromise in defining the Wilderness boundaries. Having lived
in a place where there were only 2 mtb trails to ride within a 75-mile radius of
home, I can't help but marvel at the perspective of some who say that this
Wilderness proposal would leave us deprived of adequate riding experiences. My
problem isn't enough places to ride -- it's having time to ride all the places
that are out there.

Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: carla zenner <skiinggoddess2003@...>
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 7:24 PM
To: pumpclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pumpclub] Wilderness Proposal

Hi all!
Where did this vein of support for their side come in (wilderness protection
advocates)  that just because we want to keep access open to mountain bikes it
means that we are against preserving the wilderness?  I think this is the
twisted minds that want what they want with no compromise.  I haven't talked
with anyone including myself that was against wilderness protection.  I want to
protect the wilderness, I just think there are ways to do it while including the
support of mountain bikers and their use.  Why would we even care if all we
wanted was to be able to use the trails.  I have ridden up there for close to 20
years and not once left damage or garbage or any ill effect that would cause the
wilderness to be less than.  I guess you have to have cultivated a relationship
with the mountain to really feel that connection, otherwise it's just hot air
with no justification.  I think there is room for everybody and since I want to
protect also why can't we all be included in the fight
  to protect it?  I have also ridden horses and you can't tell me that we do less
damage, I don't buy that one at all, especially when I come home to tires dirty
from what they left behind.  I want them to be included also but I don't make a
bid deal out of a little horse doo doo.
Carla Zenner

Eric <ewascent1@...> wrote:

Ditto Bonnie.

<WARNING: ironic inferance to Rush Limbaugh enclosed>


- eric

-- Bonnie  Lynch <mindtalk@...> wrote:
Derik, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks for your thoughts, and may I re-emphasize that in spite of what it says
on page 1 of our July newsletter, PUMP has *not* taken a position on the Lewis &
Clark Wilderness issue, and we have not done so as a club precisely because
there is no consensus among our members. So if you publish your views in any
forum, please do not attribute them to PUMP.

Respectfully,
Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: Derik Broekhoff <broekhoff@...>
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 8:52 AM
To: pumpclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pumpclub] Digest Number 1061

Mark,

You make a lot of good points, and ones that -- as a member of the
"environmental movement" for over 15 years -- I actually agree with
100%.  I have to take issue with the way you characterize the "movement,"
however.  You make the comparison to religious fundamentalists; not to put
too fine a point on things, but quoting Dave Foreman to explain why you
swore off environmentalism is like quoting Ralph Reed to explain why you're
no longer a Christian, or Osama bin Laden to explain why you you'll never
convert to Islam.  Fact is, there are extremists in every movement and it's
just plain dishonest to try to paint the whole movement based on what they
say.  The environmental movement is no more "extreme" today than it was 20
years ago and in many, many ways is less so.  How else to explain the
mainstream environmental groups' (and, yes, this includes the Sierra Club)
wholesale embrace of "market mechanisms" to alleviate air and water
pollution?  And as far as "extreme" figures go, many people here in Oregon
would put Andy Kerr on their top 3 list -- yet when I talked with him
several months ago, he was completely open to the prospect of trying to
work with mt. bikers on wilderness access, and even allowed that it was a
mistake to include bicycles under the category of "mechanized"
transportation under the wilderness act.

You're right that wilderness designation is not always the best
solution.  But different people have different perspectives and there is
plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.  Please don't try to
portray people who's views differ from yours as uncompromising "extremists"
-- that's exactly what an extremist would do.  It makes it very difficult
to have an intelligent discussion about these things.  There are very many
reasonable, intelligent people in the environmental movement who support
wilderness and who *don't* agree with Mr. Foreman (who was director of the
Sierra Club a *long* time ago, by the way) and Ms. Wilson.

All that being said, I second Terry's suggestion that you submit what you
wrote to the Deploregonian.  The only thing that annoys me more than people
who badmouth environmentalists are those whiners who write all sorts of
irrational crap about the impact of mt. bikes!

Cheers,
Derik




At 04:23 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:
>
>There are 2 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Today's letters, a rant
>            From: markflint@...
>       2. Re: Today's letters, a rant
>            From: "Terry" <terry.h@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
>    Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:14:37 -0700
>    From: markflint@...
>Subject: Today's letters, a rant
>
>The anti-mtb letters in today's Oregonian exemplify the mindset that
>turned me off to the environmental movement 15 or so years ago, after
>it had become co-opted by extremists. If you aren't in total
>agreement you are The Enemy; there is no middle ground. The responses
>to mountain bikers' concerns sound a lot like something you hear from
>religious fundamentalists who insist that you accept and embrace
>their brand of religion in its entirety, and that you are condemned
>to eternal damnation if you don't.
>
>David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra
>Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, represents this mindset
>when he makes statements such as, "We advocate biodiversity for
>biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things
>straight."
>
>Foreman also wrote:
>
>"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists
>and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land,
>halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers
>and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of
>presently settled land."
>
>Well, forgive me, but as unhappy as I am with our progress as a
>species, I'm not sure I can advocate our extinction Nor do I share
>the vision of taking tens of millions of acres of presently settled
>land and turning it back into wilderness..
>
>Wilderness advocates appear to be operating on the assumption that
>they, the supporters of wilderness, have the answer to protecting
>natural resources, and that all other methods of forest protection
>are inadequate. And of course, those of us who argue for any
>alternative to the wilderness designation are selfish, unreasonable
>consumers who want to destroy our natural resources.
>
>The letter from Barbara Wilson of Beaverton pretty much exemplified
>the "religion over science" mindset:
>
>-------
>
>I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that
>indicates bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A
>person should hike the trails where bikers have been and see for
>himself. The trails become rutted and difficult to use for hikers.
>Mountain bikers frequently go off trail, destroy the flora and cause
>erosion."
>
>--------
>
>She rejects the science and then uses anecdotal "evidence" based on
>her alleged experience.
>
>Actually there is a fair body of evidence that the impacts of
>mountain bikes are considerably less. For example, the heel strike of
>a hker's boot exerts 1,200 psi on the soil at the point of contact. A
>mountain bike tire exerts 70 psi. And while the science is fairly
>complex, employing stuff way over my head such as Chaos Theory,
>hydraulogists will tell you that erosion from a waffle boot imprint
>is greater than from a tire track. The former creates what is known
>as turbulent flow, with the water eddying in the tracks, and scouring
>soil more than in laminar flow, where it runs more or less unimpeded.
>
>The bottom line of all the research, and there is a fair body of it
>already, with more coming out, is that type of use is far less a
>factor than volume of use. To point to one user group and say "They
>are the problem," is flat-out wrong.
>
>What bothers me the most about this mindset is the total dismissal of
>any point of view other than that subscribed to by the wilderness
>advocates. You can quote research until you are blue in the face but
>they don't want to hear it. Wilderness is the One True Path, the
>salvation of our natural resources.
>
>Our world is a lot more complex than that. For every action there are
>consequences. The consequences of locking up a tract of land to
>access and use can be far-reaching and, and the "solution" of
>wilderness could result in more damage to resources, not less. Fire
>protection and prevention of catastrophic fire is one example, but a
>less visible one is the impacts on remaining resources, which
>inevitably suffer greater pressure too provide the products we
>consume and the recreational needs and wishes of those who can't go
>into wilderness.
>
>This is not to say wilderness is bad per se. There are places where
>it's appropriate, and I have supported some wilderness proposals. But
>to say it's the only way we can "save" Mount Hood is misleading.and
>dishonest.
>
>Mountain bikers are one casualty of this attempt to force a narrow
>belief system on the management of our public lands, but we aren't
>the only one. The people who blindly accept the mindset without
>questioning the information they are supplied are also casualties, as
>are all the lands affected, directly and indirectly, by the use of
>the wilderness designation to further the goals of Foreman and his
>followers.
>
>--mark
>
>
>




PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links









PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links







PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

    To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pumpclub/

    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pumpclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

This seems like something that might be worthwhile to devote some club meeting
time to, maybe with an emphasis on bike security at those remote trailheads. If
there is interest, I could follow up to see if they'd come to our meeting.
Respond to me (mindtalk@...) or to the list at large if you'd like to
know more about protecting your bike.

Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: rogerlouton@...
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 5:56 PM
To: pumpclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pumpclub] Bike Security Brown Bag Forum

-----Original Message-----
From: Moira Green [mailto:Moira@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:20 PM
Subject: Bike Security Brown Bag Forum


Concerned about bike security?

Bike Security Brown Bag Forum
Tuesday, July 20th
Conference rooms A & B, third floor, 700 NE Multnomah
12 PM - 1:30 PM

The Lloyd District TMA Bike Committee is hosting a bike security brown bag
forum to facilitate an open dialogue between law enforcement officials,
security personnel, other bike experts and Lloyd District employees.

Speakers: Officer Craig Dobson, Portland Police Bureau; David Gragg,
Ashforth Pacific; Brain Bartow, Allied Locksmith; Theresa Redinger, LDTMA

Other panelists include: Wayne Pearson, District Attorney; Officer Blaine
Tyler, Northeast Precinct; Jeff Smith, City of Portland Bike Specialist;
Basil Christopher, ODOT, Region 1 Bike & Pedestrian Program AND OTHERS.

Learn about the National Bike Registry, see samples of recommended locks and
locking systems plus much more.

Questions?  Contact the LDTMA at 503/236-6441 or mail@...


Moira Green
Program Manager
Lloyd District Transportation Management Association (LDTMA)
700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 340
Portland, OR  97232
503/236-6441
Fax: 503/236-6164
email: moira@...
www.ldtma.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

I have a buddy, John (not my husband John), who loaned his Cannondale Super-Vee
to a friend recently. The friend put the bike on MAX to bring it back to John,
but exited MAX without remembering that the bike was there. The bike found its
way off of MAX, but no one knows where or how.

So after he's finished wringing his friend's neck, he'll be looking for another
bike. He's big (over 6', 225 lbs.), and wants something for general-purpose XC
riding. Used, but not abused, large or XL frame, dual susp., and decent
components, for around $700 or so. We already told him to check out Sellwood
Cycles, but if anybody has other suggestions or leads, send 'em to me and I'll
pass 'em along.

Thanks,
Bonnie

Dates that are yet unclaimed for August are as follows: Saturday the 7th,  and
Sunday the 8th, (8th is the Bridge Pedal) Sunday the 15th, Sunday the 22nd, and
Sunday the 29th.  The weekend of the 21st and 22nd is the Falls Creek Camp out,
so keep that in mind in your planning.   As per usual the deadline is the 15th
of this month. Thanks.


Howard Boryer
boryer@...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------- Original message --------------
I think it was Jim. As I recall Aaron had a Titus racer-x.

Don

skibaru2 wrote:
>
> who is (I forgot his name) who was riding the
> blue Titus Loco at Mckenzie River?
>
> got his Email?
>
> John
>
>
> PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
> Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.
>
> PUMP web page:
> http://www.pumpclub.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Nope, I have a Switch Blade.  Aaron has a Loco Moto.
Jim

PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org .



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT






Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pumpclub/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pumpclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think it was Jim. As I recall Aaron had a Titus racer-x.

Don

skibaru2 wrote:
>
> who is (I forgot his name) who was riding the
> blue Titus Loco at Mckenzie River?
>
> got his Email?
>
> John
>
>
> PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
> Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.
>
> PUMP web page:
> http://www.pumpclub.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hi all!
Where did this vein of support for their side come in (wilderness protection
advocates)  that just because we want to keep access open to mountain bikes it
means that we are against preserving the wilderness?  I think this is the
twisted minds that want what they want with no compromise.  I haven't talked
with anyone including myself that was against wilderness protection.  I want to
protect the wilderness, I just think there are ways to do it while including the
support of mountain bikers and their use.  Why would we even care if all we
wanted was to be able to use the trails.  I have ridden up there for close to 20
years and not once left damage or garbage or any ill effect that would cause the
wilderness to be less than.  I guess you have to have cultivated a relationship
with the mountain to really feel that connection, otherwise it's just hot air
with no justification.  I think there is room for everybody and since I want to
protect also why can't we all be included in the fight
  to protect it?  I have also ridden horses and you can't tell me that we do less
damage, I don't buy that one at all, especially when I come home to tires dirty
from what they left behind.  I want them to be included also but I don't make a
bid deal out of a little horse doo doo.
Carla Zenner

Eric <ewascent1@...> wrote:

Ditto Bonnie.

<WARNING: ironic inferance to Rush Limbaugh enclosed>


- eric

-- Bonnie  Lynch <mindtalk@...> wrote:
Derik, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks for your thoughts, and may I re-emphasize that in spite of what it says
on page 1 of our July newsletter, PUMP has *not* taken a position on the Lewis &
Clark Wilderness issue, and we have not done so as a club precisely because
there is no consensus among our members. So if you publish your views in any
forum, please do not attribute them to PUMP.

Respectfully,
Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: Derik Broekhoff <broekhoff@...>
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 8:52 AM
To: pumpclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pumpclub] Digest Number 1061

Mark,

You make a lot of good points, and ones that -- as a member of the
"environmental movement" for over 15 years -- I actually agree with
100%.  I have to take issue with the way you characterize the "movement,"
however.  You make the comparison to religious fundamentalists; not to put
too fine a point on things, but quoting Dave Foreman to explain why you
swore off environmentalism is like quoting Ralph Reed to explain why you're
no longer a Christian, or Osama bin Laden to explain why you you'll never
convert to Islam.  Fact is, there are extremists in every movement and it's
just plain dishonest to try to paint the whole movement based on what they
say.  The environmental movement is no more "extreme" today than it was 20
years ago and in many, many ways is less so.  How else to explain the
mainstream environmental groups' (and, yes, this includes the Sierra Club)
wholesale embrace of "market mechanisms" to alleviate air and water
pollution?  And as far as "extreme" figures go, many people here in Oregon
would put Andy Kerr on their top 3 list -- yet when I talked with him
several months ago, he was completely open to the prospect of trying to
work with mt. bikers on wilderness access, and even allowed that it was a
mistake to include bicycles under the category of "mechanized"
transportation under the wilderness act.

You're right that wilderness designation is not always the best
solution.  But different people have different perspectives and there is
plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.  Please don't try to
portray people who's views differ from yours as uncompromising "extremists"
-- that's exactly what an extremist would do.  It makes it very difficult
to have an intelligent discussion about these things.  There are very many
reasonable, intelligent people in the environmental movement who support
wilderness and who *don't* agree with Mr. Foreman (who was director of the
Sierra Club a *long* time ago, by the way) and Ms. Wilson.

All that being said, I second Terry's suggestion that you submit what you
wrote to the Deploregonian.  The only thing that annoys me more than people
who badmouth environmentalists are those whiners who write all sorts of
irrational crap about the impact of mt. bikes!

