Re: EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK



S

S Curtiss

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:43:58 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Specifically - see the thread titled "science proves that mountain biking
> .has greater impacts..."
> .He abandoned the thread when he got cornered by his own argument.
>
> Dreamer.


No... your imagination. You got caught pulling selective information while
attempting to back your OPINION. Your CONCLUSION was built on pieces of the
whole and ignored the writer's own conclusions.
Now you attempt again to qualify this same piece from 5/30/05 "science
proves...." by prefacing with your distance "OPINION". You focus on bicycles
on trails while ignoring sprawl and construction which completely destroys
the habitat. Bicycles (and their riders) enter and leave... The Wal-Mart
stays surrounded by pavement.
Every anti-mt bike post you make shows your selfish desire to go hiking the
way you want with nobody else around. You say you speak for the "wildlife"
because it is convenient and easy. Convenient because they can not speak.
Easy because it gives you a righteous platform to defend. Anyone disagrees -
they must hate wildlife. Anyone disagrees - they must be as smart. Anyone
disagrees - they must be stupid.
You hate mt bikes because, in your mind, they disrupt your experience.
Usenet is paved with over 8 years of your reposted articles, out-of-context
quotes, personal attacks, name-calling, opinion as fact, and truthless
conclusions. A search proves it. Just as it does when anyone searches the
posts in these ng of 5/30/05 titled "science proves that mountain biking has
greater impacts..."
>
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> Don't forget that this study, which shows that mountain biking has
> greater
> .> impacts than hiking and horseback riding, actually GREATLY
> UNDERESTIMATES
> .> the
> .> impacts of mountain biking, because it ignores the relative distance
> .> travelled!
> .> When mountain biking's already-significant impacts are multiplied by
> the
> .> distance travelled, the differences become even greater. The authors
> .> mentioned
> .> that they had to use THREE pairs of hikers to be able to cover the same
> .> ground
> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that mountain
> .> bikers
> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .>
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:17:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .You hate mt bikes because, in your mind, they disrupt your experience.
>
> BS. You just FABRICATED that, liar.



You know when you have him whipped, he starts using with the "L" word. His
little brain has used all it's resources.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:17:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:43:58 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Specifically - see the thread titled "science proves that mountain
> biking
> .> .has greater impacts..."
> .> .He abandoned the thread when he got cornered by his own argument.
> .>
> .> Dreamer.
> .
> .No... your imagination. You got caught pulling selective information
> while
> .attempting to back your OPINION. Your CONCLUSION was built on pieces of
> the
> .whole and ignored the writer's own conclusions.
>
> Nope, it was based on the DATA, like all good science.


The DATA shows the flight responses were only slightly different for one and
the same for the other. As I stated when you posted this on 5/30:
"Essentially, your "proof" boils down to the results stated in one
paragraph.
Everything else is an explanation of method and / or conlusions drawn from
the results.
"Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by
mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding
and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon run,
movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10
yards/minute [9 m/min])."

ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was only
slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and even with
hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of cyclists was
minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
While this may give a butterfly wing's weight to any argument you sustain
for "human free" habitat, it does not sustain your argument to remove
bicycles from existing parks, multi-use plans, fire roads, and designated
access park systems. Your arguments have been to TOTALLY remove cycling from
ALL areas. Park systems and wooded areas which allow "multi use" do not
carry the "human free" designation.
Beyond that, this study you cite does not note the initial disturbance to
the animals for being tagged and collared. That initial fright by the humans
conducting the study "tainted" any further contact because now the animals
are more wary of human presence than they were before the study was
initiated."

You then stated it was "statistically significant" without citing the
statistics you referenced.

It eventually ended on June 7 when you abandoned the thread and eventually
reposted it on 6/11:

> MV: You haven't said a single thing about it that's SPECIFIC. QED




SC: Really..? I think I've been quite specific in pointing out A: your
errors.
B: specific information from the piece referenced to show how I prove your
errors. C: Your bias by presenting only the selective information that
supports your bias.
That seems quite specific. On the other hand, your "specifics", and your
definition of the word "specific", is suspect because your "specifics" are
always only a small portion of the whole.


