Re: Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking

[Mark]

"> .> data. It's as plain as day (to everyone but mountain bikers, who are
> .> honesty-challenged).
> .How can it be obvious to everyone? the authors didnt see it obviously?
>
> They did. They deliberately distorted the facts to fit their wish to
> promote
> mountain biking.

Please show your prooof that the people you use to back up your argument are
in any way biased towards mountainbikers.
Id also like to see you xplain in detail the valid scientific reasons for
suggesting the original data interpretations are incorrect, and the arbitary
changes made after the fact by you, so that they fit with your predetermined
conclusion, are correct.

> Or
> .are you suggesting everyone in the world is biased except you?
> .You see, you keep claiming 'everyone', yet those studies are ONLY altered
> by
> .you? Why is it just you altering them if everyone agrees with you except
> .bikers?
>
> Anyone who can READ agrees with me, except mountain bikers.

Or, apparently, people who actually performed the studies in the first
place.
Or the readers of the review journals the original studies were published
in.
Or the general environmental community who it seems accept there is little
differential between hiking and mountain biking in terms of adverse impact.

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:01:26 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> .> .> .
> .> .> .This 'thesis' has never been published in an acknowledged review
> .> journal
> .> .> and
> .> .> .subsequently commented on by experts in the field of
> environmentalism.
> .> .> .Of course, I have no doubt here you are playing scemantics, as that
> is
> .> .> the
> .> .> .only argument you have left.
> .> .>
> .> .> Don't you wish!
> .> .My only 'wish' is bigoted, uneductated fools such as yourself stop
> .> .disrespecting geniuine envoronmentalists by forming psuedo scientific
> .> lies
> .> .with no basis in facts, merely changing factual data at a whim to suit
> .> your
> .> .'theary' just to try to gain some credibility for your hate campaign,
> you
> .> .have done more to harm the environmental movement , and the
> environment
> .> .itself as a consequence,with your lies and bigoted viewepoint that is
> .> taken
> .> .as sterotype for people who genuinely wish to help the planets ecology
> .> than
> .> .the whole biking population of this planet.
> .>
> .> Yawn.
> .Your capitulation is duly noted.
>
> It's spelled "capitalization". DUH!

No, its called capitulation . Please look it up in a dictionary.
If you would like me to dumb down my vocabulary for you, you only have to
ask.

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:01:26 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> .> .> .
> .> .> .This 'thesis' has never been published in an acknowledged review
> .> journal
> .> .> and
> .> .> .subsequently commented on by experts in the field of
> environmentalism.
> .> .> .Of course, I have no doubt here you are playing scemantics, as that
> is
> .> .> the
> .> .> .only argument you have left.
> .> .>
> .> .> Don't you wish!
> .> .My only 'wish' is bigoted, uneductated fools such as yourself stop
> .> .disrespecting geniuine envoronmentalists by forming psuedo scientific
> .> lies
> .> .with no basis in facts, merely changing factual data at a whim to suit
> .> your
> .> .'theary' just to try to gain some credibility for your hate campaign,
> you
> .> .have done more to harm the environmental movement , and the
> environment
> .> .itself as a consequence,with your lies and bigoted viewepoint that is
> .> taken
> .> .as sterotype for people who genuinely wish to help the planets ecology
> .> than
> .> .the whole biking population of this planet.
> .>
> .> Yawn.
> .Your capitulation is duly noted.
>
> It's spelled "capitalization". DUH!

No, its called capitulation . Please look it up in a dictionary.
If you would like me to dumb down my vocabulary for you, you only have to
ask.

 

[Jason]

* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> .> Yawn.
> .Your capitulation is duly noted.
>
> It's spelled "capitalization". DUH!

You think someone supposedly with a phd, even one in underwater basket
weaving like yours could tell the difference between capitulation and
capitalization.

