Re: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature; Implication

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Jeff Strickland, Jan 10, 2005.

  1. Let's see ...
    Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael Vandeman
    writes. Hmmm, how objective is that?

    Mr. Vandeman insists that temporary visitation of a human to a wilderness is
    harmful, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Then, Mr.
    Vandeman seeks out flawed research, and takes it out of context, that shows
    that visitation is harmful. Then, Mr. Vandeman sets out to win converts to
    his warped sense of reality by aggressively seeking to piss off the very
    people he needs to win over.

    Good luck with that. Idiot.
     
    Tags:


  2. Ne>

    Ne> Guest

    "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Let's see ...
    > Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael Vandeman
    > writes. Hmmm, how objective is that?
    >
    > Mr. Vandeman insists that temporary visitation of a human to a wilderness
    > is
    > harmful, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Then, Mr.
    > Vandeman seeks out flawed research, and takes it out of context, that
    > shows
    > that visitation is harmful. Then, Mr. Vandeman sets out to win converts to
    > his warped sense of reality by aggressively seeking to piss off the very
    > people he needs to win over.
    >
    > Good luck with that. Idiot.
    >
    >
    >

    He's just a torrl wannabie.
     
  3. "Ne><uS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Let's see ...
    > > Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael

    Vandeman
    > > writes. Hmmm, how objective is that?
    > >
    > > Mr. Vandeman insists that temporary visitation of a human to a

    wilderness
    > > is
    > > harmful, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Then,

    Mr.
    > > Vandeman seeks out flawed research, and takes it out of context, that
    > > shows
    > > that visitation is harmful. Then, Mr. Vandeman sets out to win converts

    to
    > > his warped sense of reality by aggressively seeking to piss off the very
    > > people he needs to win over.
    > >
    > > Good luck with that. Idiot.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > He's just a torrl wannabie.
    >
    >



    Torrl ??? Don't you mean turd? If so, he's made it.
     
  4. Ne>

    Ne> Guest

    "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Ne><uS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> > Let's see ...
    >> > Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael

    > Vandeman
    >> > writes. Hmmm, how objective is that?
    >> >
    >> > Mr. Vandeman insists that temporary visitation of a human to a

    > wilderness
    >> > is
    >> > harmful, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Then,

    > Mr.
    >> > Vandeman seeks out flawed research, and takes it out of context, that
    >> > shows
    >> > that visitation is harmful. Then, Mr. Vandeman sets out to win converts

    > to
    >> > his warped sense of reality by aggressively seeking to piss off the
    >> > very
    >> > people he needs to win over.
    >> >
    >> > Good luck with that. Idiot.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >> He's just a torrl wannabie.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Torrl ??? Don't you mean turd? If so, he's made it.
    >

    You heard of usenet trolls?
     
  5. "Ne><uS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > "Ne><uS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected]
    > >> > Let's see ...
    > >> > Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael

    > > Vandeman
    > >> > writes. Hmmm, how objective is that?
    > >> >
    > >> > Mr. Vandeman insists that temporary visitation of a human to a

    > > wilderness
    > >> > is
    > >> > harmful, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.

    Then,
    > > Mr.
    > >> > Vandeman seeks out flawed research, and takes it out of context, that
    > >> > shows
    > >> > that visitation is harmful. Then, Mr. Vandeman sets out to win

    converts
    > > to
    > >> > his warped sense of reality by aggressively seeking to piss off the
    > >> > very
    > >> > people he needs to win over.
    > >> >
    > >> > Good luck with that. Idiot.
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> He's just a torrl wannabie.
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > Torrl ??? Don't you mean turd? If so, he's made it.
    > >

    > You heard of usenet trolls?
    >
    >


    That would be Troll, not torrl. I make that error on occasion ...
     
  6. Ne>

    Ne> Guest

    "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Ne><uS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> >
    >> > "Ne><uS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> > news:[email protected]
    >> >>
    >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >> news:[email protected]
    >> >> > Let's see ...
    >> >> > Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael
    >> > Vandeman
    >> >> > writes. Hmmm, how objective is that?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Mr. Vandeman insists that temporary visitation of a human to a
    >> > wilderness
    >> >> > is
    >> >> > harmful, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.