Cheers,
Derik




At 04:23 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:
>
>There are 2 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Today's letters, a rant
>            From: markflint@...
>       2. Re: Today's letters, a rant
>            From: "Terry" <terry.h@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
>    Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:14:37 -0700
>    From: markflint@...
>Subject: Today's letters, a rant
>
>The anti-mtb letters in today's Oregonian exemplify the mindset that
>turned me off to the environmental movement 15 or so years ago, after
>it had become co-opted by extremists. If you aren't in total
>agreement you are The Enemy; there is no middle ground. The responses
>to mountain bikers' concerns sound a lot like something you hear from
>religious fundamentalists who insist that you accept and embrace
>their brand of religion in its entirety, and that you are condemned
>to eternal damnation if you don't.
>
>David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra
>Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, represents this mindset
>when he makes statements such as, "We advocate biodiversity for
>biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things
>straight."
>
>Foreman also wrote:
>
>"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists
>and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land,
>halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers
>and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of
>presently settled land."
>
>Well, forgive me, but as unhappy as I am with our progress as a
>species, I'm not sure I can advocate our extinction Nor do I share
>the vision of taking tens of millions of acres of presently settled
>land and turning it back into wilderness..
>
>Wilderness advocates appear to be operating on the assumption that
>they, the supporters of wilderness, have the answer to protecting
>natural resources, and that all other methods of forest protection
>are inadequate. And of course, those of us who argue for any
>alternative to the wilderness designation are selfish, unreasonable
>consumers who want to destroy our natural resources.
>
>The letter from Barbara Wilson of Beaverton pretty much exemplified
>the "religion over science" mindset:
>
>-------
>
>I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that
>indicates bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A
>person should hike the trails where bikers have been and see for
>himself. The trails become rutted and difficult to use for hikers.
>Mountain bikers frequently go off trail, destroy the flora and cause
>erosion."
>
>--------
>
>She rejects the science and then uses anecdotal "evidence" based on
>her alleged experience.
>
>Actually there is a fair body of evidence that the impacts of
>mountain bikes are considerably less. For example, the heel strike of
>a hker's boot exerts 1,200 psi on the soil at the point of contact. A
>mountain bike tire exerts 70 psi. And while the science is fairly
>complex, employing stuff way over my head such as Chaos Theory,
>hydraulogists will tell you that erosion from a waffle boot imprint
>is greater than from a tire track. The former creates what is known
>as turbulent flow, with the water eddying in the tracks, and scouring
>soil more than in laminar flow, where it runs more or less unimpeded.
>
>The bottom line of all the research, and there is a fair body of it
>already, with more coming out, is that type of use is far less a
>factor than volume of use. To point to one user group and say "They
>are the problem," is flat-out wrong.
>
>What bothers me the most about this mindset is the total dismissal of
>any point of view other than that subscribed to by the wilderness
>advocates. You can quote research until you are blue in the face but
>they don't want to hear it. Wilderness is the One True Path, the
>salvation of our natural resources.
>
>Our world is a lot more complex than that. For every action there are
>consequences. The consequences of locking up a tract of land to
>access and use can be far-reaching and, and the "solution" of
>wilderness could result in more damage to resources, not less. Fire
>protection and prevention of catastrophic fire is one example, but a
>less visible one is the impacts on remaining resources, which
>inevitably suffer greater pressure too provide the products we
>consume and the recreational needs and wishes of those who can't go
>into wilderness.
>
>This is not to say wilderness is bad per se. There are places where
>it's appropriate, and I have supported some wilderness proposals. But
>to say it's the only way we can "save" Mount Hood is misleading.and
>dishonest.
>
>Mountain bikers are one casualty of this attempt to force a narrow
>belief system on the management of our public lands, but we aren't
>the only one. The people who blindly accept the mindset without
>questioning the information they are supplied are also casualties, as
>are all the lands affected, directly and indirectly, by the use of
>the wilderness designation to further the goals of Foreman and his
>followers.
>
>--mark
>
>
>




PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links









PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links







PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

    To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pumpclub/

    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pumpclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Moira Green [mailto:Moira@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:20 PM
Subject: Bike Security Brown Bag Forum


Concerned about bike security?

Bike Security Brown Bag Forum
Tuesday, July 20th
Conference rooms A & B, third floor, 700 NE Multnomah
12 PM - 1:30 PM

The Lloyd District TMA Bike Committee is hosting a bike security brown bag
forum to facilitate an open dialogue between law enforcement officials,
security personnel, other bike experts and Lloyd District employees.

Speakers: Officer Craig Dobson, Portland Police Bureau; David Gragg,
Ashforth Pacific; Brain Bartow, Allied Locksmith; Theresa Redinger, LDTMA

Other panelists include: Wayne Pearson, District Attorney; Officer Blaine
Tyler, Northeast Precinct; Jeff Smith, City of Portland Bike Specialist;
Basil Christopher, ODOT, Region 1 Bike & Pedestrian Program AND OTHERS.

Learn about the National Bike Registry, see samples of recommended locks and
locking systems plus much more.

Questions?  Contact the LDTMA at 503/236-6441 or mail@...


Moira Green
Program Manager
Lloyd District Transportation Management Association (LDTMA)
700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 340
Portland, OR  97232
503/236-6441
Fax: 503/236-6164
email: moira@...
www.ldtma.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

who is (I forgot his name) who was riding the
blue Titus Loco at Mckenzie River?

got his Email?

John

Ditto Bonnie.

<WARNING: ironic inferance to Rush Limbaugh enclosed>


- eric

-- Bonnie  Lynch <mindtalk@...> wrote:
Derik, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks for your thoughts, and may I re-emphasize that in spite of what it says
on page 1 of our July newsletter, PUMP has *not* taken a position on the Lewis &
Clark Wilderness issue, and we have not done so as a club precisely because
there is no consensus among our members. So if you publish your views in any
forum, please do not attribute them to PUMP.

Respectfully,
Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: Derik Broekhoff <broekhoff@...>
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 8:52 AM
To: pumpclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pumpclub] Digest Number 1061

Mark,

You make a lot of good points, and ones that -- as a member of the
"environmental movement" for over 15 years -- I actually agree with
100%.  I have to take issue with the way you characterize the "movement,"
however.  You make the comparison to religious fundamentalists; not to put
too fine a point on things, but quoting Dave Foreman to explain why you
swore off environmentalism is like quoting Ralph Reed to explain why you're
no longer a Christian, or Osama bin Laden to explain why you you'll never
convert to Islam.  Fact is, there are extremists in every movement and it's
just plain dishonest to try to paint the whole movement based on what they
say.  The environmental movement is no more "extreme" today than it was 20
years ago and in many, many ways is less so.  How else to explain the
mainstream environmental groups' (and, yes, this includes the Sierra Club)
wholesale embrace of "market mechanisms" to alleviate air and water
pollution?  And as far as "extreme" figures go, many people here in Oregon
would put Andy Kerr on their top 3 list -- yet when I talked with him
several months ago, he was completely open to the prospect of trying to
work with mt. bikers on wilderness access, and even allowed that it was a
mistake to include bicycles under the category of "mechanized"
transportation under the wilderness act.

You're right that wilderness designation is not always the best
solution.  But different people have different perspectives and there is
plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.  Please don't try to
portray people who's views differ from yours as uncompromising "extremists"
-- that's exactly what an extremist would do.  It makes it very difficult
to have an intelligent discussion about these things.  There are very many
reasonable, intelligent people in the environmental movement who support
wilderness and who *don't* agree with Mr. Foreman (who was director of the
Sierra Club a *long* time ago, by the way) and Ms. Wilson.

All that being said, I second Terry's suggestion that you submit what you
wrote to the Deploregonian.  The only thing that annoys me more than people
who badmouth environmentalists are those whiners who write all sorts of
irrational crap about the impact of mt. bikes!

Cheers,
Derik




At 04:23 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:
>
>There are 2 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Today's letters, a rant
>            From: markflint@...
>       2. Re: Today's letters, a rant
>            From: "Terry" <terry.h@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
>    Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:14:37 -0700
>    From: markflint@...
>Subject: Today's letters, a rant
>
>The anti-mtb letters in today's Oregonian exemplify the mindset that
>turned me off to the environmental movement 15 or so years ago, after
>it had become co-opted by extremists. If you aren't in total
>agreement you are The Enemy; there is no middle ground. The responses
>to mountain bikers' concerns sound a lot like something you hear from
>religious fundamentalists who insist that you accept and embrace
>their brand of religion in its entirety, and that you are condemned
>to eternal damnation if you don't.
>
>David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra
>Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, represents this mindset
>when he makes statements such as, "We advocate biodiversity for
>biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things
>straight."
>
>Foreman also wrote:
>
>"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists
>and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land,
>halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers
>and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of
>presently settled land."
>
>Well, forgive me, but as unhappy as I am with our progress as a
>species, I'm not sure I can advocate our extinction Nor do I share
>the vision of taking tens of millions of acres of presently settled
>land and turning it back into wilderness..
>
>Wilderness advocates appear to be operating on the assumption that
>they, the supporters of wilderness, have the answer to protecting
>natural resources, and that all other methods of forest protection
>are inadequate. And of course, those of us who argue for any
>alternative to the wilderness designation are selfish, unreasonable
>consumers who want to destroy our natural resources.
>
>The letter from Barbara Wilson of Beaverton pretty much exemplified
>the "religion over science" mindset:
>
>-------
>
>I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that
>indicates bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A
>person should hike the trails where bikers have been and see for
>himself. The trails become rutted and difficult to use for hikers.
>Mountain bikers frequently go off trail, destroy the flora and cause
>erosion."
>
>--------
>
>She rejects the science and then uses anecdotal "evidence" based on
>her alleged experience.
>
>Actually there is a fair body of evidence that the impacts of
>mountain bikes are considerably less. For example, the heel strike of
>a hker's boot exerts 1,200 psi on the soil at the point of contact. A
>mountain bike tire exerts 70 psi. And while the science is fairly
>complex, employing stuff way over my head such as Chaos Theory,
>hydraulogists will tell you that erosion from a waffle boot imprint
>is greater than from a tire track. The former creates what is known
>as turbulent flow, with the water eddying in the tracks, and scouring
>soil more than in laminar flow, where it runs more or less unimpeded.
>
>The bottom line of all the research, and there is a fair body of it
>already, with more coming out, is that type of use is far less a
>factor than volume of use. To point to one user group and say "They
>are the problem," is flat-out wrong.
>
>What bothers me the most about this mindset is the total dismissal of
>any point of view other than that subscribed to by the wilderness
>advocates. You can quote research until you are blue in the face but
>they don't want to hear it. Wilderness is the One True Path, the
>salvation of our natural resources.
>
>Our world is a lot more complex than that. For every action there are
>consequences. The consequences of locking up a tract of land to
>access and use can be far-reaching and, and the "solution" of
>wilderness could result in more damage to resources, not less. Fire
>protection and prevention of catastrophic fire is one example, but a
>less visible one is the impacts on remaining resources, which
>inevitably suffer greater pressure too provide the products we
>consume and the recreational needs and wishes of those who can't go
>into wilderness.
>
>This is not to say wilderness is bad per se. There are places where
>it's appropriate, and I have supported some wilderness proposals. But
>to say it's the only way we can "save" Mount Hood is misleading.and
>dishonest.
>
>Mountain bikers are one casualty of this attempt to force a narrow
>belief system on the management of our public lands, but we aren't
>the only one. The people who blindly accept the mindset without
>questioning the information they are supplied are also casualties, as
>are all the lands affected, directly and indirectly, by the use of
>the wilderness designation to further the goals of Foreman and his
>followers.
>
>--mark
>
>
>




PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links









PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

Roger, if you read the pro-wilderness letters you will see a common
theme emerging: that wilderness is the ONLY protection option. While
it's clever spin, and effective in the sense that it oversimplifies
the issues and makes wilderness seem necessary, it's just not true.

Federal law, primarily FLPMA, dictates that resources be protected,
and the planning process, mandatory under FLPMA, has many other
protection designations that are less extreme than wilderness, and
which can protect while giving land managers a little more
flexibility, including allowing mountain bike access.

As far as defining what is extreme and what isn't, I realize that
many people don't agree with the Foremans of the world, but the
leadership of the environmental movement in the 1970s chose to take a
course that has pretty well defined even "mainstream" environmental
organizations. The direction they chose to go was one of emotional
appeals rather than rational, and of confrontation rather than
compromise. Patrick Moore, who was one of the founders of Greenpeace,
has provided an overview of that change -- and of course he's
considered a Judas by the movement because he supports such concepts
as sustainable forestry. (You can learn more about Moore and his
efforts at http://www.greenspirit.com . I've put an excerpt from a
speech of his, as it applies to my points in this email, at the end
of this rant.)

My experience in observing and dealing with environmentalist leaders
has been a pretty consistent one, in which they do not compromise,
will not admit mistakes, and twist facts to suit their agenda. I
realize that many people who support the goals of organizations like
the Sierra Club don't subscribe to this kind of approach, but all I
can say to them is step back, open your mind and look outside the
information you get from the bulletins and newsletters.

What is most frustrating about all this to me is that we desperately
need policies and laws to protect our air, water and natural
resources, and I think the environmentalists could be much more
effective if they were less strident and more willing to use rational
instead of emotional approaches.

But I have to hand it to them. They understand the American need to
have complex issues boiled down to simple yes or no questions, and
they have used their focus groups and marketing strategies very
effectively.

Finally, please realize that what is happening on Mt. Hood is
happening throughout the West. There is a concerted effort to push
millions of acres of wilderness through, and threats to access in
Oregon are being repeated in other states, including Washintgon,
California, Nevada, Idaho and Arizona. Those impacts I mentioned
earlier, of more pressure on other public lands, will be significant.

--mark

-----------

Excerpt from Patrick Moore's speech, Environmentalism and the 21st
Century

By the mid-1980's Greenpeace had grown from that church basement into
an organization with an income of over US$100 million per year,
offices in 21 countries and over 100 campaigns around the world, now
tackling toxic waste, acid rain, uranium mining and drift net fishing
as well as the original issues. We had won over a majority of the
public in the industrialized democracies. Presidents and prime
ministers were talking about the environment on a daily basis.

For me it was time to make a change. I had been against at least
three or four things every day of my life for 15 years; I decided I'd
like to be in favor of something for a change. I made the transition
from the politics of confrontation to the politics of building
consensus. After all, when a majority of people decide they agree
with you it is probably time to stop hitting them over the head with
a stick and sit down and talk to them about finding solutions to our
environmental problems.

All social movements evolve from an earlier period of polarization
and confrontation during which a minority struggles to convince
society that its cause it is true and just, eventually followed by a
time of reconciliation if a majority of the population accepts the
values of the new movement. For the environmental movement this
transition began to occur in the mid-1980s. The term sustainable
development was adopted to describe the challenge of taking the new
environmental values we had popularized, and incorporating them into
the traditional social and economic values that have always governed
public policy and our daily behavior. We cannot simply switch to
basing all our actions on purely environmental values. Every day 6
billion people wake up with real needs for food, energy and
materials. The challenge for sustainability is to provide for those
needs in ways that reduce negative impact on the environment. But any
changes made must also be socially acceptable and technically and
economically feasible. It is not always easy to balance
environmental, social, and economic priorities. Compromise and co-
operation with the involvement of government, industry, academia and
the environmental movement is required to achieve sustainability. It
is this effort to find consensus among competing interests that has
occupied my time for the past 15 years.

Hello Pumpsters,
This Saturday is PUMP's 15 mile creek trail work
party. Due to a mix up it did not make the calender.
For those interested please give a call.
For those who don't know 15 mile and surrounding
trails are one of the few riding areas close to
portland to give that back country riding experience.
Please help keep trails open by participating in a
trail work party this year.
If your stuck in portland saturday.. There is a second
work party that day at Powell Butte.
For more details see
http://www.pumpclub.org/pumpcal.html
If you your interested in the 15 mile creek trail work
party please email me at mthood_rep@....
thanks
Dan
503.781.4388





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Derik, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks for your thoughts, and may I re-emphasize that in spite of what it says
on page 1 of our July newsletter, PUMP has *not* taken a position on the Lewis &
Clark Wilderness issue, and we have not done so as a club precisely because
there is no consensus among our members. So if you publish your views in any
forum, please do not attribute them to PUMP.

Respectfully,
Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: Derik Broekhoff <broekhoff@...>
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 8:52 AM
To: pumpclub@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pumpclub] Digest Number 1061

Mark,

You make a lot of good points, and ones that -- as a member of the
"environmental movement" for over 15 years -- I actually agree with
100%.  I have to take issue with the way you characterize the "movement,"
however.  You make the comparison to religious fundamentalists; not to put
too fine a point on things, but quoting Dave Foreman to explain why you
swore off environmentalism is like quoting Ralph Reed to explain why you're
no longer a Christian, or Osama bin Laden to explain why you you'll never
convert to Islam.  Fact is, there are extremists in every movement and it's
just plain dishonest to try to paint the whole movement based on what they
say.  The environmental movement is no more "extreme" today than it was 20
years ago and in many, many ways is less so.  How else to explain the
mainstream environmental groups' (and, yes, this includes the Sierra Club)
wholesale embrace of "market mechanisms" to alleviate air and water
pollution?  And as far as "extreme" figures go, many people here in Oregon
would put Andy Kerr on their top 3 list -- yet when I talked with him
several months ago, he was completely open to the prospect of trying to
work with mt. bikers on wilderness access, and even allowed that it was a
mistake to include bicycles under the category of "mechanized"
transportation under the wilderness act.

You're right that wilderness designation is not always the best
solution.  But different people have different perspectives and there is
plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.  Please don't try to
portray people who's views differ from yours as uncompromising "extremists"
-- that's exactly what an extremist would do.  It makes it very difficult
to have an intelligent discussion about these things.  There are very many
reasonable, intelligent people in the environmental movement who support
wilderness and who *don't* agree with Mr. Foreman (who was director of the
Sierra Club a *long* time ago, by the way) and Ms. Wilson.