Jason

 

[Chris Foster]

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

> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:01:26 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> .> .> .
> .> .> .This 'thesis' has never been published in an acknowledged
> review .> journal
> .> .> and
> .> .> .subsequently commented on by experts in the field of
> environmentalism. .> .> .Of course, I have no doubt here you are
> playing scemantics, as that is .> .> the
> .> .> .only argument you have left.
> .> .>
> .> .> Don't you wish!
> .> .My only 'wish' is bigoted, uneductated fools such as yourself stop
> .> .disrespecting geniuine envoronmentalists by forming psuedo
> scientific .> lies
> .> .with no basis in facts, merely changing factual data at a whim to
> suit .> your
> .> .'theary' just to try to gain some credibility for your hate
> campaign, you .> .have done more to harm the environmental movement ,
> and the environment .> .itself as a consequence,with your lies and
> bigoted viewepoint that is .> taken
> .> .as sterotype for people who genuinely wish to help the planets
> ecology .> than
> .> .the whole biking population of this planet.
> .>
> .> Yawn.
> .Your capitulation is duly noted.
>
> It's spelled "capitalization". DUH!


Your stupidity is duly noted



> ===
> 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]

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

> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:40:04 GMT, Chris Foster
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ."Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in
> .news:[email protected]:
> .
> .>
> .> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> news[email protected]...
> .>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:09:41 GMT, "Mark"
> <[email protected]> .>> wrote:
> .>>
> .>> .
> .>> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .>> .news:[email protected]...
> .>> .> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:18:37 -0300, Jason <[email protected]>
> .>> wrote: .>
> .>> .> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
> .>> .> .> .> No you don't, because you don't know me.
> .>> .> .> .
> .>> .> .> .
> .>> .> .> .Sure I do mike, anyone who's managed to read the dribble
> you .>> post here
> .>> .> .> .and that farce you call a webpage knows you and you are
> .>> definatly not
> .>> .> .> .the worlds formost expert on mountain biking.
> .>> .> .>
> .>> .> .> That's circular reasoning. You obviously know NOTHING.
> .>> .> .>
> .>> .> .> What's your PHD in again?
> .>> .> .
> .>> .> .I never said I had one mike, you're the one who goes on and on
> .>> about .> .having a PHD. Of course as I recall it has nothing to do
> .>> with any .> .enviromental science but of course in your mind that
> .>> doesn't matter it's
> .>> .> .the letters that do.
> .>> .> .
> .>> .> .> .What are you qualifications regarding mountain biking and
> the .>> alleged
> .>> .> .> .damage it causes?
> .>> .>
> .>> .> I'm the world expert on the subject, partly because no one else
> .>> will tell
> .>> .> the
> .>> .> truth.
> .>> .
> .>> .Then why are you not on the concultation boards of the various
> .>> national .parksi n the US, or the major land owners of the world,
> why .>> havent the .forestery commssion in the UK seek you out for
> advice, .>> seeing as they .consulted with several experts from
> different .>> countries when formulating the
> .>> .long term plans for leisure access to their land here in the UK.
> .>> .being as they have spent many millions developing the mountain
> bike .>> side of
> .>> .the leisure access, why did they have other environmental experts
> .>> over from
> .>> .the US to advise and not you? Why would they get second best Mr
> .>> vanderman?
> .>> .Because, like you haveing a web page peer reviewed its another
> lie. .>> .Of course, like most psychotics, you will keep repeating the
> same .>> thing over
> .>> .and over, because in a disturbed mind, saying something over and
> .>> over makes
> .>> .it real.
> .>> .Where are your books? Where is the study you performed and the
> data .>> you .collected , then had published to garner you with this
> title. .>> .You have never done a study though, have you? You just
> alter the .>> conclusions
> .>> .of other peoples scientific work without any just reasoning and
> .>> claim they
> .>> .then support you, when in actual fact taking the full, uncut
> .>> studies, not .one, even those on your web site, actually support
> .>> anything you say.
> .>>
> .>> Did you say something ... meaningful? ... honest? NOPE!
> .> yet you have no answer?
> .> ironic you talk about honesty in a thread where you have lied about
> .> having your 'work' published in a revioew journal, about your
> .> qualifications and about your standing in the environmental
> heirarchy. .> of course you cant answer where your books and studies
> are, because .> you havent written either.
> .> Why the people actually making desicions about the worlds land
> .> management and preservation do not contact you about the plans for
> .> furture leisure management, because that would break the 'worlds
> .> foremost expert' illusion that is so real in your head, and so,
> like .> the true psychotic, the difficult to explain away is simply
> ignored. .>
> .> carry on, keep ignoring the question, to every sane person reading
> you .> just prove me more correct with each answer.
> .>
> .>
> .>
> .He is right Mike. Your credibility is going down like a $20 *****.



