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

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:40:44 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..> .> .
..> .> .
..> .> .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.

You are LYING. That is the MAXIMUM: :the maximum probability of a flight
response was approximately 0.65 during ATV, mountain bike, and hiking activity,
and about 0.55 during horseback riding (Figure 3). Higher probabilities of
flight response occurred during ATV and mountain bike activity, in contrast to
lower probabilities observed during hiking and horseback riding"

Why do you LIE, when it is so easy to check?????
===
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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
Really? The figures quoted above (pulled from the paper you cited) do not
illustrate this.
You picked through that piece for only the information that you could use to
foster your agenda and disregarded the whole. You threw in "statistically
significant" as an afterthought upon having your pre-determined conclusion
challenged. You just came away from a conference with a basis in
"ecocriticism" yet you still do not qualify:
"Interesting critics do not simply choose ideas and authors that best fit a
pre-arranged interior cognitive décor. The purpose of subjecting texts and
authors to critical inquiry is not simply to search for authority to
buttress an argument or perspective. Criticism is not the same as
sermonizing; it must be able to entertain ideas as they are established."

At least you are amusing as you are certainly not interesting.

> ===
> 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 Sat, 2 Jul 2005 08:03:33 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> 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.
..>
..Really? The figures quoted above (pulled from the paper you cited) do not
..illustrate this.

You conveniently removed the quote that proved my point. You are just dishonest,
pure & simple.

..You picked through that piece for only the information that you could use to
..foster your agenda and disregarded the whole. You threw in "statistically
..significant" as an afterthought upon having your pre-determined conclusion
..challenged. You just came away from a conference with a basis in
.."ecocriticism" yet you still do not qualify:
.."Interesting critics do not simply choose ideas and authors that best fit a
..pre-arranged interior cognitive décor. The purpose of subjecting texts and
..authors to critical inquiry is not simply to search for authority to
..buttress an argument or perspective. Criticism is not the same as
..sermonizing; it must be able to entertain ideas as they are established."
..
..At least you are amusing as you are certainly not interesting.
..
..> ===
..> 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
..

===
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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 08:03:33 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> 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.
> .>
> .Really? The figures quoted above (pulled from the paper you cited) do not
> .illustrate this.
>
> You conveniently removed the quote that proved my point. You are just
> dishonest,
> pure & simple.

And you "conveniently" did not repost this "quote" to illustrate your point.
Eluding to the existence of something and actually showing the existence of
something are two different things. DUH!
>
> .You picked through that piece for only the information that you could use
> to
> .foster your agenda and disregarded the whole. You threw in "statistically
> .significant" as an afterthought upon having your pre-determined
> conclusion
> .challenged. You just came away from a conference with a basis in
> ."ecocriticism" yet you still do not qualify:
> ."Interesting critics do not simply choose ideas and authors that best fit
> a
> .pre-arranged interior cognitive décor. The purpose of subjecting texts
> and
> .authors to critical inquiry is not simply to search for authority to
> .buttress an argument or perspective. Criticism is not the same as
> .sermonizing; it must be able to entertain ideas as they are established."
> .
> .At least you are amusing as you are certainly not interesting.
> .
> .> ===
> .> 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
> .
>
> ===
> 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