All that being said, I second Terry's suggestion that you submit what you
wrote to the Deploregonian.  The only thing that annoys me more than people
who badmouth environmentalists are those whiners who write all sorts of
irrational crap about the impact of mt. bikes!

Cheers,
Derik




At 04:23 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:
>
>There are 2 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Today's letters, a rant
>            From: markflint@...
>       2. Re: Today's letters, a rant
>            From: "Terry" <terry.h@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
>    Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:14:37 -0700
>    From: markflint@...
>Subject: Today's letters, a rant
>
>The anti-mtb letters in today's Oregonian exemplify the mindset that
>turned me off to the environmental movement 15 or so years ago, after
>it had become co-opted by extremists. If you aren't in total
>agreement you are The Enemy; there is no middle ground. The responses
>to mountain bikers' concerns sound a lot like something you hear from
>religious fundamentalists who insist that you accept and embrace
>their brand of religion in its entirety, and that you are condemned
>to eternal damnation if you don't.
>
>David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra
>Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, represents this mindset
>when he makes statements such as, "We advocate biodiversity for
>biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things
>straight."
>
>Foreman also wrote:
>
>"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists
>and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land,
>halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers
>and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of
>presently settled land."
>
>Well, forgive me, but as unhappy as I am with our progress as a
>species, I'm not sure I can advocate our extinction Nor do I share
>the vision of taking tens of millions of acres of presently settled
>land and turning it back into wilderness..
>
>Wilderness advocates appear to be operating on the assumption that
>they, the supporters of wilderness, have the answer to protecting
>natural resources, and that all other methods of forest protection
>are inadequate. And of course, those of us who argue for any
>alternative to the wilderness designation are selfish, unreasonable
>consumers who want to destroy our natural resources.
>
>The letter from Barbara Wilson of Beaverton pretty much exemplified
>the "religion over science" mindset:
>
>-------
>
>I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that
>indicates bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A
>person should hike the trails where bikers have been and see for
>himself. The trails become rutted and difficult to use for hikers.
>Mountain bikers frequently go off trail, destroy the flora and cause
>erosion."
>
>--------
>
>She rejects the science and then uses anecdotal "evidence" based on
>her alleged experience.
>
>Actually there is a fair body of evidence that the impacts of
>mountain bikes are considerably less. For example, the heel strike of
>a hker's boot exerts 1,200 psi on the soil at the point of contact. A
>mountain bike tire exerts 70 psi. And while the science is fairly
>complex, employing stuff way over my head such as Chaos Theory,
>hydraulogists will tell you that erosion from a waffle boot imprint
>is greater than from a tire track. The former creates what is known
>as turbulent flow, with the water eddying in the tracks, and scouring
>soil more than in laminar flow, where it runs more or less unimpeded.
>
>The bottom line of all the research, and there is a fair body of it
>already, with more coming out, is that type of use is far less a
>factor than volume of use. To point to one user group and say "They
>are the problem," is flat-out wrong.
>
>What bothers me the most about this mindset is the total dismissal of
>any point of view other than that subscribed to by the wilderness
>advocates. You can quote research until you are blue in the face but
>they don't want to hear it. Wilderness is the One True Path, the
>salvation of our natural resources.
>
>Our world is a lot more complex than that. For every action there are
>consequences. The consequences of locking up a tract of land to
>access and use can be far-reaching and, and the "solution" of
>wilderness could result in more damage to resources, not less. Fire
>protection and prevention of catastrophic fire is one example, but a
>less visible one is the impacts on remaining resources, which
>inevitably suffer greater pressure too provide the products we
>consume and the recreational needs and wishes of those who can't go
>into wilderness.
>
>This is not to say wilderness is bad per se. There are places where
>it's appropriate, and I have supported some wilderness proposals. But
>to say it's the only way we can "save" Mount Hood is misleading.and
>dishonest.
>
>Mountain bikers are one casualty of this attempt to force a narrow
>belief system on the management of our public lands, but we aren't
>the only one. The people who blindly accept the mindset without
>questioning the information they are supplied are also casualties, as
>are all the lands affected, directly and indirectly, by the use of
>the wilderness designation to further the goals of Foreman and his
>followers.
>
>--mark
>
>
>




PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

Hello Mountain Bikers,

Below you will find the 6 'Letters to the Editor' in the Oregonian over the
weekend.
Now it is time for people to start writing their newspaper and set the facts
straight  and let their
opinion be known. I'll leave that part, letting your opinion be known, up to
you to figure out and send in.

The score so far in 'letters to the editor catagory': 6 - Anti mountain
bikes / 1 - Pro mountain bikes

  If you would like to write a 'Letter to the Editor, send it to:
    <mailto:letters@...> letters@...
Limit letters to 150 words or less and include your home address and daytime
number.

The last 2 letters are followed by what I wrote to them.
Please write them and give your opinion on this issue, but just make sure
facts you state are that, facts.

Has anyone within our group ever read or stated "We are allied with the
timber industry!".
It seems that 'spin' is being spread all over town. I certainly have never
said that we are
allied with them.




Bikers have switched sides

Monday, July 05, 2004

Things sure are different from the days when bicycling was seen as an
alternative to society's penchant for consumption, excessiveness and
pollution ("Standing up to ride on Mount Hood," June 28).

   <http://www.oregonlive.com/images/spacer.gif>

<http://ads.oregonlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/xml
/story/ed/edl/@StoryAd?x>

Now cyclists strap their high-tech titanium machines to sport-utility
vehicles, consuming fuel and blowing pollution to speed up to the mountains
in search of the "extreme" experience.

They are now battling senators and environmental groups alike, attempting to
prevent the establishment of more wilderness areas with the goal of
attracting more and more people to trample the trails of this once-beautiful
state.

Douglas Van Zandt of Columbia Area Mountain Biking Advocates says, "The
bottom line is we're not against protection."

But I'm thinking he means as long as you don't "protect it" from us. My, how
things have changed.

RAY TAYLOR Southeast Portland


Bikes don't belong in wild areas

Monday, July 05, 2004

If mountain bikers succeed in destroying this opportunity for expanded
wilderness on Mount Hood, there will be nothing left of the natural beauty
of the forest and the mountain for either the bikers or the
conservationists.


   <http://www.oregonlive.com/images/spacer.gif>

<http://ads.oregonlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/xml
/story/ed/edl/@StoryAd?x>

The developers are eagerly awaiting the defeat of the proposal so they can
tear apart the mountain for commercialization and profit.

I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that indicates
bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A person should hike
the trails where bikers have been and see for himself. The trails become
rutted and difficult to use for hikers. Mountain bikers frequently go off
trail, destroy the flora and cause erosion.

Surely there must be places in an urban environment where the thrill of
speed and downhill mountain biking can be accommodated without the
destruction of the wild areas of Mount Hood.

BARBARA WILSON Beaverton


Don't leave areas unprotected

Monday, July 05, 2004

Your June 28 article regarding mountain bikes in the Mount Hood National
Forest was disconcerting to me. As a board member of Bark, an organization
dedicated to the preservation of the Mount Hood National Forest, I can tell
you that commercial logging is not "diminishing."


   <http://www.oregonlive.com/images/spacer.gif>

<http://ads.oregonlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/xml
/story/ed/edl/@StoryAd?x>

More than 48 timber sales threaten this forest, many of which would degrade
forest trails for hikers and bicyclists. While designated wilderness doesn't
allow biking, leaving these areas unprotected will inevitably result in
their degradation.

The Northwest Forest Plan never stopped old growth logging, and now with the
industry-friendly Bush administration in charge, the rules have gotten even
weaker.

Understandably, some mountain bikers are concerned by Sen. Ron Wyden's
wilderness proposal, but hundreds of miles of trails have already been lost
to logging, and more may be lost this summer. Bark invites bikers and other
concerned Oregonians to learn more about threats to Mount Hood National
Forest at www.bark-out.org.

LYNN BARLOW North Portland


Mountain bikers being selfish

Monday, July 05, 2004

The mountain biking community, who publicly advocate conservation, appear to
extend their environmental affection only as far as their pedals will take
them ("Standing up to ride on Mount Hood," June 28). In other words, they
value nature not for its intrinsic qualities but for its ability to produce
navigable trails.


