Granny and the Booby Traps

Words Jordan Tesluk
Date Jan 8, 2015

Mountain bikers have been aware of debris strewn deliberately across trails at the bottom of Mount Fromme for years, but recently a dramatic increase has been reported. A determined pair of mountain bikers collected information that lead to the January 6th arrest of a 64-year old woman believed to be responsible for these actions. (click here for details on the story)

The most important product of this event is the contrast between reality and the stereotype of both the accused and and the the riders who were the target of this dangerous, criminal, and life-threatening trail sabotage.

Anti-Mtb ‘activists’ consistently frame bikers as dregs of society with no respect for culture, nature, or higher social sensibilities. In reality the days of renegade trail builders ignoring land-owners are relics of a time when there was no such thing as a legitimate mountain bike trail. Many modern mountain bikers cooperate with government, ride and build responsibly and endeavour to preserve the wilderness we all enjoy.

Yet here we have a 64-year old woman, the demographic that epitomizes niceness, decency, and conservative values in our society, accused of setting a trap and mischief to property. I’m talking Peek Freans (ones with the jam in the middle) and tea, hand-knit shawls and nature clubs. This is the villain pitched against the ostensibly adrenaline-addled, frog-crushing, reckless, nature-destroyers of the MTB world.

This middle-to-aging demographic that lays claim to this world we now enjoy, forms the core of anti-MTB campaigns. For many of them, nature is a place to envision Audobon portraits, contemplate the Arcadian bliss that accompanies our escape from metropolitan modernity, and a place to reflect upon nature as something external to human society; an unaltered natural landscape upon which our peaceful contemplations can be cast like poetry and paintings.

Of course, these aesthetics are socially created, no more real than the Matrix or the fake green grass outside the senior’s lawn bowling facility. The North Shore has been logged and logged again. This group conveniently forgets that the houses they occupy were also forest once while failing to acknowledge the thousands of volunteer hours mountain bikers donate to minimize the impact of our presence in the woods.

But now the veil is lifted. In this case, the kindly semi-senior citizen facade of North-Vancouver colonial dignity and decorum is revealed for what it is; a cheap plastic mask over an angry selfish and self-righteous zealot, who accepts only her own pathetic and narrow vision of an acceptable way to live, ambivalent to her impacts on other human beings.

Rest assured, this person justified her actions, convincing herself that what she did was right. These acts of sabotage NEEDED to be done to defend the purity of nature from mountain bikers. In her view this campaign exceeds the need to protect truly remote areas of wilderness or to support politically effective conservation and preservation societies. NO! She shouted. Forget the Great Bear Rainforest, the last stand takes place in North Vancouver on the trail where I take my morning walks! The moral entrepreneur drew a line in the sand, and decided despite the atrocities occurring in the Athabascan tar sands, the war against the destruction of nature begins just off the pavement, and it involves placing the lives and livelihoods of innocent members of the public at risk.

These justifications may be twisted into some new excuse during the defence process, as the perpetrator seeks to reclaim the victim status that she sought to hide behind during her efforts to paint MTBers as the enemy. We will hear of the crimes of mountain bikers, their disrespect for community and the environment, and her frustrations of dealing with local authorities that were either unwilling or unable to see the truth in her crusade.

Watch now this wretch of a human squirm in their snare, and try to wriggle wriggle out of the light that has exposed her as a menace to society. If convicted, yes, it will likely be little more than a suspended sentence, conditional sentence, maybe house arrest, and hopefully a trail ban. After all, what judge would give a 64-year old woman the max of 5 years in jail for such a crime? Jail is reserved for the indigent of society, those that fail to conform to certain social norms, those of the lower classes, certainly not the entitled, aging, and morally driven elites that are only trying to better the world.

In the meantime, those most directly affected by these acts should prepare themselves to deliver victim-impact statements on how these actions affected them. Mark the day in court on your calendars, and perhaps seek to contact the police with evidence related to this case. This can include statements about how the acts of sabotage affected their mental well-being and interfered with their ability to enjoy the trails (as they have a right to do), and perhaps even physical suffering (or bike damage, hey carbon fiber damage!$$$$$) for anyone who actually crashed as a result of her stupidity. It may be high time to seek out all those affected, and ensure they contribute their piece to the investigation in the form of corroborating evidence that documents the extent of this woman’s crimes.