As a matter of fact I do, your sister did me yesterday. I only had to
pay her $15, and she swallowed.





>
> Something I am sure you know quite a bit about....
> ===
> 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 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:23:13 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."> .> data. It's as plain as day (to everyone but mountain bikers, who are
..> .> honesty-challenged).
..> .How can it be obvious to everyone? the authors didnt see it obviously?
..>
..> They did. They deliberately distorted the facts to fit their wish to
..> promote
..> mountain biking.
..
..Please show your prooof that the people you use to back up your argument are
..in any way biased towards mountainbikers.

See my paper. It's all there. It's very unlikely that 7 out of 7 studies done my
mountain bikers say mountain biking is no worse than hiking, especially since
it's FALSE.

..Id also like to see you xplain in detail the valid scientific reasons for
..suggesting the original data interpretations are incorrect, and the arbitary
..changes made after the fact by you, so that they fit with your predetermined
..conclusion, are correct.

It's all in my paper, in detail. But you have to be able to read. That includes
words of more than one syl-la-ble.

..> Or
..> .are you suggesting everyone in the world is biased except you?
..> .You see, you keep claiming 'everyone', yet those studies are ONLY altered
..> by
..> .you? Why is it just you altering them if everyone agrees with you except
..> .bikers?
..>
..> Anyone who can READ agrees with me, except mountain bikers.
..
..Or, apparently, people who actually performed the studies in the first
..place.

Who are mountain bikers.

..Or the readers of the review journals the original studies were published
..in.
..Or the general environmental community who it seems accept there is little
..differential between hiking and mountain biking in terms of adverse impact.

BS.
===
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 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:19:27 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:17:05 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .> .>
..> .> .> They DO.
..> .> .>
..> .> .More lies again. .
..> .> .Show your published environmental plans for any area that have been
..> acted
..> .> .upon by a governmental or local authority.
..> .>
..> .> East Bay Regional Municipal (water) District banned bikes from their
..> .> watershed
..> .> as a result of my testimony. Governor Schwartzenegger just vetoed
..> .> legislation
..> .> that would have opened watersheds to more recreation, after I
..> complained
..> .> to him.
..> .> There are probably other cases, but I don't try to keep track of all of
..> .> them.
..> .
..> .I see, So no one else was involved? And yet a trawl through EBMUD
..> website,
..> .and the watershed masterplan PDF has no mention of MJ Vanderman. If you ,
..> as
..> .you claim, are responsible for the design, why are you not credited?
..>
..> It was a decade ago.
..
..Interesting you have to go so far back in time to fins something you may, or
..may not have had an input in. For the 'worlds foremost expert' isnt that a
..little strange?
..
..> .As for the Governor,yes, I too once wrote to my MP, expressing my concern
..> .that the system of local tax collection we had at the time (called Poll
..> .tax) was unfair. It was of course, later recinded , but do I claim it was
..> .me, and me alone that changed the way the government though? Of course
..> not,
..> .but then we are dealing with the Vanderego here obviously .
..> .Prove to me only you expressed such concern to your governors office and
..> you
..> .may have a case, otherwise its just hot air, again.
..>
..> I am nearly always the ONLY person arguing for the wildlife to be left
..> alone.
..> Most people want more recreation, because they think humans own the Earth.
..
..Interesting? You are the ONLY person. What about all these people that
..recognse you as a 'worlds foremost expert' ? if you are saying no one else
..in the world but you is bothered, are you not admitting its a self imposed ,
..and as such, worthless, title.
..
..
..> . Are you saying you formulated the environmental plans for these regions,
..> as
..> .I asked you for proof of?
..>
..> I'm one of the main reasons there is no mountain biking on EBMUD watershed
..> lands. And wildlife are a top priority, as they should be.
..
..Your inability to produce evidence of claimed environmental design is duly
..noted.
..
..> .Of course you are not, you attended some meetings, and because things
..> .changed, you attribute the changes to yourself. Egotism at its finest.
..> .I asked you for proof of your environmental DESIGN that has been acted
..> upon.
..> .That is what a worlds exppert on leisure impact would be doing, leading
..> the
..> .way, not protesting at minor changes.
..> .Again, you try to pass off one thing as another. In other words, you lie.
..>
..> I am one of very few people in the world arguing for human-free habitat.
..> Watershed lands are some of the least-populated lands in any area.
..
..Your inability to produce said environmental design is duly noted.
..