   <http://www.oregonlive.com/images/spacer.gif>

<http://ads.oregonlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/xml
/story/ed/edl/@StoryAd?x>

As forest users, mountain bikers should be concerned with providing
permanent protection for the most pristine areas of Mount Hood and the
Columbia River Gorge. But this is not the case. Instead, they seem to value
their own recreational needs before the needs of our diminishing forests.

Bill Monroe's March 14 article ("Study measures wildlife response to ATVs")
reported that a U.S. Forest Service study found that mountain bikers are
more disruptive to wildlife than hikers.

In their opposition to Sen. Ron Wyden's wilderness proposal, mountain bikers
are showing us their selfishness.

MATTHEW FISHER Southeast Portland


Don't bar mountain bikes

Monday, July 05, 2004

I am opposed to the law that forbids "mechanical transport" from wilderness
areas, because it includes mountain bikes ("Standing up to ride on Mount
Hood," June 28).


   <http://www.oregonlive.com/images/spacer.gif>

<http://ads.oregonlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/xml
/story/ed/edl/@StoryAd?x>

Riding mountain bikes is a skill requiring good physical conditioning and
balance, and these bikes are far less eroding to trails than any motorized
vehicles.

In fact, mountain bikes erode less than horses; I have seen many instances
of trails used by both horses and bikes, and it is the half-ton horse and
rider that has greater impact upon the land.

It would thus be fair to bar horses as well, but this would then bar
handicapped individuals from accessing wilderness areas.

As a handicapped individual, I can't carry a full backpack and have designed
a rack to allow me to load that full pack upon my bike. This law thus bars
me from enjoying camping in a wilderness area.

MARK GIRARD Portland

************************

On Sunday July 4th, Brett Lewis stated:

"Bikers, support wilderness

As a mountain biker, I was appalled to read that some mountain bike groups
are trying to derail the proposal for new wilderness areas in the Columbia
River Gorge and on Mount Hood ("Standing up to ride on Mount Hood," June
28). There are plenty of places to mountain-bike in Oregon. Anyone who has
biked, hiked or paddled through this great state's wild forests ought to be
working to preserve these places, not complaining about a few trails "lost"
to wilderness. It will be a sorry day if we lose this opportunity and years
from now I find myself biking through a clear-cut that could have been
preserved as wilderness.

BRETT LEWIS Northeast Portland"

As a member of the group of mountain bikers negotiating with the ONRC to
save the 'few trails lost to wilderness',
let  me do Brett a favor and educate him with this one fact: It is not a
'few trails'; as of today,we have identified over
131 MILES of trails that could be lost if the Lewis and Clark Wilderness
Plan goes thru as planned. More are being
added as they are catalogued and confirmed as a viable mountain bike trail.

The ONRC and a few members from CAMBA did well to identify and adjust
boundaries to help save 51 miles of
'most' of the 'most popular trails',  but their limited resources and local
knowledge did not account for the
rest.

As quoted in Columnist Steve Duin's column today, "Having an opinion without
information," says Don Jeffery, "has become a national hobby."
That is exactly what Brett Lewis has done, formed an opinion without
becoming fully informed about the
Wilderness Proposal, which at its core discriminates against mountain
bikers.

So, I hope Brett Lewis takes the time to read all the information available
AND inform himself fully before writing his next 'Letter to the Editor'.

In regards to the whole situation: As quoted from PUMP's April 14th
Submission letter to Senator Ron Wyden-

"The Portland United Mountain Pedalers (PUMP) has a vital interest in
protecting <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Oregon's parks, forests and
wilderness areas.   We share ONRC's concern about the future of Oregon's
environment and support forest preservation activities.   We are very
concerned about the discussion related to the Mt. Hood area since the
proposal being discussed may limit or eliminate mountain biking
opportunities.    We believe that mountain biking should continue to have a
positive role in outdoor recreation in Oregon and be supported by Oregon's
elected officials and government administrators.  As quoted from Senator
Wyden's March 25th, 2004 Press Release:   "Seems to me, rather than tell
people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, the
solution lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy our great
places."  This is all we ask, more opportunities, not less and equal access
for all users of this great land.   Unfortunately, the protections afforded
by Wilderness Act designation for Mt. Hood would discriminate against
mountain biking while allowing other uses such as horseback riding and even
cattle grazing.

Mountain bikers currently have access to numerous excellent biking trails
throughout the Mt. Hood National Forest.   Just because a trail is not on a
list of the 'Most Popular' trails, does not mean it is not worthy of
protecting.  Some people prefer going for a ride 'off the beaten track'.
Limiting our access to just the 'Most Popular Trails' will put even more
pressure on these trails and, as population and usage increases, they will
soon become the 'Least Popular Trails'.  For example, PUMP members 'adopted'
the 15 Mile Trail, one of the trails that may be adversely impacted by the
legislation discussed for Mt. Hood.  It is inequitable to impose a general
ban on mountain biking in Wilderness areas, but even more inequitable here
since PUMP and other mountain bike clubs have been working for several years
to improve trail conditions.   Access to these great trails should not now
be taken away from us in the spirit of preservation.  Please consider this
vital fact and arrange to grandfather access for mountain biking in whatever
legislation is proposed for Mt. Hood, or consider applying a different type
of protection designation, which has been successful in other areas of the
nation. We do look forward to working with the ONRC and all other user
groups, and clubs who enjoy this great natural resource in the Mt Hood Area.
We feel a compromise between all should easily be reached"



Roger W. Louton
235 SW Hooker St. Apt 6
Portland, OR 97201
503-916-4224

****************************

Dear Editor,

On Saturday July 3rd, Mike Gundlach wrote:

"Compromise on bike trails

Saturday, July 03, 2004

Regarding "Standing up to ride on Mount Hood" (June 28), as a mountain biker
and a believer in wilderness protection, I found it disappointing that your
article failed to mention that under the Oregon Natural Resource Council's
proposed compromise plan, mountain bikers would continue to have access to
virtually all of the most popular trails currently in use.

   <http://www.oregonlive.com/images/spacer.gif>

<http://ads.oregonlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/xml
/story/ed/edl/@StoryAd?x>

Many mountain bikers are willing to give up a few miles of trail to protect
what little is left of the Oregon "Brand" for the greater good of us all.
It's not just about mountain biking. Let's work together to find a
compromise.

MIKE GUNDLACH Southwest Portland"

Did he even read the article? It clearly states:
"Conservationists have tentatively agreed to redraw boundaries to exclude
some
of the more popular mountain bike trails from wilderness, said Erik
Fernandez of the Oregon Natural Resources Council."
So, I hope Mike Gundlach takes the time to go back and actually read the
article AND inform himself
in regards to the whole situation: As quoted from PUMP's April 14th
Submission letter to Senator Ron Wyden-

"The Portland United Mountain Pedalers (PUMP) has a vital interest in
protecting Oregon's parks, forests and wilderness areas.   We share ONRC's
concern about the future of Oregon's environment and support forest
preservation activities.   We are very concerned about the discussion
related to the Mt. Hood area since the proposal being discussed may limit or
eliminate mountain biking opportunities.    We believe that mountain biking
should continue to have a positive role in outdoor recreation in Oregon and
be supported by Oregon's elected officials and government administrators.
As quoted from Senator Wyden's March 25th, 2004 Press Release:   "Seems to
me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using
our public lands, the solution lies in providing more opportunities for them
to enjoy our great places."  This is all we ask, more opportunities, not
less and equal access for all users of this great land.   Unfortunately, the
protections afforded by Wilderness Act designation for Mt. Hood would
discriminate against mountain biking while allowing other uses such as
horseback riding and even cattle grazing.

Mountain bikers currently have access to numerous excellent biking trails
throughout the Mt. Hood National Forest.   Just because a trail is not on a
list of the 'Most Popular' trails, does not mean it is not worthy of
protecting.  Some people prefer going for a ride 'off the beaten track'.
Limiting our access to just the 'Most Popular Trails' will put even more
pressure on these trails and, as population and usage increases, they will
soon become the 'Least Popular Trails'.  For example, PUMP members 'adopted'
the 15 Mile Trail, one of the trails that may be adversely impacted by the
legislation discussed for Mt. Hood.  It is inequitable to impose a general
ban on mountain biking in Wilderness areas, but even more inequitable here
since PUMP and other mountain bike clubs have been working for several years
to improve trail conditions.   Access to these great trails should not now
be taken away from us in the spirit of preservation.  Please consider this
vital fact and arrange to grandfather access for mountain biking in whatever
legislation is proposed for Mt. Hood, or consider applying a different type
of protection designation, which has been successful in other areas of the
nation. We do look forward to working with the ONRC and all other user
groups, and clubs who enjoy this great natural resource in the Mt Hood Area.
We feel a compromise between all should easily be reached"

  Please read the attached word document, containing the complete PUMP
submission statement.