After all, it is a war. For some the tools are booby-traps, a sharp saw, or a tight length of cord at neck level. For mountain bikers, the tools in this war are continued passion for the sport, the expansion of riding opportunities to all demographics, family time on the bike, volunteer hours, meetings with local government, and positivity…..and of course the occasional hidden surveillance camera.


One thing we at NSMB.com would like to stress is that this situation is an opportunity for the mountain bike community to show our true colours. I’ve seen some comments elsewhere advocating vigilantism and other behaviour that would feed the trolls who seek to bring us down. Clearly none of us condone the actions this woman is accused of but in the coming days, when her name is released, let’s endeavour as a community to practice civility and forgiveness and let the legal system run its course.  – Ed.


When you can’t trust an older lady to watch your back, who can you trust?

Comments

blackfly
0
Peter Leeds  - Jan. 29, 2015, 5:19 p.m.

Again, very well written, and I cannot find fault with the cogent points. Moreover, it seems to me that the actions are done in "their" own back yards (despite the fact I was born and raised in Lynn Valley twice as long as the Kraals have lived there, does that mean I own twice as much?) the real issues of life go unabated. Life is to short for hate, fights or anger. But clearly, some have no other way of expressing a deeper psychosis of anger, frustration and misaligned hate. I see this mentality in Monica Craver as well (not even from North Van, but Ontario, but apparently she knows better) and there is ALWAYS going to be the Monica's. the Kraals et al. Personally, I hope Mrs Kraal gets the book thrown at her as an example, and this will all stop and sabotage will be seen for what it is. Then perhaps more will think twice of being the "Steward of the Forest" when they cannot even be the stewards of their own tempered thoughts. We will see.

Reply

Wrocker
0
wrocker  - Jan. 9, 2015, 8:35 p.m.

I can't remember reading such well written and insightful discussion on this site. Keep it up!
It's rather fun, when we can have such passionate, uncensored, and generally well thought out discussion on our trail sabotage issue, meanwhile the CBC clams up at the thought of showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Thanks for keeping NSMB fresh, open, and relevant, Cam!

Reply

nat-brown
0
Nat Brown  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:52 p.m.

I think there are numerous flaws with this piece and that much of it is garbage:

The second paragraph states that the trail sabotage was life threatening. Was the sabotage really life threatening in any significant way? The trails as they are have occasionally, but rarely, claimed lives, but what is implied is literally sinister. I haven't seen anything in the media to support this and I think an opinion article is not the place to bring in new facts without going into significant detail. This conflation could lead to people who aren't particularly critical in their reading to take this at face value and spread this as fact. To be clear, was the sabotage likely intended to be life threatening or merely impede riding the trail?

From what I've read, no anti-MTB 'activist' has ever communicated anything about MTBers being dregs of society in any meaningful sense, or that MTBers lack respect for culture and whatever higher social sensibilities are. Sure, they definitely emphasise that MTBers lack respect for nature but they also clearly demonstrate to the vast majority of rational people that they have a fundamentalist view that is easily discounted on all fronts with the slightest scrutiny. They do draw attention to MTBers though, and there's just no way that we can get around the fact that with that attention, it can be seen that MTBing has some environmental impact. It's important that MTBers make clear that as a group they do lots of work to mitigate those impacts, make sustainable trails etc. and are effective at it. Nevertheless, my point is that this is also an exaggeration, which I believe was intended for emotional impact at the expense of the real situation.

The stereotypes of women of that age being nice, decent and conservative, while MTBers are adrenaline-addled, reckless nature destroyers would only be believable to someone of mental age under 12. Based on that I assume it's sarcasm, but what's the point. Do you know what women of that age have in common? They're female and they're about that age.

Does the middle to ageing demographic really form the core of the anti-MTB movement? I ask that seriously. I have no idea, but given what precedes it in this piece I wonder whether this is another assumption that could also lead readers astray. Also, does it matter what age the core of the anti-MTB movement is? That I don't ask seriously, because what does matter is what they do and why they think that way.