Yawn.
===
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 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:09:23 GMT, Chris Foster <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
..news:[email protected]:
..
..> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:40:04 GMT, Chris Foster
..> <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> ."Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in
..> .news:[email protected]:
..> .
..> .>
..> .> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .> news[email protected]...
..> .>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:09:41 GMT, "Mark"
..> <[email protected]> .>> wrote:
..> .>>
..> .>> .
..> .>> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .>> .news:[email protected]...
..> .>> .> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:18:37 -0300, Jason <[email protected]>
..> .>> wrote: .>
..> .>> .> .* Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>:
..> .>> .> .> .> No you don't, because you don't know me.
..> .>> .> .> .
..> .>> .> .> .
..> .>> .> .> .Sure I do mike, anyone who's managed to read the dribble
..> you .>> post here
..> .>> .> .> .and that farce you call a webpage knows you and you are
..> .>> definatly not
..> .>> .> .> .the worlds formost expert on mountain biking.
..> .>> .> .>
..> .>> .> .> That's circular reasoning. You obviously know NOTHING.
..> .>> .> .>
..> .>> .> .> What's your PHD in again?
..> .>> .> .
..> .>> .> .I never said I had one mike, you're the one who goes on and on
..> .>> about .> .having a PHD. Of course as I recall it has nothing to do
..> .>> with any .> .enviromental science but of course in your mind that
..> .>> doesn't matter it's
..> .>> .> .the letters that do.
..> .>> .> .
..> .>> .> .> .What are you qualifications regarding mountain biking and
..> the .>> alleged
..> .>> .> .> .damage it causes?
..> .>> .>
..> .>> .> I'm the world expert on the subject, partly because no one else
..> .>> will tell
..> .>> .> the
..> .>> .> truth.
..> .>> .
..> .>> .Then why are you not on the concultation boards of the various
..> .>> national .parksi n the US, or the major land owners of the world,
..> why .>> havent the .forestery commssion in the UK seek you out for
..> advice, .>> seeing as they .consulted with several experts from
..> different .>> countries when formulating the
..> .>> .long term plans for leisure access to their land here in the UK.
..> .>> .being as they have spent many millions developing the mountain
..> bike .>> side of
..> .>> .the leisure access, why did they have other environmental experts
..> .>> over from
..> .>> .the US to advise and not you? Why would they get second best Mr
..> .>> vanderman?
..> .>> .Because, like you haveing a web page peer reviewed its another
..> lie. .>> .Of course, like most psychotics, you will keep repeating the
..> same .>> thing over
..> .>> .and over, because in a disturbed mind, saying something over and
..> .>> over makes
..> .>> .it real.
..> .>> .Where are your books? Where is the study you performed and the
..> data .>> you .collected , then had published to garner you with this
..> title. .>> .You have never done a study though, have you? You just
..> alter the .>> conclusions
..> .>> .of other peoples scientific work without any just reasoning and
..> .>> claim they
..> .>> .then support you, when in actual fact taking the full, uncut
..> .>> studies, not .one, even those on your web site, actually support
..> .>> anything you say.
..> .>>
..> .>> Did you say something ... meaningful? ... honest? NOPE!
..> .> yet you have no answer?
..> .> ironic you talk about honesty in a thread where you have lied about
..> .> having your 'work' published in a revioew journal, about your
..> .> qualifications and about your standing in the environmental
..> heirarchy. .> of course you cant answer where your books and studies
..> are, because .> you havent written either.
..> .> Why the people actually making desicions about the worlds land
..> .> management and preservation do not contact you about the plans for
..> .> furture leisure management, because that would break the 'worlds
..> .> foremost expert' illusion that is so real in your head, and so,
..> like .> the true psychotic, the difficult to explain away is simply
..> ignored. .>
..> .> carry on, keep ignoring the question, to every sane person reading
..> you .> just prove me more correct with each answer.
..> .>
..> .>
..> .>
..> .He is right Mike. Your credibility is going down like a $20 *****.
..
..
..
..As a matter of fact I do, your sister did me yesterday. I only had to
..pay her $15, and she swallowed.