MV> .> 2. I tell the truth about it. You don't.
SC> .Your opinion. Pulling selective bits from the pool of information and
> .displaying them out of context for your benefit makes your truth suspect,
> .not mine.



MV> They aren't out of context. Your inability to be specific proves you are
> just mouthing inanities. You haven't even READ the study! Thanks for
> demonstrating, once again, the utter stupidity of the typical mountain
> biker.

SC: I would have to disagree. Since I pulled specific references to the data
and
conclusions from the actual piece. I must have read it in order to find
these references. The idea that I did not read it because I disagree with
your conclusion is "stupid".


SC: "He disagrees with me. He is stupid. I have a PhD so I must be correct.
Since he says I am not correct, he did not read the study becuase if he read
the study he would know that I am correct because my conclusion is the only
possible interpretation. I can't be wrong because I've spent 8 years
fighting road construction. I am smart. I am educated. They are all stupid
and I am smart. I have a PhD. I know that Mexican-Americans like Mexican
food and Chinese-Americans like Chinese food. I wrote a dissertation on it.
I have a PhD. He killed a whipsnake. I did not see it actually happen but
the snake is dead so there is no other conclusion. Mt biking bad - Michael
good. Duh."



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>
> .Now you attempt again to qualify this same piece from 5/30/05 "science
> .proves...." by prefacing with your distance "OPINION". You focus on
> bicycles
> .on trails while ignoring sprawl and construction which completely
> destroys
> .the habitat. Bicycles (and their riders) enter and leave... The Wal-Mart
> .stays surrounded by pavement.
> .Every anti-mt bike post you make shows your selfish desire to go hiking
> the
> .way you want with nobody else around. You say you speak for the
> "wildlife"
> .because it is convenient and easy. Convenient because they can not speak.
> .Easy because it gives you a righteous platform to defend. Anyone
> disagrees -
> .they must hate wildlife. Anyone disagrees - they must be as smart. Anyone
> .disagrees - they must be stupid.
> .You hate mt bikes because, in your mind, they disrupt your experience.
>
> BS. You just FABRICATED that, liar.


I came to the conclusion based on available data. Usenet has 8 years of
information to search through. Based on your statements of the past and your
behavior with people who disagree with you, I must conclude your selfish
agenda is to have bikes off of trails because you don't like to have bikes
on trails. Wildlife is your scapegoat to get your way.

>



> .Usenet is paved with over 8 years of your reposted articles,
> out-of-context
> .quotes, personal attacks, name-calling, opinion as fact, and truthless
> .conclusions. A search proves it. Just as it does when anyone searches the
> .posts in these ng of 5/30/05 titled "science proves that mountain biking
> has
> .greater impacts..."
> .>
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:_4kre.32697$iU.16165@lakeread05:

>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:43:58 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> .Specifically - see the thread titled "science proves that mountain
>> biking .has greater impacts..."
>> .He abandoned the thread when he got cornered by his own argument.
>>
>> Dreamer.

>
> No... your imagination. You got caught pulling selective information
> while attempting to back your OPINION. Your CONCLUSION was built on
> pieces of the whole and ignored the writer's own conclusions.
> Now you attempt again to qualify this same piece from 5/30/05 "science
> proves...." by prefacing with your distance "OPINION". You focus on
> bicycles on trails while ignoring sprawl and construction which
> completely destroys the habitat. Bicycles (and their riders) enter and
> leave... The Wal-Mart stays surrounded by pavement.
> Every anti-mt bike post you make shows your selfish desire to go
> hiking the way you want with nobody else around. You say you speak for
> the "wildlife" because it is convenient and easy. Convenient because
> they can not speak. Easy because it gives you a righteous platform to
> defend. Anyone disagrees - they must hate wildlife. Anyone disagrees -
> they must be as smart. Anyone disagrees - they must be stupid.
> You hate mt bikes because, in your mind, they disrupt your experience.
> Usenet is paved with over 8 years of your reposted articles,
> out-of-context quotes, personal attacks, name-calling, opinion as
> fact, and truthless conclusions. A search proves it. Just as it does
> when anyone searches the posts in these ng of 5/30/05 titled "science
> proves that mountain biking has greater impacts..."
>>
>> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> .news:[email protected]...
>> .> Don't forget that this study, which shows that mountain biking has
>> greater
>> .> impacts than hiking and horseback riding, actually GREATLY
>> UNDERESTIMATES
>> .> the
>> .> impacts of mountain biking, because it ignores the relative
>> distance .> travelled!
>> .> When mountain biking's already-significant impacts are multiplied
>> by the
>> .> distance travelled, the differences become even greater. The
>> authors .> mentioned
>> .> that they had to use THREE pairs of hikers to be able to cover the
>> same .> ground
>> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
>> mountain .> bikers
>> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
>> .>