I do think the point being made that the forest in this area has been logged and logged, which effectively rebuts a good portion of what some anti-MTB folks say, is a good one. However, what do we know about this person? Obviously the acts were de facto anti-MTB, and I damn well hope NSMB.com (through their connection with the guys who put the cameras up etc) are VERY sure that the person being charged is actually the person who did it since they published this and yesterday's articles on the topic, but what do we know of the person's motive? I'm not saying it's justified, but does the alleged fit the profile that is put forward here? I think there's a reasonable chance of that, but after consuming a good deal of the media on this matter there has been no mention of it as fact. So it's only an assumption. Is there a chance that this person walks in the area frequently, has had occasional bad experiences with MTBers (ever seen an asshole riding a bike by chance?) and has some problems rationalising those experiences but is not motivated by nature destruction? Maybe this person has real mental issues? What do we know about this person?

'Wretch of a human,' 'menace to society,' and to suggest this is war seems ridiculous to me. Wayyyyyyy over the top, as well as being unnecessarily personal and ignorant.

I'd like to draw attention to the fact that I have made no assumptions about the author in my comment here. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he is a nice guy.

For what little it's worth, I think an article like this should really be based on facts that are publicly available, and not speculation and assumption. Look how many comments there are- this has received a lot of interest and an opinion piece should not extend beyond the facts in a way that could mislead readers. If the facts of the sabotage itself and the perpetrator are not OK to publish before this goes through the courts, the opinion article should wait too. And it could be better, but that's only my opinion.

Reply

cerealkilla_
0
jdt  - Jan. 9, 2015, 2:04 p.m.

If we stuck to such parameters, nobody would write anything found outside wikipedia. Some writing as actually creative, and some actually requires interpretations. Hyperbole, simile, and metaphor. These are common writing devices that do not flow from facts that are widely available. In this case, the criminal acts of one serve as an allegory for a wider pattern of behaviour among a broader group, and yes, liberties are taken in the telling of this tale. I make no apology for those that felt uncomfortable wandering outside the literary territory of fact books and use manuals. An article like this is in fact very clearly an opinion piece, but one that draws on societal themes and less bluntly-apparent and obvious minutia that comprise standard journalism. You can call it garbage if you like, but I suggest you are looking at it all wrong.

As for the mental health suggestions that keep coming up. Now THAT is speculation, and does a true disservice to the mentally ill. The vast majority of mentally ill do not commit crimes. If a mental health issue is apparent, that is for court-appointed psychiatrists to decide, and I scratch my head as to why people seem to think it applies here. Perhaps because it seems ludicrous and obsessive for an individual to behave in such a manner? Such behaviour can certainly flow from personality disorders, but one should note that personality disorders are not only subject to debate (people may just be crazy mean, but not necessarily crazy), and do not generally comprise a defense to criminal act.

In my opinion, the article could not wait. The media spotlight is on us and the issue now. The opportunity to recast identities and contest both the social and geographic terrain is only a short window. I realize that may seem somewhat abstract to many, but if the essence and themes of the issues I have stabbed at hold no toehold in reality, then I doubt the article would have provoked the response that it has.

Reply

nat-brown
0
Nat Brown  - Jan. 9, 2015, 9:48 p.m.

First off Jordan, I'd like to make clear that I appreciate the reply. I was quite hard on the article, which I imagine made replying in a civil fashion at least a little hard. In particular my saying that it was garbage was out of line, and I apologise for that. I think it more accurately captures my view to say that it is not worthy of serious consideration because it is an opinion based on speculation. I'm still being hard here obviously, but I'm being so because I really care for the MTB community and I think you're article damages it. That said, I imagine you also care for the MTB community, and I most certainly think you should be free to publish your views. I'm trying to provide an alternative here. So, to get in to your reply (with more brevity than what I wrote above, it's friday night after all):

I totally disagree that if you stuck to my parameters all that would remain would be encyclopaedic. I just don't think that's logical at all. Opinions should be based on fact, unless it's fiction, which your article gets quite close to. In contrast, your comment elsewhere here seems totally on point to me- obvious where you take license, and where you don't. Maybe I'm slow. I also disagree that hyperbole when employed with such a heavy hand is really that appropriate here. This is an inflammatory issue and there are number boneheaded comments about this news and I think this fuels the fire. We don't need a war, we need peace. (I get the metaphor thing, haha.)