Thanks for demonstrating just what mountain bikers are like.

..> Something I am sure you know quite a bit about....
..> ===
..> 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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:27:20 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:01:26 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .This 'thesis' has never been published in an acknowledged review
..> .> journal
..> .> .> and
..> .> .> .subsequently commented on by experts in the field of
..> environmentalism.
..> .> .> .Of course, I have no doubt here you are playing scemantics, as that
..> is
..> .> .> the
..> .> .> .only argument you have left.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Don't you wish!
..> .> .My only 'wish' is bigoted, uneductated fools such as yourself stop
..> .> .disrespecting geniuine envoronmentalists by forming psuedo scientific
..> .> lies
..> .> .with no basis in facts, merely changing factual data at a whim to suit
..> .> your
..> .> .'theary' just to try to gain some credibility for your hate campaign,
..> you
..> .> .have done more to harm the environmental movement , and the
..> environment
..> .> .itself as a consequence,with your lies and bigoted viewepoint that is
..> .> taken
..> .> .as sterotype for people who genuinely wish to help the planets ecology
..> .> than
..> .> .the whole biking population of this planet.
..> .>
..> .> Yawn.
..> .Your capitulation is duly noted.
..>
..> It's spelled "capitalization". DUH!
..
..No, its called capitulation . Please look it up in a dictionary.
..If you would like me to dumb down my vocabulary for you, you only have to
..ask.

If you don't know how and when to apply it, you don't understand it.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mark]

> .>
> .> I'm one of the main reasons there is no mountain biking on EBMUD
> watershed
> .> lands. And wildlife are a top priority, as they should be.
> .
> .Your inability to produce evidence of claimed environmental design is
> duly
> .noted.
> .
> .> .Of course you are not, you attended some meetings, and because things
> .> .changed, you attribute the changes to yourself. Egotism at its finest.
> .> .I asked you for proof of your environmental DESIGN that has been acted
> .> upon.
> .> .That is what a worlds exppert on leisure impact would be doing,
> leading
> .> the
> .> .way, not protesting at minor changes.
> .> .Again, you try to pass off one thing as another. In other words, you
> lie.
> .>
> .> I am one of very few people in the world arguing for human-free
> habitat.
> .> Watershed lands are some of the least-populated lands in any area.
> .
> .Your inability to produce said environmental design is duly noted.
> .
>
> Yawn.

Your admission of your lies, and inability to refute the proof of those lies
is duly noted.

 

[Mark]

> .>
> .> It's spelled "capitalization". DUH!
> .
> .No, its called capitulation . Please look it up in a dictionary.
> .If you would like me to dumb down my vocabulary for you, you only have to
> .ask.
>
> If you don't know how and when to apply it, you don't understand it.

Pardon?
Given you didnt even know what the word is, you now try to lecture me on its
use?
Oh the irony?You capitulated, you had no answer to the argument and resorted
to childishly ignoring the points made, just as you have a long history of
doing.
I know exactly what the word is and how to use it.
You didnt even recognise what the word actually was.
Mr 'PHD'.
FYI , that would be used by averagly intelligent teenagers in the UK, kind
of puts your 'PHD' into perspective for us over here.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:00:27 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
..> .>
..> .> It's spelled "capitalization". DUH!
..> .
..> .No, its called capitulation . Please look it up in a dictionary.
..> .If you would like me to dumb down my vocabulary for you, you only have to
..> .ask.
..>
..> If you don't know how and when to apply it, you don't understand it.
..
..Pardon?
..Given you didnt even know what the word is, you now try to lecture me on its
..use?
..Oh the irony?You capitulated,

Prove it. That should be good for a laugh.

you had no answer to the argument and resorted
..to childishly ignoring the points made, just as you have a long history of
..doing.
..I know exactly what the word is and how to use it.
..You didnt even recognise what the word actually was.
..Mr 'PHD'.
..FYI , that would be used by averagly intelligent teenagers in the UK, kind
..of puts your 'PHD' into perspective for us over here.
..