    > Then,
    >> > Mr.
    >> >> > Vandeman seeks out flawed research, and takes it out of context,
    >> >> > that
    >> >> > shows
    >> >> > that visitation is harmful. Then, Mr. Vandeman sets out to win

    > converts
    >> > to
    >> >> > his warped sense of reality by aggressively seeking to piss off the
    >> >> > very
    >> >> > people he needs to win over.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Good luck with that. Idiot.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> He's just a torrl wannabie.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Torrl ??? Don't you mean turd? If so, he's made it.
    >> >

    >> You heard of usenet trolls?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > That would be Troll, not torrl. I make that error on occasion ...
    >
    >
    >

    That's what I get for hanging around with them too much, I seem to pick up
    their lingo.
     
  7. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:28:35 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    ..Let's see ...
    ..Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael Vandeman
    ..writes.

    Obviously, you didn't read it, liar. So this post is as worthless as everything
    else you write.

    ===
    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
     
  8. JP

    JP Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:28:35 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"

    <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > .Let's see ...
    > .Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael

    Vandeman
    > .writes.
    >
    > Obviously, you didn't read it, liar. So this post is as worthless as

    everything
    > else you write.
    >


    Vandeman is the lying hypocrite here.
    And the reference to a worthless post is delicious irony.
    Vandeman cites studies whose results find against him
    and attacks the finding as incorrect.
    Doesn't disprove the findings, just attacks them.

    Example; " The authors made the same
    mistake that all other researchers made:"
    or
    'That is why I am so disappointed to find her
    later concluding in this 2003 paper, "We found
    no biological justification for managing mountain
    biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).'
    or
    "I would think that that is biologically significant!"

    (in science that's called anecdotal Michael, and it doesn't count!)

    He doesn't cite actual studies to support his
    case since he can't find any.
    He must present opinions or as he puts it
    "personal communication" to buttress his case
    since no studies have been done that do so.

    And I love the image of the little bitty lizards and newts trapped for
    miles in the deep rut of the bike tire. They can climb rocks, trees,
    and wire fences but are unable to negotiate tire imprints on dirt.

    Vandeman's windy attempt at a quasi scientific paper lacks
    intellectual rigor and honesty and would never be accepted
    in a real forum. One must conclude from his approach that
    he has no real understanding of the accepted principles of research.
    From that one is led to question the validity or the existence
    of the alleged doctorate he claims to possess.
     
  9. "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:28:35 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"

    <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > .Let's see ...
    > .Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael

    Vandeman
    > .writes.
    >
    > Obviously, you didn't read it, liar. So this post is as worthless as

    everything
    > else you write.
    >


    Come on Mike, you have been posting the SAME THING for years, each year
    adding your drivel from the previous 12 months, and discounting any reason
    presented that disclaims your falsehoods.

    It is your writings that set the standard for worthless.
     
  10. Mike Romain

    Mike Romain Guest

    JP wrote:
    >
    > "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:28:35 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"

    > <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > .Let's see ...
    > > .Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael

    > Vandeman
    > > .writes.
    > >
    > > Obviously, you didn't read it, liar. So this post is as worthless as

    > everything
    > > else you write.
    > >

    >
    > Vandeman is the lying hypocrite here.
    > And the reference to a worthless post is delicious irony.
    > Vandeman cites studies whose results find against him
    > and attacks the finding as incorrect.
    > Doesn't disprove the findings, just attacks them.
    >
    > Example; " The authors made the same
    > mistake that all other researchers made:"
    > or
    > 'That is why I am so disappointed to find her
    > later concluding in this 2003 paper, "We found
    > no biological justification for managing mountain
    > biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).'
    > or
    > "I would think that that is biologically significant!"
    >
    > (in science that's called anecdotal Michael, and it doesn't count!)
    >
    > He doesn't cite actual studies to support his
    > case since he can't find any.
    > He must present opinions or as he puts it
    > "personal communication" to buttress his case
    > since no studies have been done that do so.
    >
    > And I love the image of the little bitty lizards and newts trapped for
    > miles in the deep rut of the bike tire. They can climb rocks, trees,
    > and wire fences but are unable to negotiate tire imprints on dirt.
    >
    > Vandeman's windy attempt at a quasi scientific paper lacks
    > intellectual rigor and honesty and would never be accepted
    > in a real forum. One must conclude from his approach that
    > he has no real understanding of the accepted principles of research.
    > From that one is led to question the validity or the existence
    > of the alleged doctorate he claims to possess.


    That is the whole thing, he 'has' been tossed out of all legit forums so
    this is the only place he can still set up his soap box. We can only
    laugh at him or feel sorry for the foole, we can't stop his delusional
    posts.