Absolutely the metal health point I made is speculation. That has to be clear though, it was part of a partial list of speculations I made about the perpetrator because I don't know anything about him or her. I say him or her because the woman arrested hasn't been found guilty yet. Anyway, only an idiot would pick one thing out of a list of options and take it as fact while excluding the others. (I'm not suggesting you did this. You probably just shot from the hip.)

I guess our opinions differ on the timing of your article, but I'm fine with that. I think it's more important to be fair and just in the glow of the spotlight, and all I hope by writing these comments is that people consider an alternative, just as they should consider yours.

Feel free to just tell me to f. off, but you hardly addressed any of the specific points in my original comment. I think they were pretty straightforward, and significant. Especially the first one- was the sabotage life threatening in a significant way? If the mainstream media got a hold of that and ran with it (they're prone to that sort of thing) it would be a terrible if it were not really the case.

Lastly, I feel I should give a little context to my level of passion here. A few weeks, or maybe even a couple of months ago, Mike Vandeman started commenting stuff that was just complete bunk after some article and he ended up getting blocked. I really enjoy NSMB and I understand as a private enterprise it can do as it pleases in this regard, but I was disappointed that he was blocked. I think that should be reserved for people commenting completely off topic, but as whack as his comments were, they were about MTB. So I was disappointed about that, and then your article came along like it was really about him (Monica Craver etc.) but it's actually about someone who we know nothing about.

nat-brown
0
Nat Brown  - Jan. 9, 2015, 9:48 p.m.

So much for brevity…

cerealkilla_
0
jdt  - Jan. 9, 2015, 10:20 p.m.

No offence taken Nat. I appreciate your articulate response, and the drive behind your points. The exact right way forward for MTB has to be negotiated among a plethora of competing views; all with degrees of validity, and many with distinctly different concepts of how to reach the same point. No doubt, you and I have similar objectives. I think the foil you provide to my article is an excellent conscience to this type of writing, and I should more clearly laud your input.

I am not surprised Vandeman was blocked considering he has proven himself dangerous to others. The "life threatening" part is certainly subjective. And yes, we only know a little about the accused. However, for me it is formed the pivot-point for disputing both the civility of those that oppose MTB, and contesting the images they repeatedly seek to cast upon us. My goal is to offer a piece that subverts meaning. This cannot be done gently in my opinion; it must turn things inside out with all the assumptions that go with it. So, in return, I appreciate your reply more so than any person that complimented the article or gave me a "fuck yeah". The whole purpose is to contest meaning and ideas. That I elicited such thoughtful engagement from you makes me happy. Your feedback was far far better than that I which I got from the anti-MTB rally 🙂

nat-brown
0
Nat Brown  - Jan. 10, 2015, 7:16 a.m.

I appreciate your thoughtful response and the compliments, thanks. I should also say that I didn't really consider the potential for violence by having Vandeman shooting off dumb shit in the comments. That's seems much more reasonable to me. Have a good weekend.

mojosbc
0
X Marksthe Spot  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:27 p.m.

I'm not offended. I turn 67 this year, spent 809 hours in 2014 building trails up the coast, so screw your demographics.

Reply

rvoi
0
rvoi  - Jan. 8, 2015, 8:31 p.m.

Booby?

Reply

demoman-cole
0
demoman cole  - Jan. 8, 2015, 5:43 p.m.

Honestly how severe have these "booby-traps" of her's been as of recent?
I get the need to rant about it, but honestly it doesn't matter what age, etc, it is the person regardless that is out of the picture now.
Go ride your bike 🙂

Reply

john-utah
0
John Utah  - Jan. 13, 2015, 8:22 p.m.

From conversations I have had on another site, People were in fact injured one fairly seriously. The person did not not booby traps were being set. So after the accident (broken bones , it was never thought to look why they crashed the impetus was just to get them out and to help.

Reply

ky000
0
ky000  - Jan. 8, 2015, 3:19 p.m.

is there actually steel wire traps placed on trails ?

Reply

cerealkilla_
0
jdt  - Jan. 8, 2015, 2:52 p.m.

