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

[Mark]

"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:
>
cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week, and
you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned the
thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped the authors
own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form anything other
than subjective conclusions.


But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below biking
numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are estimated
at 45 million from various internet searches.

So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its from 3
hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you claim in this
paragraph, then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.

As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are responsible
for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.

And you are contributing.

I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:59:54 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."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:
..>
..cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week, and
..you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned the
..thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped the authors
..own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form anything other
..than subjective conclusions.

BS. Nothing is "chopped".

..But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below biking
..numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are estimated
..at 45 million from various internet searches.
..
..So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its from 3
..hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you claim in this
..paragraph,

Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as the distance
travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.

.. then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
..
..As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are responsible
..for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
..
..And you are contributing.
..
..I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
..
..

===
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

 

[Mark]

> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that mountain
> .bikers
> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .>
> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week,
and
> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned the
> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped the
authors
> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form anything
other
> .than subjective conclusions.
>
> BS. Nothing is "chopped".

I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own view
the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more holistic
approach is required,

I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its becoming more
obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant shout over the top of or
have no answer for, you simply ignore.

> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below biking
> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are
estimated
> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
> .
> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its from
3
> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you claim in
this
> .paragraph,
>
> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as the
distance
> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
>
> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
> .
> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are responsible
> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
> .
> .And you are contributing.
> .
> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
> .

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:48:32 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
..> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that mountain
..> .bikers
..> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
..> .>
..> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week,
..and
..> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned the
..> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped the
..authors
..> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form anything
..other
..> .than subjective conclusions.
..>
..> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
..
..I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own view
..the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more holistic
..approach is required,

Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.

..I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its becoming more
..obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant shout over the top of or
..have no answer for, you simply ignore.
..
..> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below biking
..> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are
..estimated
..> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
..> .
..> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its from
..3
..> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you claim in
..this
..> .paragraph,
..>
..> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as the
..distance
..> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
..>
..> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
..> .
..> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are responsible
..> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
..> .
..> .And you are contributing.
..> .
..> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
..> .
..
..

===
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

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:48:32 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .
> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
mountain
> .> .bikers
> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .> .>
> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week,
> .and
> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned the
> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped the
> .authors
> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form anything
> .other
> .> .than subjective conclusions.
> .>
> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
> .
> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own
view
> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
holistic
> .approach is required,
>
> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.

I see, so the data collected is relavant to your cause, but the conclusion
isnt?

I think we all see now, bigotry.You merely cherry pick data to conform to
your pre meditated conclusion.

Please explain the the below , as you actively participate in the most
environmentally harmful global activity, hiking, as suggested by your own
paragraph about numbers,and expanded on by myself, how can you critisize
others?


> .I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its becoming more
> .obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant shout over the top of
or
> .have no answer for, you simply ignore.
> .
> .> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below
biking
> .> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are
> .estimated
> .> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
> .> .
> .> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its
from
> .3
> .> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you claim
in
> .this
> .> .paragraph,
> .>
> .> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as the
> .distance
> .> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
> .>
> .> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
> .> .
> .> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
responsible
> .> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
> .> .
> .> .And you are contributing.
> .> .
> .> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.

 

[Mark]

"> .
> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
mountain
> .> .bikers
> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .> .>
> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week,
> .and
> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned the
> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped the
> .authors
> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form anything
> .other
> .> .than subjective conclusions.
> .>
> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
> .
> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own
view
> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
holistic
> .approach is required,
>
> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.
>
> .I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its becoming more
> .obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant shout over the top of
or
> .have no answer for, you simply ignore.
> .
> .> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below
biking
> .> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are
> .estimated
> .> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
> .> .
> .> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its
from
> .3
> .> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you claim
in
> .this
> .> .paragraph,
> .>
> .> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as the
> .distance
> .> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.


So, not 1.5 times , but 5 times?


