Oh, I have observed some signs that certain members of BFW managerial staff do read the list, even if they are not subscribed to it. Anybody can browse the bikies discussion at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/info.html I will however agree with the spirit of what Mike has said. There is a definite change in focus away from Madison and toward recreational cyclists in outlying areas. I believe this is because BFW managerial staff have taken what many recreational riders in outlying areas have been saying ("There are too many urban bicyclists in the BFW") as a call to action. If the direction of the BFW was entirely up to the managerial staff, I would anticipate the possibility that urban bicyclists would become a distinct minority in the BFW to the point that there would be no urban cyclists on the board. This is why it is absolutely crucial NOW for the urban cyclists on the board to insist that addressing urban issues and working to grow urban membership be part of the official plan for the BFW going forward. Ideally, nobody should care about making a distinction between urban and recreational cycling, and I hope the BFW managerial staff can restore my confidence in the possibility that such a distinction is not behind the direction that they seem to be inclined to take. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael D. Barrett Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] trees and bikes Pete, You are right to call for statewide bike advocacy on this, but unfortunately, you are howling into the wind. BFW's managerial staff stopped monitoring or participating on this list some months ago. -Mike _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
