Mickelson Trail E-Bike a Misdemeanor

Larry Rhoden will never be elected to another pubic office again. Way to go, Larry you're officially an idiot.

The one issue "SD tourism at all costs" now hate you. The AARP crowd now hate you. People with disabilities that can't ride traditional bikes now hate you. Pretty much all bicyclists hate you (except for the "I wear men's bicycling spandex bibs" individuals). Bicycle shops in Deadwood, Custer and along the Trail hate you. In fact, all small business owners in the Black Hills pretty much hate you.

Tourists that planned cycling trips to the Black Hills are canceling in droves.

Way to not understand the issue. Oh and by the way, vote out so-called short-lived Senator Taffy Howard for sponsoring the bill, and Representative Tim [Goodwin In The House] Goodwin as well for supporting it.

Taffy Howard Cite your sources. You are mis-informed, as usual! You need to find the "root cause" of the issue first, then make a judgment based on your years of experience on the subject. You have and did neither. I read that one day you were walking on the Mickelson and were "startled by someone coming up behind you", and that's the basis for your decision to author this bill. Man, you really stepped in it this time. Your obviously in an argument that's "over your pay-grade".

So now that the deed is done, how are you going to "police" the trail now that it will be a misdemeanor to ride a Class 2 or 3 e-bike there? Hire "Bike Cops" to patrol? Oh yeah, taxpayers hate you too.

Edit: E-bikes were my first foray into electric transportation and/or recreation. I've rode nearly the entire the Mick with my pedal bike. Then I tried an e-bike. Rode the entire trail twice.  I also started riding it to work occasionally.  Both are fulfilling, wonderful and good exercise. 

My question is this: If you are a conservationist or activist, and support green initiatives and sustainable transport (and just plain fun!), but just don't like e-bikes on the Mickelson -- then you just stepped in it.

My favorite description of e-biking to traditional cyclists is "I get the same exercise as you do, I just go twice as far!"..

David A. Shogren

AI Analysis of How the New Trump Tarrifs are Afffecting the Koch Brothers and the "Americans for Prosperity Foundation"?

Typed "How are the new Trump tarrifs afffecting the Koch Brothers and the "Americans for Prosperity Foundation"?" into the AI search engines MS Copilot and Grok3 and got some interesting responses.

AI is really dependent on the "rational subgroup" of data they use. Interestingly, many tech companies restrict their AI data set to company internal documents only, figuring that outside internet information is too biased with dot ORG misinformation to the point that it is not reliable.

Looks like some AI search engines quote their sources, some do not.

Note: The Koch Brothers own Flint Hills Resources refinery in Rosemount MN and many other petroleum-based companies. They also created the "Americans For Prosperity" organization, that is often seen at the SD and MN Capitals lobbying their respective Governors (esp. Kristi Noem when she was in office).

Peter Hall

I truly hope the dot ORG "The National Institue of Public Policy" is one of the dot ORG's that the Trump Administration eliminates. Watching the news and then reading "white papers" is okay if you have no historical perspective or opinions of your own based on personal experience. But if that is the case, you need to choose your source of reading materials wisely. People have two very different motivations for arguing on FB. Some are earnestly trying to find some truth and discuss it. I on the other hand, just want to expose "influencer-wanna-bees" that expound their half-baked ideas on the internet for personal gain or notoriety.

Insurance Fraud From the Inside: Using Value360 Estimator Software.

 All of the big insurance companies are in collusion using the valuation software "Value360".  It over inflates the cost of replacing or fixing your home, so they can justify rate increases.  

We had competitive quotes from 4 companies.  They all used Value360.  State Farm, Farm Bureau, Progressive and Farmers.  The quotes were all ridiculously high and within tens of dollars of each other.

I call it "Insurance Fraud From the Inside".

The Black Hills Forest Management

Old growth + new grown mix is good. Ever notice how the forest floor is dead in a completely old growth section?

The "progressive" trend is to want all old growth trees because tourists like big trees. Don't do a search on Google or AI. That info is all generated by a climate.org data set that is skewed to advocating old growth trees exclusively. That way when it does burn, it's catastrophic, proof of climate change. Don't believe it. It's propaganda.

Do real research. Don't believe the bogus hype.

Look at photos of the Black Hills from before the turn of the century. There were far less trees and more native prairie grass. The trees burned in great fires, but the forests were in balance because of it.

I have recently been reading some interesting books by Dan O'Brien a rancher for 30 years near Spearfish SD. The kicker is Dan is also an Author and an Endangered Species Biologist. My opinions lately have admittedly, been heavily influenced by Dan's writing.

Dan expounds on these theories base on 30 years of experimentation and observations on his own ranch in the Black Hills. He also switched from running cattle on his ranch to running native buffalo. The results were dramatic.

Allowing old growth trees to be harvested allows new growth to take it's place. The ensuing growth includes native prairie grasses (big bluestem, indian grass, switchgrass, little bluestem, sideoats grama, and blue grama) and low brush to grown, exposes bordering old growth stand to sunlight and encourages growth underneath those as well.

This undergrowth provides critical habitat for birds, small animals and young of every species. All good things.

I like to think about the fire burn area west of Custer from a fire maybe 20-years ago. That area is one of the only excellent areas to hunt native ruffed grouse in the Black Hills.

It's interesting the Lidar (airborne tree diameter) Study, conducted by the U.S. Forest Service Resource Managment group, collected data from the Black Hills Experimental Forest exclusively, nowhere else. This section of Black Hills National Forest was founded in 1908, and has been had experiments in forestry and silviculture done on it over the last 116 years or so. Not exactly a random sample or an unbiased population selection. Maybe they don't understand rational subgrouping to produced unbiased data?