5 million bikers is therfore the same as 25 million hikers then. (I will use
thses figures, but I would sure like to see your data to prove those
distances)


But, there are 45 million hikers, so globally, hiking still does 1.9 times
more damage than biking to the environment.

So, you activley take part in the most destructive activity worldwide, going
on your own figures and data, and you say we are not taking the environment
seriously?

I think the term used is hypocrite.




> .> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
> .> .
> .> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
responsible
> .> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
> .> .
> .> .And you are contributing.
> .> .
> .> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
> .> .
> .
>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:56:07 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:48:32 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
..mountain
..> .> .bikers
..> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
..> .> .>
..> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week,
..> .and
..> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned the
..> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped the
..> .authors
..> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form anything
..> .other
..> .> .than subjective conclusions.
..> .>
..> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
..> .
..> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own
..view
..> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
..holistic
..> .approach is required,
..>
..> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.
..
..I see, so the data collected is relavant to your cause, but the conclusion
..isnt?

The former is science. Opinion isn't. You should know that by now.

..I think we all see now, bigotry.You merely cherry pick data to conform to
..your pre meditated conclusion.
..
..Please explain the the below , as you actively participate in the most
..environmentally harmful global activity, hiking, as suggested by your own
..paragraph about numbers,and expanded on by myself, how can you critisize
..others?

Easy. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

..> .I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its becoming more
..> .obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant shout over the top of
..or
..> .have no answer for, you simply ignore.
..> .
..> .> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below
..biking
..> .> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are
..> .estimated
..> .> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
..> .> .
..> .> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its
..from
..> .3
..> .> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you claim
..in
..> .this
..> .> .paragraph,
..> .>
..> .> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as the
..> .distance
..> .> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
..> .>
..> .> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
..> .> .
..> .> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
..responsible
..> .> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
..> .> .
..> .> .And you are contributing.
..> .> .
..> .> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
..

===
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]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:40:56 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."> .
..> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
..mountain
..> .> .bikers
..> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
..> .> .>
..> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week,
..> .and
..> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned the
..> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped the
..> .authors
..> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form anything
..> .other
..> .> .than subjective conclusions.
..> .>
..> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
..> .
..> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own
..view
..> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
..holistic
..> .approach is required,
..>
..> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.
..>
..> .I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its becoming more
..> .obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant shout over the top of
..or
..> .have no answer for, you simply ignore.
..> .
..> .> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below
..biking
..> .> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are
..> .estimated
..> .> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
..> .> .
..> .> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its
..from
..> .3
..> .> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you claim
..in
..> .this
..> .> .paragraph,
..> .>
..> .> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as the
..> .distance
..> .> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
..
..
..So, not 1.5 times , but 5 times?

Of course.

..5 million bikers is therfore the same as 25 million hikers then. (I will use
..thses figures, but I would sure like to see your data to prove those
..distances)
..
..
..But, there are 45 million hikers, so globally, hiking still does 1.9 times
..more damage than biking to the environment.

Humans aren't responsible for others' damage, only their own. Each person does
more job as a mountain biker than as a hiker, so it is better for them to hike
than mountain bike. DUH!

..So, you activley take part in the most destructive activity worldwide,

Liar.

going
..on your own figures and data, and you say we are not taking the environment
..seriously?
..
..I think the term used is hypocrite.
..
..
..
..
..> .> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
..> .> .
..> .> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
..responsible
..> .> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
..> .> .
..> .> .And you are contributing.
..> .> .
..> .> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
..> .> .
..> .
..>
..

===
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

 

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> The former is science. Opinion isn't. You should know that by now.

And you of all people should know about selling opinion as science, hey
congratulations Mikey that means you're finally an expert at something.

Jason

The Mikey FAQ: http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32.