    Mike
    86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
    88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
     
  11. pmhilton

    pmhilton Guest

    JP wrote:

    >Vandeman is the lying hypocrite here.
    >And the reference to a worthless post is delicious irony.
    >Vandeman cites studies whose results find against him
    >and attacks the finding as incorrect.
    >Doesn't disprove the findings, just attacks them.
    >
    >snip
    >
    >He doesn't cite actual studies to support his
    >case since he can't find any.
    >He must present opinions or as he puts it
    >"personal communication" to buttress his case
    >since no studies have been done that do so.
    >
    >snip
    >
    >Vandeman's windy attempt at a quasi scientific paper lacks
    >intellectual rigor and honesty and would never be accepted
    >in a real forum. One must conclude from his approach that
    >he has no real understanding of the accepted principles of research.
    >From that one is led to question the validity or the existence
    >of the alleged doctorate he claims to possess.
    >

    It's been demonstrated by more than a few that the paper does indeed
    exist. But on first examination, it's obvious that it's blatherly
    supported blathering and one wonders what the examining committee was
    doing other than reloading their Ipods.

    Mikey's misanthropy all seems to stem from his obsessive use of the
    phrase "pure habitat." That's as null a concept as one could find.

    Pete H

    >
    >

    --
    Either everyone has rights or some have privileges.
    It's really that simple.
    Walt Kelly
     
  12. On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:33:04 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    ..
    .."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:[email protected]
    ..> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:28:35 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
    ..<[email protected]>
    ..> wrote:
    ..>
    ..> .Let's see ...
    ..> .Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael
    ..Vandeman
    ..> .writes.
    ..>
    ..> Obviously, you didn't read it, liar. So this post is as worthless as
    ..everything
    ..> else you write.
    ..>
    ..
    ..Come on Mike, you have been posting the SAME THING for years, each year
    ..adding your drivel from the previous 12 months, and discounting any reason
    ..presented that disclaims your falsehoods.
    ..
    ..It is your writings that set the standard for worthless.

    Not only is that a lie, but it's a WORTHLESS lie. Go back to sleep.
    ===
    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
     
  13. On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:26:55 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..
    .."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:[email protected]
    ..> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:28:35 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
    ..<[email protected]>
    ..> wrote:
    ..>
    ..> .Let's see ...
    ..> .Michael Vandeman presents a review of the literature that Michael
    ..Vandeman
    ..> .writes.
    ..>
    ..> Obviously, you didn't read it, liar. So this post is as worthless as
    ..everything
    ..> else you write.
    ..>
    ..
    ..Vandeman is the lying hypocrite here.
    ..And the reference to a worthless post is delicious irony.
    ..Vandeman cites studies whose results find against him
    ..and attacks the finding as incorrect.
    ..Doesn't disprove the findings, just attacks them.

    It does, if you actually READ them.

    ..Example; " The authors made the same
    ..mistake that all other researchers made:"
    .. or
    ..'That is why I am so disappointed to find her
    ..later concluding in this 2003 paper, "We found
    ..no biological justification for managing mountain
    ..biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).'
    .. or
    .."I would think that that is biologically significant!"
    ..
    ..(in science that's called anecdotal Michael, and it doesn't count!)
    ..
    ..He doesn't cite actual studies to support his
    ..case since he can't find any.

    That's a lie. The Wisdom study supports me. You obviously didn't read my paper.
    OR the Wisdom study.

    The other studies also support me, if they are correctly interepreted.

    ..He must present opinions or as he puts it
    .."personal communication" to buttress his case
    ..since no studies have been done that do so.
    ..
    ..And I love the image of the little bitty lizards and newts trapped for
    ..miles in the deep rut of the bike tire. They can climb rocks, trees,
    ..and wire fences but are unable to negotiate tire imprints on dirt.

    Yes, according to an herpetologist.

    ..Vandeman's windy attempt at a quasi scientific paper lacks
    ..intellectual rigor and honesty and would never be accepted
    ..in a real forum.

    Actually, it has ALREADY been accepted in two international scientific
    conferences.

    One must conclude from his approach that
    ..he has no real understanding of the accepted principles of research.
    ..From that one is led to question the validity or the existence
    ..of the alleged doctorate he claims to possess.