Roger W. Louton
235 SW Hooker St. Apt 6
Portland, OR 97201
503-916-4224


Roger W. Louton
Go Detroit Red Wings!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I like that last email, there has to be a middle ground sometimes, not all
the times.
Anyway the point I want to make is my non-mountain bike friends asked if I
was against the wilderness and my comment was that some the of areas were
not contiguous land, there were roads going through some wilderness
sections. Not my definition of wilderness.

Tom

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

damn straight up I'll be there though just a tad slower after surgery but don't
go thinking I'll be easy prey for all you training hard out there.

The 40-50 mile epic ride will be SATURDAY.  Free beer to anyone who smokes me! 
I'll bring maps if I remember.

Bryan the Chump




_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com

Mark,

You make a lot of good points, and ones that -- as a member of the
"environmental movement" for over 15 years -- I actually agree with
100%.  I have to take issue with the way you characterize the "movement,"
however.  You make the comparison to religious fundamentalists; not to put
too fine a point on things, but quoting Dave Foreman to explain why you
swore off environmentalism is like quoting Ralph Reed to explain why you're
no longer a Christian, or Osama bin Laden to explain why you you'll never
convert to Islam.  Fact is, there are extremists in every movement and it's
just plain dishonest to try to paint the whole movement based on what they
say.  The environmental movement is no more "extreme" today than it was 20
years ago and in many, many ways is less so.  How else to explain the
mainstream environmental groups' (and, yes, this includes the Sierra Club)
wholesale embrace of "market mechanisms" to alleviate air and water
pollution?  And as far as "extreme" figures go, many people here in Oregon
would put Andy Kerr on their top 3 list -- yet when I talked with him
several months ago, he was completely open to the prospect of trying to
work with mt. bikers on wilderness access, and even allowed that it was a
mistake to include bicycles under the category of "mechanized"
transportation under the wilderness act.

You're right that wilderness designation is not always the best
solution.  But different people have different perspectives and there is
plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.  Please don't try to
portray people who's views differ from yours as uncompromising "extremists"
-- that's exactly what an extremist would do.  It makes it very difficult
to have an intelligent discussion about these things.  There are very many
reasonable, intelligent people in the environmental movement who support
wilderness and who *don't* agree with Mr. Foreman (who was director of the
Sierra Club a *long* time ago, by the way) and Ms. Wilson.

All that being said, I second Terry's suggestion that you submit what you
wrote to the Deploregonian.  The only thing that annoys me more than people
who badmouth environmentalists are those whiners who write all sorts of
irrational crap about the impact of mt. bikes!

Cheers,
Derik




At 04:23 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:
>
>There are 2 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Today's letters, a rant
>            From: markflint@...
>       2. Re: Today's letters, a rant
>            From: "Terry" <terry.h@...>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
>    Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:14:37 -0700
>    From: markflint@...
>Subject: Today's letters, a rant
>
>The anti-mtb letters in today's Oregonian exemplify the mindset that
>turned me off to the environmental movement 15 or so years ago, after
>it had become co-opted by extremists. If you aren't in total
>agreement you are The Enemy; there is no middle ground. The responses
>to mountain bikers' concerns sound a lot like something you hear from
>religious fundamentalists who insist that you accept and embrace
>their brand of religion in its entirety, and that you are condemned
>to eternal damnation if you don't.
>
>David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra
>Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, represents this mindset
>when he makes statements such as, "We advocate biodiversity for
>biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things
>straight."
>
>Foreman also wrote:
>
>"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists
>and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land,
>halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers
>and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of
>presently settled land."
>
>Well, forgive me, but as unhappy as I am with our progress as a
>species, I'm not sure I can advocate our extinction Nor do I share
>the vision of taking tens of millions of acres of presently settled
>land and turning it back into wilderness..
>
>Wilderness advocates appear to be operating on the assumption that
>they, the supporters of wilderness, have the answer to protecting
>natural resources, and that all other methods of forest protection
>are inadequate. And of course, those of us who argue for any
>alternative to the wilderness designation are selfish, unreasonable
>consumers who want to destroy our natural resources.
>
>The letter from Barbara Wilson of Beaverton pretty much exemplified
>the "religion over science" mindset:
>
>-------
>
>I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that
>indicates bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A
>person should hike the trails where bikers have been and see for
>himself. The trails become rutted and difficult to use for hikers.
>Mountain bikers frequently go off trail, destroy the flora and cause
>erosion."
>
>--------
>
>She rejects the science and then uses anecdotal "evidence" based on
>her alleged experience.
>
>Actually there is a fair body of evidence that the impacts of
>mountain bikes are considerably less. For example, the heel strike of
>a hker's boot exerts 1,200 psi on the soil at the point of contact. A
>mountain bike tire exerts 70 psi. And while the science is fairly
>complex, employing stuff way over my head such as Chaos Theory,
>hydraulogists will tell you that erosion from a waffle boot imprint
>is greater than from a tire track. The former creates what is known
>as turbulent flow, with the water eddying in the tracks, and scouring
>soil more than in laminar flow, where it runs more or less unimpeded.
>
>The bottom line of all the research, and there is a fair body of it
>already, with more coming out, is that type of use is far less a
>factor than volume of use. To point to one user group and say "They
>are the problem," is flat-out wrong.
>
>What bothers me the most about this mindset is the total dismissal of
>any point of view other than that subscribed to by the wilderness
>advocates. You can quote research until you are blue in the face but
>they don't want to hear it. Wilderness is the One True Path, the
>salvation of our natural resources.
>
>Our world is a lot more complex than that. For every action there are
>consequences. The consequences of locking up a tract of land to
>access and use can be far-reaching and, and the "solution" of
>wilderness could result in more damage to resources, not less. Fire
>protection and prevention of catastrophic fire is one example, but a
>less visible one is the impacts on remaining resources, which
>inevitably suffer greater pressure too provide the products we
>consume and the recreational needs and wishes of those who can't go
>into wilderness.
>
>This is not to say wilderness is bad per se. There are places where
>it's appropriate, and I have supported some wilderness proposals. But
>to say it's the only way we can "save" Mount Hood is misleading.and
>dishonest.
>
>Mountain bikers are one casualty of this attempt to force a narrow
>belief system on the management of our public lands, but we aren't
>the only one. The people who blindly accept the mindset without
>questioning the information they are supplied are also casualties, as
>are all the lands affected, directly and indirectly, by the use of
>the wilderness designation to further the goals of Foreman and his
>followers.
>
>--mark
>
>
>

Destination Eugene and country faire next wkend. But also want to ride on
singletrack. Can someone send some cool recs for riding in and around Eugene on
Singletrack? I know DOD has done a great job with trails close to and around
Eugene.

Most of the MTB books I have covering all or parts of OR skip Eugene. If any
DOD folks are reading this, please help. Your recs for books or bike maps
covering the area would also be appreciated.

Happy Trails,

Gaye K still a tq
503-735-1945



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Perhaps you should send this along as a letter to the editor of  the
Oregroanian, er, the Boregonian, I mean the Oregonian.

-Terry

----- Original Message -----
From: <markflint@...>
To: <pumpclub@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 4:14 PM
Subject: [pumpclub] Today's letters, a rant


The anti-mtb letters in today's Oregonian exemplify the mindset that
turned me off to the environmental movement 15 or so years ago, after
it had become co-opted by extremists. If you aren't in total
agreement you are The Enemy; there is no middle ground. The responses
to mountain bikers' concerns sound a lot like something you hear from
religious fundamentalists who insist that you accept and embrace
their brand of religion in its entirety, and that you are condemned
to eternal damnation if you don't.

David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra
Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, represents this mindset
when he makes statements such as, "We advocate biodiversity for
biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things
straight."