I knew this would happen. I woke up this morning to find my house pelted with jarred prunes, and had to fight through an sea of waving canes and medi- walkers to reach my car, only to find a soiled adult under-garment plastered to my windshield……sigh……but I digress. Yes, it is indeed meant as satire, but at the same time as social commentary on the incongruence between action and image . And no, it is not meant to reify certain age groups as being inclined one way or another. It is targeted specifically as people that use purport one image, but engage in behaviours that bely their true nature. It is targeted at that specific sub-section of the anti-MTB rally that trumpet a specific brand of moral superiority. If anything, the older riders in the MTB community and the widening inclusiveness of our sport reveal the sterotypes as a lie. The stereotype is used because it is false (thus the satire).
There are no politics driving this. The tar sands and rainforest are devices in the story, to highlight the hypocrisy and pettiness of claiming to be defending nature by attaching legitimacy to only your own narrow vision of what comprises acceptable recreating. However, if you ask me, yes, I am dead against the way the tar sands are currently being developed, and I have many opinions about the way society interacts with nature.

Now to punishment. If the person is found to be guilty as charged, what would I like to see. Jail time? No, absolutely not. Incarceration is seldom helpful in improving people or changing behaviour. I would however suggest a temporary trail ban, coupled with volunteer time. However, not trail building, how about volunteer time at a care center for people with spinal injuries or for the Rick Hansen institute or something. For people to truly understand the consequences of their action, let them be confronted with the real potential impacts, and not the angry mob.

Reply

nat-brown
0
Nat Brown  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:56 p.m.

Ha! I knew it. You are a nice guy.

Reply

nutsnhoney
0
mel  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:38 a.m.

Just curious…when you say:
"Rest assured, this person justified her actions, convincing herself that what she did was right. These acts of sabotage NEEDED to be done to defend the purity of nature from mountain bikers."
I have heard that there may be some mental health issues going on…not excusing the behaviour just wondering where people are getting their info cause i can't find any!

Reply

reformed-roadie
0
reformed roadie  - Jan. 8, 2015, 8:40 a.m.

Kill it with fire!

Reply

kahuna3
0
Kahuna3  - Jan. 8, 2015, 8:05 a.m.

Hmmm …. As a very active, 63 year old MTBer I'm feeling more than a little stereotyped by the statement - "This middle-to-aging demographic that lays claim to this world we now enjoy, forms the core of anti-MTB campaigns".

The fact that this woman is 64 years old is irrelevant. Be careful with ageism comments and stereotyping, they are prejudicial. It might be hard to imagine right now but someday you will be in that age group and hopefully, you will still be actively shredding the shore.

Reply

drewm
0
DrewM  - Jan. 8, 2015, 9:26 a.m.

Ageism : Nothing like being prejudiced against your future self!

I read it as tongue-in-cheek with a great deal of comedic/satirical licence, and I'm all but certain that Jordan meant to get a few laughs not to offend anyone (beyond that licence). Je Suis Charlie etc.

Reply

drewm
0
DrewM  - Jan. 8, 2015, 9:33 a.m.

Oh, and "Live Like Vic." I hope to actively be shredding the shore in my mid- 70s. 63 is young; ride bikes every day and call us in a decade!

cam@nsmb.com
0
Cam McRae  - Jan. 8, 2015, 9:39 a.m.

Several others have picked up this thread similarly, so obviously this should have been made more clear. As editor of this piece I'll take responsibility for that.

I believe Jordan's point was to contrast our societal perceptions with the reality of this story, not to malign older people. At 49 I'm not young enough to be this woman's son but as I've gotten older I hope I have become more respectful of others, more aware of how my actions may impact them. Add this to our perception of women of that age tending to nurture rather than destroy and we have a story that turns stereotypes inside out. The older woman taking actions to injure those who participate in a sport whose participants are skewed heavily toward the young male demographic; the very group that is blamed for much of the recklessness and bad behaviour in our world.

Reply

john-utah
0
John Utah  - Jan. 8, 2015, 5:31 p.m.