 

[Mark]

> .
> ."> .
> .> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
> .mountain
> .> .> .bikers
> .> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last
week,
> .> .and
> .> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned
the
> .> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped
the
> .> .authors
> .> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form
anything
> .> .other
> .> .> .than subjective conclusions.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
> .> .
> .> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own
> .view
> .> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
> .holistic
> .> .approach is required,
> .>
> .> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.
> .>
> .> .I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its becoming
more
> .> .obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant shout over the top
of
> .or
> .> .have no answer for, you simply ignore.
> .> .
> .> .> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below
> .biking
> .> .> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are
> .> .estimated
> .> .> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck,
its
> .from
> .> .3
> .> .> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you
claim
> .in
> .> .this
> .> .> .paragraph,
> .> .>
> .> .> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as
the
> .> .distance
> .> .> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
> .
> .
> .So, not 1.5 times , but 5 times?
>
> Of course.
>
> .5 million bikers is therfore the same as 25 million hikers then. (I will
use
> .thses figures, but I would sure like to see your data to prove those
> .distances)
> .
> .
> .But, there are 45 million hikers, so globally, hiking still does 1.9
times
> .more damage than biking to the environment.
>
> Humans aren't responsible for others' damage, only their own. Each person
does
> more job as a mountain biker than as a hiker, so it is better for them to
hike
> than mountain bike. DUH!

But your whole campaign is based on damage to the environment, and creating
a human free habitat.
Now you are saying none of that matters as long as everyone is hiking not
biking?

I beleive that fits the oxford english definition of bigot perfectly, thank
you for admitting it finally.

> .So, you activley take part in the most destructive activity worldwide,
>
> Liar.
explain where the figures are incorrect Mr Vanderman, they are your figures,
after all.
> going
> .on your own figures and data, and you say we are not taking the
environment
> .seriously?
> .
> .I think the term used is hypocrite.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .> .> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
> .responsible
> .> .> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .And you are contributing.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
> .> .> .

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:56:07 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:48:32 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
> .mountain
> .> .> .bikers
> .> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last
week,
> .> .and
> .> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned
the
> .> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped
the
> .> .authors
> .> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form
anything
> .> .other
> .> .> .than subjective conclusions.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
> .> .
> .> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own
> .view
> .> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
> .holistic
> .> .approach is required,
> .>
> .> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.
> .
> .I see, so the data collected is relavant to your cause, but the
conclusion
> .isnt?
>
> The former is science. Opinion isn't. You should know that by now.
>
> .I think we all see now, bigotry.You merely cherry pick data to conform to
> .your pre meditated conclusion.
> .
> .Please explain the the below , as you actively participate in the most
> .environmentally harmful global activity, hiking, as suggested by your own
> .paragraph about numbers,and expanded on by myself, how can you critisize
> .others?
>
> Easy. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I see, its not about environmental damage, its about whether that damage is
done on a bike or on foot.

Thank you for finally admitting this is about bigotry not the environment.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:27:27 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
..
..> .
..> ."> .
..> .> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
..> .mountain
..> .> .> .bikers
..> .> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last
..week,
..> .> .and
..> .> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned
..the
..> .> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped
..the
..> .> .authors
..> .> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form
..anything
..> .> .other
..> .> .> .than subjective conclusions.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
..> .> .
..> .> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own
..> .view
..> .> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
..> .holistic
..> .> .approach is required,
..> .>
..> .> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.
..> .>
..> .> .I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its becoming
..more
..> .> .obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant shout over the top
..of
..> .or
..> .> .have no answer for, you simply ignore.
..> .> .
..> .> .> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below
..> .biking
..> .> .> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers are
..> .> .estimated
..> .> .> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck,
..its
..> .from
..> .> .3
..> .> .> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you
..claim
..> .in
..> .> .this
..> .> .> .paragraph,
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual as
..the
..> .> .distance
..> .> .> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
..> .
..> .
..> .So, not 1.5 times , but 5 times?
..>
..> Of course.
..>
..> .5 million bikers is therfore the same as 25 million hikers then. (I will
..use
..> .thses figures, but I would sure like to see your data to prove those
..> .distances)
..> .
..> .
..> .But, there are 45 million hikers, so globally, hiking still does 1.9
..times
..> .more damage than biking to the environment.
..>
..> Humans aren't responsible for others' damage, only their own. Each person
..does
..> more job as a mountain biker than as a hiker, so it is better for them to
..hike
..> than mountain bike. DUH!
..
..But your whole campaign is based on damage to the environment, and creating
..a human free habitat.
..Now you are saying none of that matters as long as everyone is hiking not
..biking?