===
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

 

[SMS]

Mark wrote:

> lame attemtps at personal insult when called on soemthing you cannot answer.
> It ISNT in your 'thesis'. You actually make very little comment onthe fact
> you change the conclusions of the authors to suit your agenda. if you are
> still referring to distance being the factor, I will again point you to the
> 10 to 12 times magnitude of hikers to bikers, and subsequerntly where
> distance is concerned, Hiking , per arbitary time period, globally covers
> many more miles than biking.

This is one of the reasons that all the scientific papers on the subject
point out. It is not just the impact on wildlife causes by noise and
litter, which hikers cause and leave more of, it's both the time they
spend in a small area, and the raw numbers of hikers that causes the
greater impact.

There are no scientific papers, that have been peer reviewed, that show
that Mountain Biking are more harmful than hiking. There are some
non-scientific papers that claim that the impact is the same, but these
papers typically look solely at erosion, and even there they are weak.

If we could get all hikers onto mountain bikes, that would be a huge
step forward in protecting our wilderness areas.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:50:53 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mark wrote:
..
..> lame attemtps at personal insult when called on soemthing you cannot answer.
..> It ISNT in your 'thesis'. You actually make very little comment onthe fact
..> you change the conclusions of the authors to suit your agenda. if you are
..> still referring to distance being the factor, I will again point you to the
..> 10 to 12 times magnitude of hikers to bikers, and subsequerntly where
..> distance is concerned, Hiking , per arbitary time period, globally covers
..> many more miles than biking.
..
..This is one of the reasons that all the scientific papers on the subject
..point out. It is not just the impact on wildlife causes by noise and
..litter, which hikers cause and leave more of, it's both the time they
..spend in a small area, and the raw numbers of hikers that causes the
..greater impact.
..
..There are no scientific papers, that have been peer reviewed, that show
..that Mountain Biking are more harmful than hiking.

OOPS, wrong; you forgot:

Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H. K.
Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and B. K.
Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and
elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference 69, 2004.

There are some
..non-scientific papers that claim that the impact is the same, but these
..papers typically look solely at erosion, and even there they are weak.
..
..If we could get all hikers onto mountain bikes, that would be a huge
..step forward in protecting our wilderness areas.

===
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> sd / msg
<[email protected]> dtd Sat, 01 Oct 2005
16:09:42 GMT:

>Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H. K.
>Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and B. K.
>Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and
>elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
>Conference 69, 2004.

A paper which explicitly recommends against your preferred solution,
and which found no effect in at least one species, and which showed
evidence of habituation in another, and which showed an effect from
your preferred recreation - yes, agreement like that is precisely what
we mean by no recognised experts agreeing with you

Your entire argument is an example of "itis apis spotitis andatino
ne".

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:50:53 GMT, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Mark wrote:
> .
> .> lame attemtps at personal insult when called on soemthing you cannot
> answer.
> .> It ISNT in your 'thesis'. You actually make very little comment onthe
> fact
> .> you change the conclusions of the authors to suit your agenda. if you
> are
> .> still referring to distance being the factor, I will again point you to
> the
> .> 10 to 12 times magnitude of hikers to bikers, and subsequerntly where
> .> distance is concerned, Hiking , per arbitary time period, globally
> covers
> .> many more miles than biking.
> .
> .This is one of the reasons that all the scientific papers on the subject
> .point out. It is not just the impact on wildlife causes by noise and
> .litter, which hikers cause and leave more of, it's both the time they
> .spend in a small area, and the raw numbers of hikers that causes the
> .greater impact.
> .
> .There are no scientific papers, that have been peer reviewed, that show
> .that Mountain Biking are more harmful than hiking.
>
> OOPS, wrong; you forgot:
>
> Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H. K.
> Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and B. K.
> Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer
> and
> elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
> Conference 69, 2004.
>


Only when you change the conclusion.
The authors own conclusion says nothing of the sort.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:08:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> sd / msg
..<[email protected]> dtd Sat, 01 Oct 2005
..16:09:42 GMT:
..
..>Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H. K.
..>Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and B. K.
..>Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and
..>elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
..>Conference 69, 2004.
..
..A paper which explicitly recommends against your preferred solution,
..and which found no effect in at least one species, and which showed
..evidence of habituation in another, and which showed an effect from
..your preferred recreation - yes, agreement like that is precisely what
..we mean by no recognised experts agreeing with you

You forgot that not only was mountain biking found to be more harmful than
hiking, but the effect was GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED, due to ignoring total
distance travelled. You are nothing but a liar.