Copied this from PB

" moaty
I've seen plenty of branches laid across the Skull and Dirt Diggler trails in the past but just hopped over them. However, I just realised I might have been one of her victims. I cant say for sure as it was all a bit of a blur, but last July I had a really messy crash on the steepest pitch Diggler after my front wheel was knocked off line by a diagonal branch or root. I was lucky to get away with just a dislocated and badly messed up shoulder and I'm still recovering not. I fell a long way and landed on dirt, but it could have been so much worse if I'd hit one of the trees which line the trail."

cleansooke
0
cleanSooke  - Jan. 8, 2015, 9:58 a.m.

I didn't see it as ageism, I think he was talking about how the perception of the "typical" 64 y/o woman is (tea and crumpets) and what you actually see at council meetings…the ones who are against mtb in "their" backyards DO tend to be the late middle age woman intent on keeping their "pristine" 3rd growth forest from the yelps and hoots of the young aggressive mtbers. Which yes, is another stereotypical blunder (most mtbers I know are well into their 40's).

I think what must be taken from this article when it comes to age is that indeed, BECAUSE she is 64 (which isn't that old thanks to modern medicine and hygiene) she won't get near to the same sentence as someone who is in their 20's or 30's would get. Or even a man in their 60's would get. Be rest assured this woman will not get anywhere near the sentence another younger or less female demographic will get. Regardless that her actions could have caused the same harm, crippling or death that any other age or sex doing the same thing would do and THAT is ageism at it's worst.

Reply

mammal
0
Mammal  - Jan. 8, 2015, 7:59 a.m.

This, and Sebs candy bar awards are the 2 best mtb articles I've read in months.

Great take on this important situation guys!

Reply

jimmybella
0
Jimmybella  - Jan. 8, 2015, 7:53 a.m.

Why is her name not published? Names are always published even for minor things.

Reply

cam@nsmb.com
0
Cam McRae  - Jan. 8, 2015, 9:33 a.m.

I believe this is because charges are pending and have not yet been formally laid.

Reply

david
0
David  - Jan. 8, 2015, 7:47 a.m.

please release the video footage
🙂

Reply

pete@nsmb.com
0
Pete Roggeman  - Jan. 8, 2015, 12:38 p.m.

We'd love to, however I doubt it'll ever see the light of day. At the very least, for now it'll be kept as evidence in case this goes to trial, though it's likely that won't happen.

Reply

Myk
0
MAS  - Jan. 8, 2015, 7:44 a.m.

Good read until you injected your own personal politics into it
"…decided despite the atrocities occurring in the Athabascan tar sands…"
unfortunately that taints your article as a personal soapbox on various completely unrelated issues.

My preference . .. . keep your personal politics out of my mountain biking.

Reply

jbaz
0
JBaz  - Jan. 8, 2015, 8:48 a.m.

Nope. Nope. Nope. No Environmental atrocities here folks. That's just 'personal politics'. Everyone know that plants and animals are thriving in the patch.

Reply

rjc
0
RJC  - Jan. 8, 2015, 8:44 p.m.

Wow….I guess the .008% of the Canadian edge Boreal forest that is actually effected by the surface mining that takes place in the Canadian Oilsands is so much more biologically important and species dense than the 8% of the Coastal Rainforest and 60% of the interior softwood forest effected by forestry, agriculture and densification it justifies inclusion in this completely unrelated piece.

Please keep your factually questionable political views to articles actually related to that debate.

I have supported and subscribed to NSMB because of the restrain shown by most of the writers and posters on this site but it seems inevitable that this rhetoric is gonna' crop up, please don't.

susan
0
Susan  - Jan. 9, 2015, 7:13 a.m.

Yeah, the last thing mountain bikers should be concerned with is preventing runaway global warming, because it will only mean the end of everything.

Everything. Don't bother with your children's concerns, eh?

Instead of focusing on shifting to renewable sources of energy, lets just pretend that fracking and the ecologically suicidal tar sands projects are simply good for the energy companies that have destroyed our future and therefore should never be cruticised.

nat-brown
0
Nat Brown  - Jan. 9, 2015, 8:09 a.m.

Not everything, sorry. Human kind and numerous other species will be profoundly affected, but far from everything. I'm not denying the significance of this to contemporary society, it's that this statement is wrong.

Myk
0
MAS  - Jan. 10, 2015, 5 p.m.