You deliberately don't listen well. A person hiking does less damage than that
same person mountain biking. This isn't rocket science.

..I beleive that fits the oxford english definition of bigot perfectly, thank
..you for admitting it finally.
..
..> .So, you activley take part in the most destructive activity worldwide,
..>
..> Liar.
..explain where the figures are incorrect Mr Vanderman, they are your figures,
..after all.
..> going
..> .on your own figures and data, and you say we are not taking the
..environment
..> .seriously?
..> .
..> .I think the term used is hypocrite.
..> .
..> .
..> .
..> .
..> .> .> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
..> .responsible
..> .> .> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .And you are contributing.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
..> .> .> .
..

===
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

 

[Mark]

"> .> .Please explain the the below , as you actively participate in the
most
> .> .environmentally harmful global activity, hiking, as suggested by your
own
> .> .paragraph about numbers,and expanded on by myself, how can you
critisize
> .> .others?
> .>
> .> Easy. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
> .
> .I see, its not about environmental damage, its about whether that damage
is
> .done on a bike or on foot.
>
> Banning mountain bikes reduces human impacts. It's as simple as that --
too
> simple for you to understand, apparently.

No it doesnt, you are advocating those people hike instead.
As we established via the wilson paper, biking and hiking have the same
probability of making an elk deer take flight, and averaged over the am/pm
3% greater distance of flight, although distance would arguably be
irrelevant here, if the anilmal moves, the impact has occurred.

As we know the probability for the animal moving was identical for bikes and
hikers (0.65, check the figures ) then the damage by moving from bikes to
walking hasnt changed. You are not trying to change the environment, merely
get rid of bikes.

You are a bigot, it is shameful that anyone would drag the name of
environemntalism through the mud , with personal insults and false science
just to try to enforce such irrational hatred of mountain bikes..


> .Thank you for finally admitting this is about bigotry not the
environment.

 

[Mark]

> .> .
> .> .
> .> .But, there are 45 million hikers, so globally, hiking still does 1.9
> .times
> .> .more damage than biking to the environment.
> .>
> .> Humans aren't responsible for others' damage, only their own. Each
person
> .does
> .> more job as a mountain biker than as a hiker, so it is better for them
to
> .hike
> .> than mountain bike. DUH!
> .
> .But your whole campaign is based on damage to the environment, and
creating
> .a human free habitat.
> .Now you are saying none of that matters as long as everyone is hiking not
> .biking?
>
> You deliberately don't listen well. A person hiking does less damage than
that
> same person mountain biking. This isn't rocket science.

But that simply isnt true. You havent yet proved that at all, in fact, the
report you cite shows that the major impact is animal flight. Of the 2
animal species, one didnt move, the other had exactly the same probability
of flight whether on bikes or on foot. In the AM they even moved the same
distance from bikes as they did the hikers,in the afternoon slightly
further.
However, if the damage done is in the flight, then once the elk deer started
running, that damage had been done, regardless of distance,and the
probability of flight (in other words, the probability of doing damage) is
IDENTICAL at 0.65 , for bikes or hikers. That is what the report says,
whichever way you try to twist it.

Again, you say you want to stop human degredation, but you are saying its ok
as long as the damage is done on foot not on bikes. You admit damage is done
hiking, but you dont care about that.

You are a bigot, nothing more, nothing less.




> .I beleive that fits the oxford english definition of bigot perfectly,
thank
> .you for admitting it finally.
> .
> .> .So, you activley take part in the most destructive activity worldwide,
> .>
> .> Liar.
> .explain where the figures are incorrect Mr Vanderman, they are your
figures,
> .after all.
> .> going
> .> .on your own figures and data, and you say we are not taking the
> .environment
> .> .seriously?
> .> .
> .> .I think the term used is hypocrite.
> .> .