    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
     
  14. On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:32:33 -0500, pmhilton <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..JP wrote:
    ..
    ..>Vandeman is the lying hypocrite here.
    ..>And the reference to a worthless post is delicious irony.
    ..>Vandeman cites studies whose results find against him
    ..>and attacks the finding as incorrect.
    ..>Doesn't disprove the findings, just attacks them.
    ..>
    ..>snip
    ..>
    ..>He doesn't cite actual studies to support his
    ..>case since he can't find any.
    ..>He must present opinions or as he puts it
    ..>"personal communication" to buttress his case
    ..>since no studies have been done that do so.
    ..>
    ..>snip
    ..>
    ..>Vandeman's windy attempt at a quasi scientific paper lacks
    ..>intellectual rigor and honesty and would never be accepted
    ..>in a real forum. One must conclude from his approach that
    ..>he has no real understanding of the accepted principles of research.
    ..>From that one is led to question the validity or the existence
    ..>of the alleged doctorate he claims to possess.
    ..>
    ..It's been demonstrated by more than a few that the paper does indeed
    ..exist. But on first examination, it's obvious that it's blatherly
    ..supported blathering

    Your expertise to judge it?

    and one wonders what the examining committee was
    ..doing other than reloading their Ipods.
    ..
    ..Mikey's misanthropy all seems to stem from his obsessive use of the
    ..phrase "pure habitat." That's as null a concept as one could find.
    ..
    ..Pete H
    ..
    ..>
    ..>

    ===
    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
     
  15. JP

    JP Guest

    Bad writing Mike.

    Your citations are unclear and in many cases taken out of context.
    The Wisdom study which you cite does not draw the conclusions that you do.
    Your opinions, inserted at intervals to dispute a studies findings, weaken
    your
    credibility and reveal faulty reasoning.

    You post where your treatise will not be exposed to those with
    background to assess and critique your hypothesis and arguments.
    Then you respond with name-calling to any who offer a contradiciting
    opinion.
    Calling someone a liar as refutation generally stops in high school.

    Let's examine this little piece;

    >In Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve (in the San Francisco Bay
    >Area), one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (Masticophis lateralis

    euryxanthus,
    >a federally Threatened spceies) ever seen was apparently killed by a

    mountain
    >biker (see Figure 1). In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve, a ringneck

    snake
    >(Diadophis punctatus) was apparently killed by a mountain biker riding

    where
    >bikes are not allowed (see Figure 2). In both cases, the snakes were killed

    on
    >unpaved roads with no visibility problems, showing that bikers are not able

    to
    >avoid killing wildlife. The width of the wounds matched the width of a

    mountain
    >bike tire.


    You cite two snakes "apparently killed by a mountain biker" with proof being
    the width of the wounds matched the width of a mountain bike tire.
    That is not proof yet you sail on to conclude that bikers are not able to
    avoid killing wildlife and that bikes may be more dangerous on wide trails
    since they can go faster.

    That may constitute proof in a political compaign ad but not science.
    But your argument pretends to be based on science.
    Either you just don't understand the requirements of scientific inquiry
    (you're ignorant) or you do and choose to ignore them (you're a hypocrite).


    But as your little sig shows you are indeed a champion of the lost cause.
    Tilt on Don Quixote!
     
  16. On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:22:59 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..Bad writing Mike.
    ..
    ..Your citations are unclear and in many cases taken out of context.
    ..The Wisdom study which you cite does not draw the conclusions that you do.

    Your point?

    ..Your opinions, inserted at intervals to dispute a studies findings, weaken
    ..your
    ..credibility and reveal faulty reasoning.

    Coincidentally, you can't manage to give a single example. NOT ONE!

    ..You post where your treatise will not be exposed to those with
    ..background to assess and critique your hypothesis and arguments.
    ..Then you respond with name-calling to any who offer a contradiciting
    ..opinion.
    ..Calling someone a liar as refutation generally stops in high school.
    ..
    ..Let's examine this little piece;
    ..
    ..>In Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve (in the San Francisco Bay
    ..>Area), one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (Masticophis lateralis
    ..euryxanthus,
    ..>a federally Threatened spceies) ever seen was apparently killed by a
    ..mountain
    ..>biker (see Figure 1). In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve, a ringneck
    ..snake
    ..>(Diadophis punctatus) was apparently killed by a mountain biker riding
    ..where
    ..>bikes are not allowed (see Figure 2). In both cases, the snakes were killed
    ..on
    ..>unpaved roads with no visibility problems, showing that bikers are not able
    ..to
    ..>avoid killing wildlife. The width of the wounds matched the width of a
    ..mountain
    ..>bike tire.
    ..
    ..You cite two snakes "apparently killed by a mountain biker" with proof being
    ..the width of the wounds matched the width of a mountain bike tire.
    ..That is not proof yet you sail on to conclude that bikers are not able to
    ..avoid killing wildlife and that bikes may be more dangerous on wide trails
    ..since they can go faster.