>
>
>



Mikey got his ass kicked once again
 
"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:jqrre.32745$iU.8481@lakeread05:

>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:17:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> .
>> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> .news:[email protected]...
>> .> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:43:58 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> .>
>> .> .Specifically - see the thread titled "science proves that
>> mountain biking
>> .> .has greater impacts..."
>> .> .He abandoned the thread when he got cornered by his own argument.
>> .>
>> .> Dreamer.
>> .
>> .No... your imagination. You got caught pulling selective information
>> while
>> .attempting to back your OPINION. Your CONCLUSION was built on pieces
>> of the
>> .whole and ignored the writer's own conclusions.
>>
>> Nope, it was based on the DATA, like all good science.

>
> The DATA shows the flight responses were only slightly different for
> one and the same for the other. As I stated when you posted this on
> 5/30: "Essentially, your "proof" boils down to the results stated in
> one paragraph.
> Everything else is an explanation of method and / or conlusions drawn
> from the results.
> "Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
> were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by
> mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding
> and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon
> run, movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
> yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
> yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10
> yards/minute [9 m/min])."
>
> ATV (motorized vehicles) naturally had a higher result. Mt biking was
> only slightly higher than hiking in the AM (17 yards / 15 yards) and
> even with hiking in the PM (10 yards / 10 yards). So the "impact" of
> cyclists was minimal to nothing compared to hiking.
> While this may give a butterfly wing's weight to any argument you
> sustain for "human free" habitat, it does not sustain your argument to
> remove bicycles from existing parks, multi-use plans, fire roads, and
> designated access park systems. Your arguments have been to TOTALLY
> remove cycling from ALL areas. Park systems and wooded areas which
> allow "multi use" do not carry the "human free" designation.
> Beyond that, this study you cite does not note the initial disturbance
> to the animals for being tagged and collared. That initial fright by
> the humans conducting the study "tainted" any further contact because
> now the animals are more wary of human presence than they were before
> the study was initiated."
>
> You then stated it was "statistically significant" without citing the
> statistics you referenced.
>
> It eventually ended on June 7 when you abandoned the thread and
> eventually reposted it on 6/11:
>
>> MV: You haven't said a single thing about it that's SPECIFIC. QED

>
>
>
> SC: Really..? I think I've been quite specific in pointing out A: your
> errors.
> B: specific information from the piece referenced to show how I prove
> your errors. C: Your bias by presenting only the selective information
> that supports your bias.
> That seems quite specific. On the other hand, your "specifics", and
> your definition of the word "specific", is suspect because your
> "specifics" are always only a small portion of the whole.
>
>
> MV> .> 2. I tell the truth about it. You don't.
> SC> .Your opinion. Pulling selective bits from the pool of information
> and
>> .displaying them out of context for your benefit makes your truth
>> suspect, .not mine.

>
>
> MV> They aren't out of context. Your inability to be specific proves
> you are
>> just mouthing inanities. You haven't even READ the study! Thanks for
>> demonstrating, once again, the utter stupidity of the typical
>> mountain biker.

