Re: "Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."



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

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:26:09 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:04:30 GMT, Bill <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but
>>>> I know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail
>>>> like some
>>>> sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a
>>>> hiker
>>>> dragging his feet.
>>>
>>> Hikers don't drag their feet. DUH!
>>
>>I have done a lot of hiking and have seen families with over active
>>kids kicking up everything in sight or throwing it. That is more the
>>point of what I meant.
>
> I'm sule mountain bikers' kids are no different. But we are talking
> about adults. The SCIENCE proves that mountain biking does far more
> damage than hiking.


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.



>
>>Do you want 'adults only' trails? Even with adults I have seen them
>>start out with a six pack of beer for 'hydration' and return with no
>>cans packed out. It seems like you are selectively "Choosing your
>>poison.". Bill Baka
>>>
>>>> FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q.,
>>>> period. Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field.
> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:25:31 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU?
>>
>>The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the
>>evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and
>>mountain biking is about the same.
>>
>>If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it
>>deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any.
>>You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone
>>would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they
>>haven't and there isn't.
>
> I have. And most people don't care, because to them it's OBVIOUS that
> mountain biking is more harmful than hiking.


So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:

1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
trails than other users.

2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.

3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.

4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.

5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.

6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
though in some cases hikers have more impact.

7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.

8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).

Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.





> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Great story. I remember MANY years ago, Prodigy had these bulletin
>>> board things, and there was one character who always signed his name
>>> ____ so & so, PhD. It wasn't a pre-typed sig FILE; he just added it
>>> to every single post he made. He also referred often to it in his
>>> comments, even though he wasn't a computer sciences expert by any
>>> means. ("As a DOCTOR..." "you're not a DOCTOR", etc.) It was
>>> pathetically humorous, or humorously pathetic; not sure which.
>>>
>>> Sorni
>> Good for you.
>> Anything that stomps these guys ego is worth the bother. Many get the
>> Ph.D. just by showing up for school 8 years in a row after college.
>> Could it be that the parents are glad to pay tuition to get the
>> dipshit out of the house?
>
> Actually, by the time you get a Ph.D. you are most likely one of the
> humblest persons in the world because you truly know what you don't
> know. That is something that Bill Baka need never concern himself
> with. An ignoramus like him always think he knows all there is to know
> and what he doesn't know is not worth knowing.

Thanks Ed!





>
> Bill Baka is a very dark and mysterious person indeed. I think he may
> be an Australian aborigine who has somehow landed in California.
> Anyone on the newsgroup have a picture of him? I know he is ugly, but
> just how ugly - yea, that is the question!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:
>
> 1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
> trails than other users.
>
> 2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.
>
> 3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.
>
> 4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.
>
> 5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.
>
> 6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
> though in some cases hikers have more impact.
>
> 7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.
>
> 8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
> are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).
>
> Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
> bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
> fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
> there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.

Impact on trails is Mr. Vandeman's issue, not mine. My issue is that biking
on footpaths is incompatible with hiking. How so? Because it disturbs my
peace of mind and my tranquillity of soul to have a slob biker anywhere near
me when I am walking and communing with nature (God).

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> Impact on trails is Mr. Vandeman's issue, not mine. My issue is that
biking
> on footpaths is incompatible with hiking. How so? Because it disturbs my
> peace of mind and my tranquillity of soul to have a slob biker anywhere near
> me when I am walking and communing with nature (God).
>

Funny we feel the same way when we're out riding and communing with
nature, bloody slob hikers keep getting in the way.
 