I believe Dave Mertz of the Norbeck Society was a senior staff member of that Resource group at the time. Metz has a background as an intelligence officer in the US Army, then joined the US Forest Service

Geeze. Dave Mertz has been peddling this story for a few years now, all based on a costly 2012 "Airborne Lidar Survey" done by the US Forest Service, exclusively on a small "experimental" section of the Black Hills called ironically enough "The Black Hills Experimental Forest".  Note:  The 2023 LiDAR study data has not been analyzed yet, and probably won' be now until 2026.

I have personally hiked through that section of the BHNF and believe me, it is not a section of forest land that I would have selected. It's what engineers or statisticians would call a biased rational subgroup, selected to fit a pre-supposed opinion. That small area (just 0.3 % of the entire Black Hills forest region in area), has been experimented on since its inception in 1908. They intentionally selected and area whose mean tree diameter at the 4.5 foot level was less than 9" (the standard minimum for selection by the logging industry).

I believe Dave Mertz of the Norbeck Society was a senior staff member of the US Forest Service Resource group at the time they did the study. A bogus theory based on biased data.

Social Media Is Toxic Prayer

SOCIAL MEDIA IS TOXIC PRAYER

The need to always be right is toxic (probably me). 

The need to be heard can be toxic (me). 

Social media was better when it was just a way to connect with your friends (right?). 

The need to convince 71 million other people is toxic and impossibly ridiculous (me). 

Arguing with people you don't even know on Facebook is toxic (me).

And it's crazy where people are getting their news these days.  Podcasts are fun, but it's like cherry-picking your news that only fits your pre-conceived ideas and beliefs.  It makes sense, though, that people do listen to them.  Because there are no decent, unbiased journalists, reporters or new outlets anymore.  So, where are people (especially young people) supposed to go to get information? (No! Not Social Media, cringe!).

It's better to discuss things with your own little circle of friends (yes!). 

Weigh your own facts,and make up your own mind what the truth is for you.

It's better to sit around with friends discussing stuff, maybe over a cup of coffee or maybe a few beers, because you can just lean back and say "Yeah". You're probably right...". 

It's toxic to want to be an influencer (not me). 

It's toxic to want to be "liked" by everyone (not me). 

It's toxic to take Facebook polls of your friends, to see what they would do, where they would go, what they would buy (not me).

It's toxic to post your feelings on Facebook with a red background and big white capital letters (not me, that's just wrong).

Here's an activist social movement for you:  Delete all your political comments. 

Everyone's truth is based on their own experience and their own environment. Let them have their opinion.

Just my reality, not yours.  Was keeping me up at night.  Hate stuff that messes with my sleep.

I remember my Dad talking about National news on the TV and I said "I don't care about national news, never watch it".  I was like 20 years old.  He looked at me like I was crazy.  I just want to go back to THAT mindset!

David A. Shogren

r opinion.

WW3: Ukraine, Zelensky and NATO

David Shogren

Anybody recall the Lend-Lease Agreement Roosevelt made with Churchill before WW2? Roosevelt was a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist, but he knew that the American public popular opinion did not want to get into a world war. So, he resisted giving England arms or financial aid to fight Germany.   Finally, Roosevelt, in a stroke of genius, came up with the Lend-Lease Agreement. Allowing arms to be shipped to England as a "Lease" agreement. NOT free -- a lease agreement paid by Englund. That was the genius part. Placate the public while providing aid for hire (in the Ukraine case mineral rights). Then wait and see if public opinion changed. That's probably what Zelenskyy was ambiguously referring to by ..."you have a nice ocean and don't feel [it] now, but you will feel it in the future.". 

Finally, the American public's opinion shifted after Pearl Harbor. A lot of parallels here. Especially if you study history. Make no mistake, Zelensky wants WW3. So ask yourself honestly. do you want to sacrifice another 407,000 American soldiers for the Donbas region of Ukraine?

The question came up: [Marc Morrison] What's your evidence that Zelensky wants a world war?

He (Zelenskyy) wants to join NATO and pull every associated nation into the fight. That's the first step. He knows he doesn't have the resources to fight on his own. If you don't learn from history, you are destined to repeat it. Ironically, when Biden was in the white house, I asked myself if he had the wherewithal to do what Roosevelt did. The intuitive answer was a resounding no. This administration seems to have that wherewithal.

Okay, so suppose we are at the precipice of a world war. We already know China is sending arms to support Russia. Would China make a move to gain world dominance? Another Pearl Harbor? In the words of Yamamoto, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant". No, they would not. They know, like the Japanese did back then, that there are 330,000,000 American citizens armed to the teeth, who would be ready to die for Democracy and their homeland, if you wake them up.

So then the next question is, "Well what would it take to convince 71,000,000 voting Americans that Ukraine is more important than $12 carton of eggs and $300 weekly grocery bills"? The answer is this.

It is well known that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world (why do you think Biden was doing business there?). It's also probably the money laundering capital of the planet. So, before you are going to convince those 71M people to send money to Ukraine, they're going to need to know the money isn't just going to be laundered back to the DNC national convention server or to a Treasury slush fund then back to the DNC. Or, who knows where? Some Ukrainian oligarch cosplay soldier-presidents' personal bank account?

No more sending pallets of money, like Obama did to Iran so it can end up who knows where? There has to be assurances that our tax money is actually going to the cause. That's what Trump is trying to do. With Ukraine and within our country.

You have to sway public opinion. Biden didn't think he had to. The academic elite always think they know best for the unwashed masses. Remember Hillary Clintons remark "The Basket of Deplorables?. But Roosevelt knew this.  The only way to wake up and galvanize the sleeping giant is direct war on our land, or change public opinion.

Create government transparency and accountability.

If Ukraine actually has skin in the game -- the rights to Ukraine's mineral wealth -- then we're sure it's not going back into someone's pocket. Zelensky refuses.