 

[pmhilton]

Mark wrote:

>>
>>
>
>. . . You havent yet proved that at all, in fact, . . . .
>
>
You are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

Pete H

--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero

 

[SuperG]

Mike,
I am new to mountain biking, as an expert on the sport what bike would
you suggest I buy? The bigger the bike the better.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:29:26 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:56:07 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:48:32 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> .> .wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .
> .> .> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
> .> .mountain
> .> .> .> .bikers
> .> .> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only last
> .week,
> .> .> .and
> .> .> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned
> .the
> .> .> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped
> .the
> .> .> .authors
> .> .> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form
> .anything
> .> .> .other
> .> .> .> .than subjective conclusions.
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
> .> .> .
> .> .> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors own
> .> .view
> .> .> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
> .> .holistic
> .> .> .approach is required,
> .> .>
> .> .> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but opinion.
> .> .
> .> .I see, so the data collected is relavant to your cause, but the
> .conclusion
> .> .isnt?
> .>
> .> The former is science. Opinion isn't. You should know that by now.
> .>
> .> .I think we all see now, bigotry.You merely cherry pick data to conform to
> .> .your pre meditated conclusion.
> .> .
> .> .Please explain the the below , as you actively participate in the most
> .> .environmentally harmful global activity, hiking, as suggested by your own
> .> .paragraph about numbers,and expanded on by myself, how can you critisize
> .> .others?
> .>
> .> Easy. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
> .
> .I see, its not about environmental damage, its about whether that damage is
> .done on a bike or on foot.
>
> Banning mountain bikes reduces human impacts. It's as simple as that -- too
> simple for you to understand, apparently.
>
> .Thank you for finally admitting this is about bigotry not the environment.
> .
>
> ===
> 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

 

[Chris Foster]

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "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:
>>
> cant you find something new, we have been through this only last week,
> and you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just abandoned
> the thread and started again with the same , I note you also chopped
> the authors own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to
> form anything other than subjective conclusions.
>
>
> But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made below
> biking numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers
> are estimated at 45 million from various internet searches.
>
> So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are stuck, its
> from 3 hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you
> claim in this paragraph, then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5
> mill bikers.
>
> As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
> responsible for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
>
> And you are contributing.
>
> I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
>
>
>
>
Mikey got his ass kick once again

 

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:56:07 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:48:32 GMT, "Mark"
> <[email protected]> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
> .mountain
> .> .> .bikers
> .> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only
> last week, .> .and
> .> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just
> abandoned the .> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note
> you also chopped the .> .authors
> .> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form
> anything .> .other
> .> .> .than subjective conclusions.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
> .> .
> .> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors
> own .view
> .> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
> .holistic
> .> .approach is required,
> .>
> .> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but
> opinion. .
> .I see, so the data collected is relavant to your cause, but the
> conclusion .isnt?
>
> The former is science. Opinion isn't. You should know that by now.
>
> .I think we all see now, bigotry.You merely cherry pick data to
> conform to .your pre meditated conclusion.
> .
> .Please explain the the below , as you actively participate in the
> most .environmentally harmful global activity, hiking, as suggested by
> your own .paragraph about numbers,and expanded on by myself, how can
> you critisize .others?
>
> Easy. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
>
> .> .I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its
> becoming more .> .obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant
> shout over the top of .or
> .> .have no answer for, you simply ignore.
> .> .
> .> .> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made
> below .biking
> .> .> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers
> are .> .estimated
> .> .> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are
> stuck, its .from
> .> .3
> .> .> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you
> claim .in
> .> .this
> .> .> .paragraph,
> .> .>
> .> .> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual
> as the .> .distance
> .> .> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
> .> .>
> .> .> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
> .responsible
> .> .> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .And you are contributing.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
> .
>
> ===
> 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
>