On 24 Jul 2006 17:45:16 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 3 Jul 2006 22:36:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> > On 2 Jul 2006 22:06:46 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> >>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> >>> [...]
>>>> >>> >> Cross posting is not an infraction you idiot. It is done all
>>>> >>> >> the time on
>>>> >>> >> Usenet. But it should be done intelligently. I thought to
>>>> >>> >> drag some others
>>>> >>> >> from other newsgroups to ARBR with the idea of invigorating
>>>> >>> >> that newsgroup,
>>>> >>> >> but it was not to be because these other newsgroups are very
>>>> >>> >> narrowly focused on just one subject - and my home group
>>>> >>> >> (ARBR) is made up of nothing
>>>> >>> >> but Freds who do not like controversy and invective. And so
>>>> >>> >> we must get
>>>> >>> >> these threads off of ARBR and RBM where they clearly do not
>>>> >>> >> belong. What
>>>> >>> >> is
>>>> >>> >> there about this that you do not understand?
>>>> >>> >> [...]
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > Do you ever tire of saying the same old **** over and over
>>>> >>> > again ... ad
>>>> >>> > nauseum? Your posts are like a soap opera. It's easy to pick
>>>> >>> > up where
>>>> >>> > you left off because its the same old regurgitated ****, day
>>>> >>> > after day,
>>>> >>> > week after week, month after month. Get some ne material
>>>> >>> > already. - Jim McNamara
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> McNamara has now become that most pitiful and pathetic of all
>>>> >>> creatures - a
>>>> >>> stalker and a leech. He is nothing but a blood sucking parasite.
>>>> >>> Try to find
>>>> >>> a post of his where he is not sponging off the Great Ed Dolan.
>>>> >>> You will have
>>>> >>> to go back a ways and then you will find him sponging off of Tom
>>>> >>> Sherman and
>>>> >>> before him, Ed Gin. All he gains from these ventures is to pick
>>>> >>> up some of
>>>> >>> my precious vocabulary. He knows his own vocabulary is
>>>> >>> irrelevant to anything in this world.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>With almost every post you contradict yourself. You accuse me of
>>>> >>writing with a dictionary in one hand and a thesaurus in another
>>>> >>and condemn me for my vocabulary. Then, you accuse me of picking
>>>> >>up "your precious vocabulary". Then, you accuse me of a having a
>>>> >>vocabulary that is irrelevant to anything in this world. You
>>>> >>don't even make sense. Truth be told, you are an an
>>>> >>insignificant, infinitesimal speck of protoplasm irrelvant to
>>>> >>anything in the cosmos accept your precious Mikey V.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>As concerns being a stalker, leech and a sponge ... things you
>>>> >>have accused others of as well, be advised that you created your
>>>> >>own monsters. Quit your whining, already. You have only yourself
>>>> >>to blame for the "stalkers", "leeches" and "sponges" that you have
>>>> >>fallen victim of. You intentionally go trolling for fights. When
>>>> >>you encounter a tenacious, formidable adversary, and find yourself
>>>> >>hopelessly embroiled in an embarrassing no-win cyber-skirmish, in
>>>> >>desperation, you move to disencumber yourself by seeking to
>>>> >>discredit and dismiss your adversary ... labeling him or her as a
>>>> >>stalker. This thinly disguised ploy of your has failed countless
>>>> >>times. If you really want to escape your self-inflicted dilemma,
>>>> >>then turn tail, crawl on out of here. Return to the rock that you
>>>> >>slithered out from under. - Jim McNamara
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> McNamara is a sad case and should be an object lesson to us all.
>>>> >>> Never let
>>>> >>> jealousy guide you in your affairs. It is the one and only vice
>>>> >>> that gives
>>>> >>> no pleasure.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Jealousy??? You really are delusional . Knowing how I and others
>>>> >>here feel about you (Excluding Mike V, of course), how could you
>>>> >>possibly conclude that anyone would be jealous of you. Don't
>>>> >>flatter youself. What and who you are precludes the possibly to
>>>> >>ignite even so much as a flicker of envy. - Jim McNamara
>>>> >>
>>>> >>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly fawning
>>>> >>over one another in public. You two resemble a couple of closet
>>>> >>queens in heat.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yawn.
>>>
>>>Now, dont' hrt yourself with such a snappy comeback.
>>>
>>>> Mike, this is the kind of **** that goes on all the time on ARBR. I
>>>> have gotten so used to it that it is like water off a duck's back.
>>>> Truth to tell, I do not even notice it any more, but I respond to
>>>> the likes of Jimbo so he won't feel any worse than he already does.
>>>> I am just too soft hearted I know!
>>>
>>>Soft "hearted"? I think you misspelled "headed". - Jim McNamara
>>
>> Yawn.
>
>
>So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:
>
>1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
>trails than other users.
>
>2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.
>
>3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.
>
>4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.
>
>5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.
>
>6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
>though in some cases hikers have more impact.
>
>7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.
>
>8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
>are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).
>
>Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
>bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
>fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
>there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.