    How do YOU explain a snake being killed by something as wide as a mountain bike
    tire? It was enough to convince the herpetologist who concluded that.

    ..That may constitute proof in a political compaign ad but not science.
    ..But your argument pretends to be based on science.
    ..Either you just don't understand the requirements of scientific inquiry
    ..(you're ignorant) or you do and choose to ignore them (you're a hypocrite).

    That WAS a scientist's conclusion. He wrote the book. Literally.

    ===
    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
     
  17. JP

    JP Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:22:59 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]>

    wrote:
    >
    > .Bad writing Mike.
    > .
    > .Your citations are unclear and in many cases taken out of context.
    > .The Wisdom study which you cite does not draw the conclusions that you

    do.
    >
    > Your point?



    Simply that your use of references, citations and other sources to prove
    your
    hypothsis is flawed, lacks intellectual rigor, and fails to meet accepted
    criteria
    for scientific review. Science does not allow for the leaps in reasoning
    that you
    make without facts (not opinions) to support them. That transforms your
    quasi-scientific "review" into asimple rant without merit.

    >
    > .Your opinions, inserted at intervals to dispute a studies findings,

    weaken
    > .your
    > .credibility and reveal faulty reasoning.
    >
    > Coincidentally, you can't manage to give a single example. NOT ONE!


    What I can or cannot manage is not the point. You claim that I can't
    and then go on to use that unproven claim as additional evidence .
    However here is an instance of your opinion mixed into a citation.

    --They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the
    simulated--
    --rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim
    "correlates with--
    --erosion". This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion.--

    You didn't like the results so you attack the procedure. Your opinion.
    Not supported, merely an opinion.

    >
    > .You post where your treatise will not be exposed to those with
    > .background to assess and critique your hypothesis and arguments.
    > .Then you respond with name-calling to any who offer a contradiciting
    > .opinion.
    > .Calling someone a liar as refutation generally stops in high school.
    > .
    > .Let's examine this little piece;
    > .
    > .>In Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve (in the San Francisco Bay
    > .>Area), one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (Masticophis lateralis
    > .euryxanthus,
    > .>a federally Threatened spceies) ever seen was apparently killed by a
    > .mountain
    > .>biker (see Figure 1). In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve, a ringneck
    > .snake
    > .>(Diadophis punctatus) was apparently killed by a mountain biker riding
    > .where
    > .>bikes are not allowed (see Figure 2). In both cases, the snakes were

    killed
    > .on
    > .>unpaved roads with no visibility problems, showing that bikers are not

    able
    > .to
    > .>avoid killing wildlife. The width of the wounds matched the width of a
    > .mountain
    > .>bike tire.
    > .
    > .You cite two snakes "apparently killed by a mountain biker" with proof

    being
    > .the width of the wounds matched the width of a mountain bike tire.
    > .That is not proof yet you sail on to conclude that bikers are not able to
    > .avoid killing wildlife and that bikes may be more dangerous on wide

    trails
    > .since they can go faster.
    >
    > How do YOU explain a snake being killed by something as wide as a mountain

    bike
    > tire? It was enough to convince the herpetologist who concluded that.


    My explaining it or not has no bearing on a scientific review.
    What does have a bearing?
    1) "Apparantly killed by a mountain biker..."
    My fat tires are about the same width as a dirt bike's tires,
    a MOTORIZED dirt bike. And about the same width as a waffle-soled
    Nike. Or an easily wieldable dropped tree limb.
    Seems to me like you jumped to a conclusion.

    2) "In both cases, the snakes were killed on unpaved roads with no
    visibility problems, showing that bikers are not able to
    avoid killing wildlife."
    As a kid I remembered older kids at the pond catching tadpoles, big
    ones,
    under the ice and then ice-skating over them, slicing them in half. I never
    saw
    the point but kids kill animals. I cannot conclude from this that
    ice-skating is
    dangerous to wildlife. And a dead animal on the trail is not proof that
    mountain biking is dangerous to wildlife, regardless of the width of an
    injury.