Hyperbolic nonsense like "runaway global warming" and "ecologically suicidal tar sands" makes people tune out. They are as credible as the nonsense a few years ago about the himilayan glaciers melting within 20 years.

A message should be believeable, otherwise people tune out.

cam@nsmb.com
0
Cam McRae  - Jan. 8, 2015, 9:47 a.m.

It would have been possible to whitewash this piece MAS but we aren't that kind of publication. This was an opinion piece which is impossible to write without 'your own personal politics'. I know other media outlets would have stripped that because it might have offended some people - but that is cowardly in our view.

And what you are really saying is that you'd like to keep the 'personal politics' you disagree with out of your mountain biking. The rest of the piece is full of opinions but you had no issue with those.

Thanks for expressing your opinion. I'm certainly glad you did, but we will never be content to only publish stories our entire audience is going to agree with.

Reply

Myk
0
MAS  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:19 a.m.

No, it has nothing to do with what I believe in, just a very odd bit that distracts from your piece. It's an interesting commentary that would may benefit from sticking to the point, less rambling. For example, why not inject some tax policy into it? Well, you would not because it is irrelevant, even though we all pay taxes.

I support people saying anything they please, so long as it is not offensive. I just don't see how this commentary benefits from linking her actions to the oil sands. Regardless, an interesting read it is.

jimithng23
0
jimithng23  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:41 a.m.

"I support people saying anything they please, so long as it is not offensive."

Sorry man, can't have your cake and eat it too.

cam@nsmb.com
0
Cam McRae  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:52 a.m.

To be clear Mas, I didn't write the piece.
Whether you agree with oil sands extraction or not, there is no debating the massive environmental impact of this activity, which the writer has included to contrast the impact of our tires on a few trails in a very small area next to a huge metropolis, further revealing the absurdity of this woman's alleged actions.

Myk
0
MAS  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:58 a.m.

Thanks for the clarification, in my mind you did. Good point, I do like the civility on this board!

jbaz
0
JBaz  - Jan. 8, 2015, 11:55 a.m.

"I support people saying anything they please, so long as it is not offensive"…. to me.

rjc
0
RJC  - Jan. 8, 2015, 8:46 p.m.

Facts to support this please…

Myk
0
MAS  - Jan. 10, 2015, 5:07 p.m.

I simplified for the purpose of this board, but, one cannot extend freedom of speech to slander or where ir causes harm. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not expression of freedom of speech, nor would it be if I falsely accused you of getting it on with animals. I can't defend those comments under the pretence of 'freedom of speech'.

The problems arise when we try to define 'hurt'. Is that physical, reputational and emotional? Does it include belief systems as well?

cleansooke
0
cleanSooke  - Jan. 8, 2015, 10:10 a.m.

How did concern for the environment become personal politics? The disdain and willful ignorance of the climate change deniers, and money over the environment are the ones that make it political. If you work in an industry that pollutes (oil production, shipping, trucking, chemical manufacturing…one of the aforementioned I belong) and don't understand you are indeed polluting and causing harm YOU are making it political. If someone tells me my industry pollutes, my only argument is it pollutes less than the alternative…but I DO pollute.

Someone pointing that FACT out is not being political but factual and it IS relevant to the argument as this lady TOO feels she is fighting the "good" fight. The author merely pointed out that doing so in an area that has been logged several times before and that her house is indeed on an area that was once pristine AND that her house prevents the forest from growing in she is the hypocrite.

My job does harm to the environment, but goods must be delivered and I need a job to live. I don't fool anyone including myself. I take it as incentive to try and mitigate that harm in other areas of my life. Even though I use lots of oil product, I push for the day when I don't use any.

Zero politics in my sentiment.

Reply

truax
0
Truax  - Jan. 8, 2015, 5:33 a.m.

Loved the article. Great perspectives and well written.
I agree with the ending comment; let's be the better person in this cause and treat this "sick" individual with forgiveness. It will only strengthen the credibility of the mountain biking community in the eyes of the non-bikers! I have to say that I don't like the use of the word war to describe what's going on here. It may spark more reactions similar to the Booby Trap Granny from either or both sides of the community.

Reply

Please log in to leave a comment.