9. Disregard all of the above, which is nothing byt lies.

>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>> aka
>>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>> ===
>> 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
 
On 24 Jul 2006 17:46:02 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:59:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly fawning
>>>>>>over one another in public. You two resemble a couple of closet
>>>>>>queens in heat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once again, Vandy is opening wide to receive Ed. Hope you enjoy it
>>>> Ed.
>>>
>>>Are you sure you want to be indentified with Jimbo? He is a pathetic
>>>figure who at least had the guts to do battle with Ed Gin, the most
>>>notorious criminal vandal troll ever to infect ARBR. Everyone felt
>>>sorry for him because Ed Gin was such a scoundrel, but Jimbo does not
>>>know how to relate to anyone who is not a scoundrel. Hang in there
>>>Foster as I think you will soon qualify yourself. Just keep telling
>>>Jimbo that he is great and you will be OK, but the minute you tell him
>>>that he is not great, he will whine and carry on like a school girl.
>>>You have been warned!
>>>
>>>The one thing you both have going for you is that you are a couple of
>>>half-wits who are incapable of a good rejoinder, something that
>>>Vandeman and I do all the time on a regular basis. Jimbo and Foster,
>>>half-witted sexual innuendoes - yea, that is as good as it is ever
>>>going to get with them! Once a jarhead, always a jarhead apparently!
>>>
>>>By the way, I now believe you are lying about your Ph.D. in electrical
>>>engineering. There is just no way anyone as stupid as you could
>>>possibly have any higher degrees.
>>
>> Yes. Good catch.
>
>
>So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:
>
>1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
>trails than other users.
>
>2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.
>
>3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.
>
>4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.
>
>5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.
>
>6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
>though in some cases hikers have more impact.
>
>7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.
>
>8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers,
>are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).
>
>Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
>bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in
>fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
>there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly.

Repeasing BS doesn't make it true.
===
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 wrote:
>
> Repeasing BS doesn't make it true.


It doesn't stop you from repeating the same BS and screaming it's true.
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 24 Jul 2006 17:46:02 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:59:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly fawning
>>>>>>>over one another in public. You two resemble a couple of closet
>>>>>>>queens in heat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, Vandy is opening wide to receive Ed. Hope you enjoy it
>>>>> Ed.
>>>>
>>>>Are you sure you want to be indentified with Jimbo? He is a pathetic
>>>>figure who at least had the guts to do battle with Ed Gin, the most
>>>>notorious criminal vandal troll ever to infect ARBR. Everyone felt
>>>>sorry for him because Ed Gin was such a scoundrel, but Jimbo does not
>>>>know how to relate to anyone who is not a scoundrel. Hang in there
>>>>Foster as I think you will soon qualify yourself. Just keep telling
>>>>Jimbo that he is great and you will be OK, but the minute you tell
him
>>>>that he is not great, he will whine and carry on like a school girl.
>>>>You have been warned!
>>>>
>>>>The one thing you both have going for you is that you are a couple of
>>>>half-wits who are incapable of a good rejoinder, something that
>>>>Vandeman and I do all the time on a regular basis. Jimbo and Foster,
>>>>half-witted sexual innuendoes - yea, that is as good as it is ever
>>>>going to get with them! Once a jarhead, always a jarhead apparently!
>>>>
>>>>By the way, I now believe you are lying about your Ph.D. in
electrical
>>>>engineering. There is just no way anyone as stupid as you could
>>>>possibly have any higher degrees.
>>>
>>> Yes. Good catch.
>>
>>
>>So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:
>>
>>1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
>>trails than other users.
>>
>>2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.
>>
>>3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.
>>
>>4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.
>>
>>5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.
>>
>>6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
>>though in some cases hikers have more impact.
>>
>>7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.
>>
>>8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than
hikers,
>>are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).
>>
>>Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
>>bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and
in
>>fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
>>there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less
quickly.
>
> Repeasing BS doesn't make it true.


I agree, but I think some of what you spew is BS too. You have been
repeating that for 8 years.

I just passed thru Roosevelt National Park (RNP), to get into Rockie
Mountain National Park (RMNP). Mountain bikers (and thier associated
riders) are not allowed into either park. Both are beautiful and
pristine. I did see lots of ruts where a trail once was. Which means
that hiker caused the errosion and not the mountain bikers (who were not
there)

3 weekends ago I was up at Helen Hunt Falls near Colorado Springs, up on
High Drive. Lots of mountain bikes there. Everybody got along, there
was no more or less soil errosion then RMNP.


When was the last time you got out to the wilderness vs. going to some
made up conference where you actually didnt speek??


> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On 25 Jul 2006 18:59:51 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 24 Jul 2006 17:46:02 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:59:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly fawning
>>>>>>>>over one another in public. You two resemble a couple of closet
>>>>>>>>queens in heat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again, Vandy is opening wide to receive Ed. Hope you enjoy it
>>>>>> Ed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you sure you want to be indentified with Jimbo? He is a pathetic
>>>>>figure who at least had the guts to do battle with Ed Gin, the most
>>>>>notorious criminal vandal troll ever to infect ARBR. Everyone felt
>>>>>sorry for him because Ed Gin was such a scoundrel, but Jimbo does not
>>>>>know how to relate to anyone who is not a scoundrel. Hang in there
>>>>>Foster as I think you will soon qualify yourself. Just keep telling
>>>>>Jimbo that he is great and you will be OK, but the minute you tell
>him
>>>>>that he is not great, he will whine and carry on like a school girl.
>>>>>You have been warned!
>>>>>
>>>>>The one thing you both have going for you is that you are a couple of
>>>>>half-wits who are incapable of a good rejoinder, something that
>>>>>Vandeman and I do all the time on a regular basis. Jimbo and Foster,
>>>>>half-witted sexual innuendoes - yea, that is as good as it is ever
>>>>>going to get with them! Once a jarhead, always a jarhead apparently!
>>>>>
>>>>>By the way, I now believe you are lying about your Ph.D. in
>electrical
>>>>>engineering. There is just no way anyone as stupid as you could
>>>>>possibly have any higher degrees.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Good catch.
>>>
>>>
>>>So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:
>>>
>>>1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to
>>>trails than other users.
>>>
>>>2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.
>>>
>>>3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.
>>>
>>>4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.
>>>
>>>5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.
>>>
>>>6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
>>>though in some cases hikers have more impact.
>>>
>>>7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.
>>>
>>>8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than
>hikers,
>>>are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!).
>>>
>>>Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
>>>bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and
>in
>>>fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
>>>there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less
>quickly.
>>
>> Repeasing BS doesn't make it true.
>
>
>I agree, but I think some of what you spew is BS too. You have been
>repeating that for 8 years.
>
>I just passed thru Roosevelt National Park (RNP), to get into Rockie
>Mountain National Park (RMNP). Mountain bikers (and thier associated
>riders) are not allowed into either park.

Which you know is a bald-faced lie. Mountain bikers are allowed in ALL
parks. DUH!

Both are beautiful and
>pristine. I did see lots of ruts where a trail once was. Which means
>that hiker caused the errosion and not the mountain bikers (who were not
>there)

Or illegal mountain bikers.

>3 weekends ago I was up at Helen Hunt Falls near Colorado Springs, up on
>High Drive. Lots of mountain bikes there. Everybody got along, there
>was no more or less soil errosion then RMNP.

Irrelevant. What's important is damage PER PERSON. If you compare a
trail travelled by 100 mountain bikers with one travelled by 10,000
hikers, you can't make any useful comparison, which is what you are
doing, since you don't understand science.

>When was the last time you got out to the wilderness vs. going to some
>made up conference where you actually didnt speek??

Define "wilderness".
===
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
news:[email protected]:

> On 25 Jul 2006 18:59:51 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 24 Jul 2006 17:46:02 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:59:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly
>>>>>>>>>fawning over one another in public. You two resemble a couple
>>>>>>>>>of closet queens in heat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again, Vandy is opening wide to receive Ed. Hope you enjoy
>>>>>>> it Ed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you sure you want to be indentified with Jimbo? He is a
>>>>>>pathetic figure who at least had the guts to do battle with Ed
>>>>>>Gin, the most notorious criminal vandal troll ever to infect ARBR.
>>>>>>Everyone felt sorry for him because Ed Gin was such a scoundrel,
>>>>>>but Jimbo does not know how to relate to anyone who is not a
>>>>>>scoundrel. Hang in there Foster as I think you will soon qualify
>>>>>>yourself. Just keep telling Jimbo that he is great and you will be
>>>>>>OK, but the minute you tell
>>him
>>>>>>that he is not great, he will whine and carry on like a school
>>>>>>girl. You have been warned!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The one thing you both have going for you is that you are a couple
>>>>>>of half-wits who are incapable of a good rejoinder, something that
>>>>>>Vandeman and I do all the time on a regular basis. Jimbo and
>>>>>>Foster, half-witted sexual innuendoes - yea, that is as good as
>>>>>>it is ever going to get with them! Once a jarhead, always a
>>>>>>jarhead apparently!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>By the way, I now believe you are lying about your Ph.D. in
>>electrical
>>>>>>engineering. There is just no way anyone as stupid as you could
>>>>>>possibly have any higher degrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Good catch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:
>>>>
>>>>1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear
>>>>to trails than other users.
>>>>
>>>>2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.
>>>>
>>>>3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.
>>>>
>>>>4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.
>>>>
>>>>5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.
>>>>
>>>>6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
>>>>though in some cases hikers have more impact.
>>>>
>>>>7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.
>>>>
>>>>8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than
>>hikers,
>>>>are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV
>>>>happy!).
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
>>>>bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact,
>>>>and
>>in
>>>>fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
>>>>there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less
>>quickly.
>>>
>>> Repeasing BS doesn't make it true.
>>
>>
>>I agree, but I think some of what you spew is BS too. You have been
>>repeating that for 8 years.
>>
>>I just passed thru Roosevelt National Park (RNP), to get into Rockie
>>Mountain National Park (RMNP). Mountain bikers (and thier associated
>>riders) are not allowed into either park.
>
> Which you know is a bald-faced lie. Mountain bikers are allowed in ALL
> parks. DUH!


You are tring to play word games again. A person is not alloweed to ride
a bicycle (of any type) off road in RMNP (Better?)


>
> Both are beautiful and
>>pristine. I did see lots of ruts where a trail once was. Which means
>>that hiker caused the errosion and not the mountain bikers (who were
>>not there)
>
> Or illegal mountain bikers.


No signs of any bicycle riding (Zero!)

>
>>3 weekends ago I was up at Helen Hunt Falls near Colorado Springs, up
>>on High Drive. Lots of mountain bikes there. Everybody got along,
>>there was no more or less soil errosion then RMNP.
>
> Irrelevant. What's important is damage PER PERSON. If you compare a
> trail travelled by 100 mountain bikers with one travelled by 10,000
> hikers, you can't make any useful comparison, which is what you are
> doing, since you don't understand science.
>
>>When was the last time you got out to the wilderness vs. going to some
>>made up conference where you actually didnt speek??
>
> Define "wilderness".

Usually there is a brown sign that reads something like :


"US Dept of the Interior"

Blah Blah Wilderness Area






> ===
> 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
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 25 Jul 2006 18:59:51 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
>>>>bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and
>>in
>>>>fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
>>>>there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less
>>quickly.
>>>
>>> Repeasing BS doesn't make it true.
>>
>>
>>I agree, but I think some of what you spew is BS too. You have been
>>repeating that for 8 years.
>>
>>I just passed thru Roosevelt National Park (RNP), to get into Rockie
>>Mountain National Park (RMNP). Mountain bikers (and thier associated
>>riders) are not allowed into either park.
>
> Which you know is a bald-faced lie. Mountain bikers are allowed in ALL
> parks. DUH!

We've covered this:
MV.> .> I have NEVER recommended "the removal of the cyclists", liar, only
removal of BIKES. DUH! You guys are AMAZINGLY dense!


SC> .Again - because you don't get it. A cyclist, when walking, is a
pedestrian (or hiker). Banning bikes also bans mountain biking because the
activity of offroad cycling is what defines the action as mountain biking.


..>


MV.> Right, but banning bikes doesn't ban mountain bikers. They can WALK.
DUHHHHH!


SC .So explain what defines a "mountain biker" if (A) they can not ride the
bikes in such a manner as to be a "mountain biker" and (B) if bikes are
banned from all trails and everybody must "WALK DUHHHHH!", then what would
be defined as "mountain biking" and (C) what would ultimately define someone
as a "mountain biker" when walking side by side with other "hikers"?


MV There wouldn't be any. That would make most of the world happier.


SC ."There wouldn't be any." Your words, not mine. Proving the point that
banning "bikes" in essence bans "mountain bikers".
>
> Both are beautiful and
>>pristine. I did see lots of ruts where a trail once was. Which means
>>that hiker caused the errosion and not the mountain bikers (who were not
>>there)
>
> Or illegal mountain bikers.
>
>>3 weekends ago I was up at Helen Hunt Falls near Colorado Springs, up on
>>High Drive. Lots of mountain bikes there. Everybody got along, there
>>was no more or less soil errosion then RMNP.
>
> Irrelevant. What's important is damage PER PERSON. If you compare a
> trail travelled by 100 mountain bikers with one travelled by 10,000
> hikers, you can't make any useful comparison, which is what you are
> doing, since you don't understand science.