    3) Had the herpetologist actually concluded that a mountain bike did
    kill
    the snake then why would the word "apparantly" be used, denoting a
    possible rather than a definite conclusion.

    >
    > .That may constitute proof in a political compaign ad but not science.
    > .But your argument pretends to be based on science.
    > .Either you just don't understand the requirements of scientific inquiry
    > .(you're ignorant) or you do and choose to ignore them (you're a

    hypocrite).
    >
    > That WAS a scientist's conclusion. He wrote the book. Literally.


    No. That is your conclusion, not a scientist's.
    May I quote your words again?

    "On the other hand, why do we need research to prove what is obvious? We
    don't need any research to know that we shouldn't step in front of a
    speeding
    truck. Or mountain bike."

    Ah, the true nature of your philosophy.
    Belief is all, research unnecessary.

    You may notice that I am not putting forth a position.
    I am merely showing how your position is so based on
    flawed logic and sloppy thinking that your conclusions
    are useless from a scientific perspective. You know this
    of course which is why you choose the forum you do.
    I notice that your cross posts to "rec.backcountry,
    sci.environment,ca.environment" are summarily ignored.

    In reality of course hiking, biking, equestrian activities
    will have an insignificant effect on wildlife. Motorized
    vehicles such as dirt bikes, ATV's and snowmobiles
    have a far greater effect. Logging, drilling, and mining
    have very much larger effects. But the accelerated pace
    of global warming will and is causing major disruptions
    to wildlife and wilderness. The Alaskan pipeline is built
    on permafrost that is beginning to melt. Amphibians
    have been dying off worldwide in large numbers for over a
    decade and the reasons are unclear, but they are considered
    a marker species, a harbinger of things to come.

    Your crusade is akin to tweezing an ingrown hair
    from the skin of a terminal cancer patient,
    insignificant, pointless, and having no bearing
    on the real problem.

    But I despise your intellectual dishonesty and so we will joust.
     
  18. JP

    JP Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:22:59 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]>

    wrote:
    >
    > .Bad writing Mike.
    > .
    > .Your citations are unclear and in many cases taken out of context.
    > .The Wisdom study which you cite does not draw the conclusions that you

    do.
    >
    > Your point?



    Simply that your use of references, citations and other sources to prove
    your
    hypothsis is flawed, lacks intellectual rigor, and fails to meet accepted
    criteria
    for scientific review. Science does not allow for the leaps in reasoning
    that you
    make without facts (not opinions) to support them. That transforms your
    quasi-scientific "review" into asimple rant without merit.

    >
    > .Your opinions, inserted at intervals to dispute a studies findings,

    weaken
    > .your
    > .credibility and reveal faulty reasoning.
    >
    > Coincidentally, you can't manage to give a single example. NOT ONE!


    What I can or cannot manage is not the point. You claim that I can't
    and then go on to use that unproven claim as additional evidence .
    However here is an instance of your opinion mixed into a citation.

    --They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the
    simulated--
    --rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim
    "correlates with--
    --erosion". This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion.--

    You didn't like the results so you attack the procedure. Your opinion.
    Not supported, merely an opinion.

    >
    > .You post where your treatise will not be exposed to those with
    > .background to assess and critique your hypothesis and arguments.
    > .Then you respond with name-calling to any who offer a contradiciting
    > .opinion.
    > .Calling someone a liar as refutation generally stops in high school.
    > .
    > .Let's examine this little piece;
    > .
    > .>In Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve (in the San Francisco Bay
    > .>Area), one of the largest Alameda whipsnakes (Masticophis lateralis
    > .euryxanthus,
    > .>a federally Threatened spceies) ever seen was apparently killed by a
    > .mountain
    > .>biker (see Figure 1). In Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve, a ringneck
    > .snake
    > .>(Diadophis punctatus) was apparently killed by a mountain biker riding
    > .where
    > .>bikes are not allowed (see Figure 2). In both cases, the snakes were

    killed
    > .on
    > .>unpaved roads with no visibility problems, showing that bikers are not

    able
    > .to
    > .>avoid killing wildlife. The width of the wounds matched the width of a
    > .mountain
    > .>bike tire.
    > .
    > .You cite two snakes "apparently killed by a mountain biker" with proof

    being
    > .the width of the wounds matched the width of a mountain bike tire.
    > .That is not proof yet you sail on to conclude that bikers are not able to
    > .avoid killing wildlife and that bikes may be more dangerous on wide

    trails
    > .since they can go faster.
    >
    > How do YOU explain a snake being killed by something as wide as a mountain

    bike
    > tire? It was enough to convince the herpetologist who concluded that.