..Your entire argument is an example of "itis apis spotitis andatino
..ne".
..
..Guy

===
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 Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:07:52 GMT, "Mark" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:50:53 GMT, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Mark wrote:
> .> .
> .> .> lame attemtps at personal insult when called on soemthing you cannot
> .> answer.
> .> .> It ISNT in your 'thesis'. You actually make very little comment
> onthe
> .> fact
> .> .> you change the conclusions of the authors to suit your agenda. if
> you
> .> are
> .> .> still referring to distance being the factor, I will again point you
> to
> .> the
> .> .> 10 to 12 times magnitude of hikers to bikers, and subsequerntly
> where
> .> .> distance is concerned, Hiking , per arbitary time period, globally
> .> covers
> .> .> many more miles than biking.
> .> .
> .> .This is one of the reasons that all the scientific papers on the
> subject
> .> .point out. It is not just the impact on wildlife causes by noise and
> .> .litter, which hikers cause and leave more of, it's both the time they
> .> .spend in a small area, and the raw numbers of hikers that causes the
> .> .greater impact.
> .> .
> .> .There are no scientific papers, that have been peer reviewed, that
> show
> .> .that Mountain Biking are more harmful than hiking.
> .>
> .> OOPS, wrong; you forgot:
> .>
> .> Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
> K.
> .> Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and B.
> K.
> .> Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule
> deer
> .> and
> .> elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
> .> Conference 69, 2004.
> .>
> .
> .
> .Only when you change the conclusion.
> .The authors own conclusion says nothing of the sort.
>
> Whoops, you are wrong:
>
Now post the conclusion.
You know, the one where the author specifically states that a holistic
viewpoint should be adopted, and that taking one activity without the others
is unscientific and not a true reflection of the in field situation, and
that much more data is needed to come to any serious conclusion above mere
hypothesis.

Oops, is that a lie by ommission?
I believe so.

 

[Mark]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:08:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> sd / msg
> .<[email protected]> dtd Sat, 01 Oct 2005
> .16:09:42 GMT:
> .
> .>Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
> K.
> .>Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and B.
> K.
> .>Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer
> and
> .>elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
> .>Conference 69, 2004.
> .
> .A paper which explicitly recommends against your preferred solution,
> .and which found no effect in at least one species, and which showed
> .evidence of habituation in another, and which showed an effect from
> .your preferred recreation - yes, agreement like that is precisely what
> .we mean by no recognised experts agreeing with you
>
> You forgot that not only was mountain biking found to be more harmful than
> hiking, but the effect was GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED, due to ignoring total
> distance travelled. You are nothing but a liar.
>
yes lets bring distance in again, as you state, 3 miles per hike on average,
10 miles on a bike on average. (your figures).
Then factor in the 10 -12 times more hikers around(8-12 million bikers
against 120 to 140 million hikers), which means 30 - 36 miles hiked for
every 10 miles biked.
Why is it you factor in a milage excess on biking, when it is quite clear
per arbitary worldwide timeperiod, there is many more hiking miles covered,
by a factor of 3, or a 200% increase.

BUT, as you say this study shows flight speed greater from biking, 17 feet
per sec as opposed to 15 feet per sec, an increase of 13%.

So, take that into consideration, and hiking does 187% more damage than
biking per arbitary time period.. Working on your distance figures, the
damage assesment figures from this study you put forward as proof, and the
numbers of worldwide participants of the 2 sports.

Its also intersting Wilson et al still recommend a holistic approach to the
environmental conservation, and suggest taking one group without counting
the effects of the whole is both unscientific and likely to give inacurate
assesments.
Of course, you go ahead and do that anyway, as its the only way to 'prove'
your little theory.