No. It is relevant. Your own statements make it relevant. Your own
application of your terms and variables instead of accepted terminology
makes it relevant. Your own insistence on the inclusion of "distance" makes
it relevant: "However, the greatest defect of the study and its
interpretation is that is that it doesn't consider the distance that bikers
travel. Even if we accepted their conclusions that impacts per mile are the
same, it would follow that mountain bikers have several times the impact of
hikers, since they are easily able to, and do, travel several times as far
as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or 100 miles in a day!"

>
>>When was the last time you got out to the wilderness vs. going to some
>>made up conference where you actually didnt speek??
>
> Define "wilderness".
> ===
Answer the question, Mr. Clinton.
 
On 28 Jul 2006 13:26:26 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 25 Jul 2006 18:59:51 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 24 Jul 2006 17:46:02 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:59:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly
>>>>>>>>>>fawning over one another in public. You two resemble a couple
>>>>>>>>>>of closet queens in heat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, Vandy is opening wide to receive Ed. Hope you enjoy
>>>>>>>> it Ed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you sure you want to be indentified with Jimbo? He is a
>>>>>>>pathetic figure who at least had the guts to do battle with Ed
>>>>>>>Gin, the most notorious criminal vandal troll ever to infect ARBR.
>>>>>>>Everyone felt sorry for him because Ed Gin was such a scoundrel,
>>>>>>>but Jimbo does not know how to relate to anyone who is not a
>>>>>>>scoundrel. Hang in there Foster as I think you will soon qualify
>>>>>>>yourself. Just keep telling Jimbo that he is great and you will be
>>>>>>>OK, but the minute you tell
>>>him
>>>>>>>that he is not great, he will whine and carry on like a school
>>>>>>>girl. You have been warned!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The one thing you both have going for you is that you are a couple
>>>>>>>of half-wits who are incapable of a good rejoinder, something that
>>>>>>>Vandeman and I do all the time on a regular basis. Jimbo and
>>>>>>>Foster, half-witted sexual innuendoes - yea, that is as good as
>>>>>>>it is ever going to get with them! Once a jarhead, always a
>>>>>>>jarhead apparently!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By the way, I now believe you are lying about your Ph.D. in
>>>electrical
>>>>>>>engineering. There is just no way anyone as stupid as you could
>>>>>>>possibly have any higher degrees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Good catch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear
>>>>>to trails than other users.
>>>>>
>>>>>2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>>3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear.
>>>>>
>>>>>4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage.
>>>>>
>>>>>5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates.
>>>>>
>>>>>6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals,
>>>>>though in some cases hikers have more impact.
>>>>>
>>>>>7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles.
>>>>>
>>>>>8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than
>>>hikers,
>>>>>are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV
>>>>>happy!).
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that
>>>>>bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact,
>>>>>and
>>>in
>>>>>fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to
>>>>>there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less
>>>quickly.
>>>>
>>>> Repeasing BS doesn't make it true.
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree, but I think some of what you spew is BS too. You have been
>>>repeating that for 8 years.
>>>
>>>I just passed thru Roosevelt National Park (RNP), to get into Rockie
>>>Mountain National Park (RMNP). Mountain bikers (and thier associated
>>>riders) are not allowed into either park.
>>
>> Which you know is a bald-faced lie. Mountain bikers are allowed in ALL
>> parks. DUH!
>
>
>You are tring to play word games again. A person is not alloweed to ride
>a bicycle (of any type) off road in RMNP (Better?)

So what? Mountain bikers are allowed on the trails. Only their BIKES
aren't allowed. DUH!
===
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
One More Dishonest Attempt to Justify Mountain Biking
Replies
3
Views
500
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
More Illegal Mountain Biking and Trail Construction -- When Does It Ever End?????
Replies
0
Views
718
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park
Replies
6
Views
421
Mountain Bikes
Mike Vandeman
M
M
More Serious Mountain Biking Crashes
Replies
2
Views
538
Mountain Bikes
Beej
B
S
Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking
Replies
0
Views
464
Mountain Bikes
S Curtiss
S
Top Bottom Back