> SC: I would have to disagree. Since I pulled specific references to
> the data and
> conclusions from the actual piece. I must have read it in order to
> find these references. The idea that I did not read it because I
> disagree with your conclusion is "stupid".
>
>
> SC: "He disagrees with me. He is stupid. I have a PhD so I must be
> correct. Since he says I am not correct, he did not read the study
> becuase if he read the study he would know that I am correct because
> my conclusion is the only possible interpretation. I can't be wrong
> because I've spent 8 years fighting road construction. I am smart. I
> am educated. They are all stupid and I am smart. I have a PhD. I know
> that Mexican-Americans like Mexican food and Chinese-Americans like
> Chinese food. I wrote a dissertation on it. I have a PhD. He killed a
> whipsnake. I did not see it actually happen but the snake is dead so
> there is no other conclusion. Mt biking bad - Michael good. Duh."
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
>>
>> .Now you attempt again to qualify this same piece from 5/30/05
>> "science .proves...." by prefacing with your distance "OPINION". You
>> focus on bicycles
>> .on trails while ignoring sprawl and construction which completely
>> destroys
>> .the habitat. Bicycles (and their riders) enter and leave... The
>> Wal-Mart .stays surrounded by pavement.
>> .Every anti-mt bike post you make shows your selfish desire to go
>> hiking the
>> .way you want with nobody else around. You say you speak for the
>> "wildlife"
>> .because it is convenient and easy. Convenient because they can not
>> speak. .Easy because it gives you a righteous platform to defend.
>> Anyone disagrees -
>> .they must hate wildlife. Anyone disagrees - they must be as smart.
>> Anyone .disagrees - they must be stupid.
>> .You hate mt bikes because, in your mind, they disrupt your
>> experience.
>>
>> BS. You just FABRICATED that, liar.

>
> I came to the conclusion based on available data. Usenet has 8 years
> of information to search through. Based on your statements of the past
> and your behavior with people who disagree with you, I must conclude
> your selfish agenda is to have bikes off of trails because you don't
> like to have bikes on trails. Wildlife is your scapegoat to get your
> way.
>
>>

>
>
>> .Usenet is paved with over 8 years of your reposted articles,
>> out-of-context
>> .quotes, personal attacks, name-calling, opinion as fact, and
>> truthless .conclusions. A search proves it. Just as it does when
>> anyone searches the .posts in these ng of 5/30/05 titled "science
>> proves that mountain biking has
>> .greater impacts..."
>> .>

>
>
>
>


Mikey got his ass kick once again
 
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:38:02 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:17:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:43:58 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .Specifically - see the thread titled "science proves that mountain
..> biking
..> .> .has greater impacts..."
..> .> .He abandoned the thread when he got cornered by his own argument.
..> .>
..> .> Dreamer.
..> .
..> .No... your imagination. You got caught pulling selective information
..> while
..> .attempting to back your OPINION. Your CONCLUSION was built on pieces of
..> the
..> .whole and ignored the writer's own conclusions.
..>
..> Nope, it was based on the DATA, like all good science.
..
..The DATA shows the flight responses were only slightly different for one and
..the same for the other.

No, it didn't. They were statistically significantly different. Learn something
of science.

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:38:02 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:17:18 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:43:58 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .Specifically - see the thread titled "science proves that mountain
> .> biking
> .> .> .has greater impacts..."
> .> .> .He abandoned the thread when he got cornered by his own argument.
> .> .>
> .> .> Dreamer.
> .> .
> .> .No... your imagination. You got caught pulling selective information
> .> while
> .> .attempting to back your OPINION. Your CONCLUSION was built on pieces
> of
> .> the
> .> .whole and ignored the writer's own conclusions.
> .>
> .> Nope, it was based on the DATA, like all good science.
> .
> .The DATA shows the flight responses were only slightly different for one
> and
> .the same for the other.
>
> No, it didn't. They were statistically significantly different. Learn
> something
> of science.

Science? Who or what is "they"? Show these "statistics" you speak of. Show
the math that gets you these results. Otherwise, it is just talk. And "just
talk" is what you do best, isn't it?
>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 01:05:08 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Learn something of science.


Yes, learn something of science. Like: "don't cherry-pick details
from a study in order to propose actions which explicitly go against
its conclusions."

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 

Similar threads

I
Replies
0
Views
343
Mountain Bikes
Is this twip WEALLY necessawy?
I