Kikey, you still havent answered the question

 

[Chris Foster]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:40:56 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."> .
> .> .> .> as TWO groups of mountain bikers, illustrating the fact that
> .mountain
> .> .> .bikers
> .> .> .> travel much farther than hikers and horseback riders:
> .> .> .>
> .> .> .cant you find something new, we have been through this only
> last week, .> .and
> .> .> .you were completly shot down in flames, so much you just
> abandoned the .> .> .thread and started again with the same , I note
> you also chopped the .> .authors
> .> .> .own conclusion that the data was not complete enough to form
> anything .> .other
> .> .> .than subjective conclusions.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. Nothing is "chopped".
> .> .
> .> .I dont see the conclusion paragraph , stating that in the authors
> own .view
> .> .the data is insufficient, and to form a crdible conclusion a more
> .holistic
> .> .approach is required,
> .>
> .> Irrelevant. Editorializing is not science. It is nothing but
> opinion. .>
> .> .I note with interest you refuse to address the below , its
> becoming more .> .obvious th elonger you continue, anthing you cant
> shout over the top of .or
> .> .have no answer for, you simply ignore.
> .> .
> .> .> .But is interesting you turn to numbers, in a post you made
> below .biking
> .> .> .numbers are estimated at 5 million, worldwide hiking numbers
> are .> .estimated
> .> .> .at 45 million from various internet searches.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .So, if bikers are 1.5 (ill explain that figure if you are
> stuck, its .from
> .> .3
> .> .> .hikers to 2 bikers ratio) times more damaging as hikers as you
> claim .in
> .> .this
> .> .> .paragraph,
> .> .>
> .> .> Liar. They are at least as many times as damaging per individual
> as the .> .distance
> .> .> travelled, which is something like FIVE times as far as a hiker.
> .
> .
> .So, not 1.5 times , but 5 times?
>
> Of course.
>
> .5 million bikers is therfore the same as 25 million hikers then. (I
> will use .thses figures, but I would sure like to see your data to
> prove those .distances)
> .
> .
> .But, there are 45 million hikers, so globally, hiking still does 1.9
> times .more damage than biking to the environment.
>
> Humans aren't responsible for others' damage, only their own. Each
> person does more job as a mountain biker than as a hiker, so it is
> better for them to hike than mountain bike. DUH!
>
> .So, you activley take part in the most destructive activity
> worldwide,
>
> Liar.
>
> going
> .on your own figures and data, and you say we are not taking the
> environment .seriously?
> .
> .I think the term used is hypocrite.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .> .> . then 7.5million hikers do as much damage as 5 mill bikers.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .As there are 45 million hikers, by your own words, hikers are
> .responsible
> .> .> .for 6 times the damage worldwide than bikers.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .And you are contributing.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .I beleive the term you like to use is hypocrite.
> .> .> .
> .> .
> .>
> .
>
> ===
> 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
>

Mikey, please make sense

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:32:41 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."> .> .Please explain the the below , as you actively participate in the
..most
..> .> .environmentally harmful global activity, hiking, as suggested by your
..own
..> .> .paragraph about numbers,and expanded on by myself, how can you
..critisize
..> .> .others?
..> .>
..> .> Easy. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
..> .
..> .I see, its not about environmental damage, its about whether that damage
..is
..> .done on a bike or on foot.
..>
..> Banning mountain bikes reduces human impacts. It's as simple as that --
..too
..> simple for you to understand, apparently.
..
..No it doesnt, you are advocating those people hike instead.

Only if they want to. Most mountain bikers aren't interested in hiking.

..As we established via the wilson paper, biking and hiking have the same
..probability of making an elk deer take flight, and averaged over the am/pm
..3% greater distance of flight, although distance would arguably be
..irrelevant here, if the anilmal moves, the impact has occurred.
..
..As we know the probability for the animal moving was identical for bikes and
..hikers (0.65, check the figures )

That's not what the study said: the probability of moving was higher for
mountain bikers.

===
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