    My explaining it or not has no bearing on a scientific review.
    What does have a bearing?
    1) "Apparantly killed by a mountain biker..."
    My fat tires are about the same width as a dirt bike's tires,
    a MOTORIZED dirt bike. And about the same width as a waffle-soled
    Nike. Or an easily wieldable dropped tree limb.
    Seems to me like you jumped to a conclusion.

    2) "In both cases, the snakes were killed on unpaved roads with no
    visibility problems, showing that bikers are not able to
    avoid killing wildlife."
    As a kid I remembered older kids at the pond catching tadpoles, big
    ones,
    under the ice and then ice-skating over them, slicing them in half. I never
    saw
    the point but kids kill animals. I cannot conclude from this that
    ice-skating is
    dangerous to wildlife. And a dead animal on the trail is not proof that
    mountain biking is dangerous to wildlife, regardless of the width of an
    injury.

    3) Had the herpetologist actually concluded that a mountain bike did
    kill
    the snake then why would the word "apparantly" be used, denoting a
    possible rather than a definite conclusion.

    >
    > .That may constitute proof in a political compaign ad but not science.
    > .But your argument pretends to be based on science.
    > .Either you just don't understand the requirements of scientific inquiry
    > .(you're ignorant) or you do and choose to ignore them (you're a

    hypocrite).
    >
    > That WAS a scientist's conclusion. He wrote the book. Literally.


    No. That is your conclusion, not a scientist's.
    May I quote your words again?

    "On the other hand, why do we need research to prove what is obvious? We
    don't need any research to know that we shouldn't step in front of a
    speeding
    truck. Or mountain bike."

    Ah, the true nature of your philosophy.
    Belief is all, research unnecessary.

    You may notice that I am not putting forth a position.
    I am merely showing how your position is so based on
    flawed logic and sloppy thinking that your conclusions
    are useless from a scientific perspective. You know this
    of course which is why you choose the forum you do.
    I notice that your cross posts to "rec.backcountry,
    sci.environment,ca.environment" are summarily ignored.

    In reality of course hiking, biking, equestrian activities
    will have an insignificant effect on wildlife. Motorized
    vehicles such as dirt bikes, ATV's and snowmobiles
    have a far greater effect. Logging, drilling, and mining
    have very much larger effects. But the accelerated pace
    of global warming will and is causing major disruptions
    to wildlife and wilderness. The Alaskan pipeline is built
    on permafrost that is beginning to melt. Amphibians
    have been dying off worldwide in large numbers for over a
    decade and the reasons are unclear, but they are considered
    a marker species, a harbinger of things to come.

    Your crusade is akin to tweezing an ingrown hair
    from the skin of a terminal cancer patient,
    insignificant, pointless, and having no bearing
    on the real problem.

    But I despise your intellectual dishonesty and so we will joust.
     
  19. "JP" <[email protected]> wrote

    <SNIP>
    > But I despise your intellectual dishonesty and so we will joust.
    >

    I bet you $10 MV's response to this will be "Did you say something?"
     
  20. dabac

    dabac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    139
    I'm a bit intrigued by the the width of the wounds matched the width of a mountain bike tire.

    I know from personal experience that it is fully possible to ride a bike across someone's bare foot without breaking the skin, leaving only a quicky fading reddened tire pattern impression, yet he's talking about "wounds matching a tire". I don't see how that could happen, unless we're talking about someone trying to rooster tail at the exact moment the snake passes underneath. Even if that was what happened I'm more inclined to believe that the snake would simpy be spun free from the tyre without splitting open. It might still very well be dead due to spinal and/or internal injuries, but that's a different matter.
    Either way something like that would qualify as a deliberate act and not an unfortunate accident. And people who deliberately set out to hurt wildlife shouldn't be considered as a representative sample of human-animal interaction.

    It seems reasonable to assume that it's possible to kill a snake by running it over, but for breaking the skin on it one would have to apply some serious force. It might be possible to cause wounds matching the rim width, but that's not what he's saying here.
    If one wanted to go forensic on this I guess one would have to skin the snake and look for a bruising pattern to determine what's happened. (assuming snakes bruise as other animals do...)
     
Loading...
Loading...