Foreman also wrote:

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists
and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land,
halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers
and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of
presently settled land."

Well, forgive me, but as unhappy as I am with our progress as a
species, I'm not sure I can advocate our extinction Nor do I share
the vision of taking tens of millions of acres of presently settled
land and turning it back into wilderness..

Wilderness advocates appear to be operating on the assumption that
they, the supporters of wilderness, have the answer to protecting
natural resources, and that all other methods of forest protection
are inadequate. And of course, those of us who argue for any
alternative to the wilderness designation are selfish, unreasonable
consumers who want to destroy our natural resources.

The letter from Barbara Wilson of Beaverton pretty much exemplified
the "religion over science" mindset:

-------

I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that
indicates bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A
person should hike the trails where bikers have been and see for
himself. The trails become rutted and difficult to use for hikers.
Mountain bikers frequently go off trail, destroy the flora and cause
erosion."

--------

She rejects the science and then uses anecdotal "evidence" based on
her alleged experience.

Actually there is a fair body of evidence that the impacts of
mountain bikes are considerably less. For example, the heel strike of
a hker's boot exerts 1,200 psi on the soil at the point of contact. A
mountain bike tire exerts 70 psi. And while the science is fairly
complex, employing stuff way over my head such as Chaos Theory,
hydraulogists will tell you that erosion from a waffle boot imprint
is greater than from a tire track. The former creates what is known
as turbulent flow, with the water eddying in the tracks, and scouring
soil more than in laminar flow, where it runs more or less unimpeded.

The bottom line of all the research, and there is a fair body of it
already, with more coming out, is that type of use is far less a
factor than volume of use. To point to one user group and say "They
are the problem," is flat-out wrong.

What bothers me the most about this mindset is the total dismissal of
any point of view other than that subscribed to by the wilderness
advocates. You can quote research until you are blue in the face but
they don't want to hear it. Wilderness is the One True Path, the
salvation of our natural resources.

Our world is a lot more complex than that. For every action there are
consequences. The consequences of locking up a tract of land to
access and use can be far-reaching and, and the "solution" of
wilderness could result in more damage to resources, not less. Fire
protection and prevention of catastrophic fire is one example, but a
less visible one is the impacts on remaining resources, which
inevitably suffer greater pressure too provide the products we
consume and the recreational needs and wishes of those who can't go
into wilderness.

This is not to say wilderness is bad per se. There are places where
it's appropriate, and I have supported some wilderness proposals. But
to say it's the only way we can "save" Mount Hood is misleading.and
dishonest.

Mountain bikers are one casualty of this attempt to force a narrow
belief system on the management of our public lands, but we aren't
the only one. The people who blindly accept the mindset without
questioning the information they are supplied are also casualties, as
are all the lands affected, directly and indirectly, by the use of
the wilderness designation to further the goals of Foreman and his
followers.

--mark





PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org


       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
             ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Yahoo! Groups Links

   a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pumpclub/

   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   pumpclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

The anti-mtb letters in today's Oregonian exemplify the mindset that
turned me off to the environmental movement 15 or so years ago, after
it had become co-opted by extremists. If you aren't in total
agreement you are The Enemy; there is no middle ground. The responses
to mountain bikers' concerns sound a lot like something you hear from
religious fundamentalists who insist that you accept and embrace
their brand of religion in its entirety, and that you are condemned
to eternal damnation if you don't.

David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, past director of the Sierra
Club and co-founder of the Wildlands Project, represents this mindset
when he makes statements such as, "We advocate biodiversity for
biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things
straight."

Foreman also wrote:

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists
and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land,
halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers
and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of
presently settled land."

Well, forgive me, but as unhappy as I am with our progress as a
species, I'm not sure I can advocate our extinction Nor do I share
the vision of taking tens of millions of acres of presently settled
land and turning it back into wilderness..

Wilderness advocates appear to be operating on the assumption that
they, the supporters of wilderness, have the answer to protecting
natural resources, and that all other methods of forest protection
are inadequate. And of course, those of us who argue for any
alternative to the wilderness designation are selfish, unreasonable
consumers who want to destroy our natural resources.

The letter from Barbara Wilson of Beaverton pretty much exemplified
the "religion over science" mindset:

-------

I object to the statement, "There is no scientific study that
indicates bikers are more damaging to the trails than hikers." A
person should hike the trails where bikers have been and see for
himself. The trails become rutted and difficult to use for hikers.
Mountain bikers frequently go off trail, destroy the flora and cause
erosion."

--------

She rejects the science and then uses anecdotal "evidence" based on
her alleged experience.

Actually there is a fair body of evidence that the impacts of
mountain bikes are considerably less. For example, the heel strike of
a hker's boot exerts 1,200 psi on the soil at the point of contact. A
mountain bike tire exerts 70 psi. And while the science is fairly
complex, employing stuff way over my head such as Chaos Theory,
hydraulogists will tell you that erosion from a waffle boot imprint
is greater than from a tire track. The former creates what is known
as turbulent flow, with the water eddying in the tracks, and scouring
soil more than in laminar flow, where it runs more or less unimpeded.

The bottom line of all the research, and there is a fair body of it
already, with more coming out, is that type of use is far less a
factor than volume of use. To point to one user group and say "They
are the problem," is flat-out wrong.

What bothers me the most about this mindset is the total dismissal of
any point of view other than that subscribed to by the wilderness
advocates. You can quote research until you are blue in the face but
they don't want to hear it. Wilderness is the One True Path, the
salvation of our natural resources.

Our world is a lot more complex than that. For every action there are
consequences. The consequences of locking up a tract of land to
access and use can be far-reaching and, and the "solution" of
wilderness could result in more damage to resources, not less. Fire
protection and prevention of catastrophic fire is one example, but a
less visible one is the impacts on remaining resources, which
inevitably suffer greater pressure too provide the products we
consume and the recreational needs and wishes of those who can't go
into wilderness.

This is not to say wilderness is bad per se. There are places where
it's appropriate, and I have supported some wilderness proposals. But
to say it's the only way we can "save" Mount Hood is misleading.and
dishonest.

Mountain bikers are one casualty of this attempt to force a narrow
belief system on the management of our public lands, but we aren't
the only one. The people who blindly accept the mindset without
questioning the information they are supplied are also casualties, as
are all the lands affected, directly and indirectly, by the use of
the wilderness designation to further the goals of Foreman and his
followers.

--mark

Anyone heading to the coast range tomorrow (Sunday) for Gales Creek or
Rogers Camp, give me a call or email. My Explorer has a fatal bug in it so
I cannot look at the Yahoo pumpclub group messages.
Bernard 503 324 4450

-------------- Original message --------------
Well,

I WAS going to go down to Bend, but the weather is supposed to be nicer here
that there!
Anyone want to ride Falls Creek in SW Wa? Eileen says it is ripe and ready
to rock!

Gateway Transit Center 9:00 am -ish. We'll set up a carpool at that time.
We'll stop
in Stevenson afterwards for one of those yummy Steelhead sandwiches at the
Big River Grill.

I'm logging off of this e-mail address at 12:20 am, so if you need to
contact me,
try my cell 503-702-4590

It's the weekend, get out and ride in the woods!



Roger W. Louton
503-702-4590



Roger,
Count me in for Fall's Creek on Saturday.
Jim


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



PUMPClub@yahoogroups.com is the e-mail list for
Members of Portland United Mountain Pedalers.

PUMP web page:
http://www.pumpclub.org



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT






Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pumpclub/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pumpclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

How long of a trip is it from here to Falls Creek?  If it's not much
more than an hour, I'd be up for it.


rogerlouton@... wrote:

> Well,
>
> I WAS going to go down to Bend, but the weather is supposed to be
> nicer here
> that there!
> Anyone want to ride Falls Creek in SW Wa? Eileen says it is ripe and ready
> to rock!
>
> Gateway Transit Center 9:00 am -ish. We'll set up a carpool at that time.
> We'll stop
> in Stevenson afterwards for one of those yummy Steelhead sandwiches at the
> Big River Grill.
>
> I'm logging off of this e-mail address at 12:20 am, so if you need to
> contact me,
> try my cell 503-702-4590
>
> It's the weekend, get out and ride in the woods!
>
>
>
>   Roger W. Louton
>     503-702-4590
>
>