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. On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:15:30 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..
    .."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:[email protected]
    ..> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:22:59 GMT, "JP" <vze2wx8p.spamshield[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.

    Coincidentally, you weren't able to give even ONE example (because then you
    could easily be refuted).

    ..> .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 took that out of context. I proved it in the following sentences, which you
    conveniently omitted.

    ..> .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.

    Motirized bikes aren't allowed on that road.

    And about the same width as a waffle-soled
    ..Nike.

    Nonsense. Shoes are wider than any mountain bike tire. And that snake is too
    fast for anyone to step on it.

    .. Or an easily wieldable dropped tree limb.

    Nonsense. There are no tree limbs like that in the area.

    ..Seems to me like you jumped to a conclusion.

    No, the professional herpetologist made that judgment.

    ..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.

    It is if there is no other possible explanation.

    ..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.

    Because he's a scientist, and wants to be impeccable.

    ..> .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.

    Now you are just lying. The scientist wrote on the tag attached to the snake
    "apparently killed by a mountain biker".

    ..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.

    True, but I did the research anyway, just in case.

    ..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.

    BS. The paper it was based on was already accepted by TWO international
    scientific conferences.

    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.

    That's not what the researchers say. They know more than you do.

    Motorized
    ..vehicles such as dirt bikes, ATV's and snowmobiles
    ..have a far greater effect.

    No, they don't, because they aren't allowed in these parks.

    Logging, drilling, and mining
    ..have very much larger effects.

    No, they don't, because they aren't allowed in these parks.

    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.

    BS. You just don't like my CONCLUSIONS.
    ===
    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
     


  2. On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:15:30 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..
    .."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.
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..

    P.S. Who would believe someone who is afraid to use his real name? ...
    ===
    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
     
  3. On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:48:37 -0800, "Chris Glidden" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    ..
    .."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?"

    You lose. As usual.
    ===
    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
     
  4. Mikey V rants:

    >BS. You just don't like my CONCLUSIONS.


    Mikey - babe - I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it's simpler than
    you think. We just don't like YOU.

    Steve
     
  5. "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:48:37 -0800, "Chris Glidden"
    > <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > .
    > ."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?"
    >
    > You lose. As usual.
    > ===

    Au contraire. I win. I'm leaving for a ride in 10 minutes. It's a
    beautiful day and all is good.
     
  6. On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:20 -0800, "Chris Glidden" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    ..
    .."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:[email protected]
    ..> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:48:37 -0800, "Chris Glidden"
    ..> <[email protected]>
    ..> wrote:
    ..>
    ..> .
    ..> ."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?"
    ..>
    ..> You lose. As usual.
    ..> ===
    ..Au contraire. I win. I'm leaving for a ride in 10 minutes. It's a
    ..beautiful day and all is good.

    Break a leg. :)
    ===
    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
     
  7. Chris Glidden wrote:
    > "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:48:37 -0800, "Chris Glidden"
    > > <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > .
    > > ."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?"
    > >
    > > You lose. As usual.
    > > ===

    > Au contraire. I win. I'm leaving for a ride in 10 minutes. It's a
    > beautiful day and all is good.

    I just got back from a ride. Mike's stopping no one. As usual.
     
  8. On 15 Jan 2005 13:54:52 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Stephen Baker) wrote:

    ..Mikey V rants:
    ..
    ..>BS. You just don't like my CONCLUSIONS.
    ..
    ..Mikey - babe - I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it's simpler than
    ..you think. We just don't like YOU.

    You are lying. You don't know me, only my writings. Therefore, it's the latter
    you don't like. More correctly, you don't want anyone to believe me, and ban
    bikes from trails - it's THAT simple. Tell the truth.

    ..Steve

    ===
    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
     
  9. Bill Sornson

    Bill Sornson Guest

    Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:20 -0800, "Chris Glidden"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:


    > .Au contraire. I win. I'm leaving for a ride in 10 minutes. It's a
    > .beautiful day and all is good.
    >
    > Break a leg. :)


    DEATH THREAT FROM TYPICAL HIKER DULY NOTED.

    Bill "it's obvious...Duh!" S.
     
  10. On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:14:35 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:15:30 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:
    ..
    ...
    ..."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.
    ..
    ..Coincidentally, you weren't able to give even ONE example (because then you
    ..could easily be refuted).
    ..
    ...> .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 took that out of context. I proved it in the following sentences, which you
    ..conveniently omitted.

    Here's the full text:

    The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
    the various treatments. 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. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the very weak "simulated
    rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the collecting tray; only
    very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they admit that the simulator's
    "small size … meant that the kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was
    roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms".
    ===
    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
     
  11. JP

    JP Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    >>>>>>snipped out of consideration

    >
    > ..
    > ..--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 took that out of context. I proved it in the following sentences,

    which you
    > .conveniently omitted.
    >



    Since your sentences prove nothing lets look at them.


    > Here's the full text:
    >
    > The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made

    available" by
    > the various treatments. 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. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the very weak

    "simulated
    > rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the collecting tray;

    only
    > very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they admit that the

    simulator's
    > "small size . meant that the kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall

    events was
    > roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms".


    Lets look at your proof. You've disputed their measure and then verbally
    made
    some criticism to discredit it. You don't offer any other study to back
    your
    disagreement, just "for example......" and a discussion based on your

    OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    Call me a cynic Michael but since most of what you cite is available only
    through
    one of your various websites.......I DON'T TRUST IT. Your bias is
    obviously strong
    enough to challenge your judgement and maybe your integrity. My habit is
    verify
    information against third party disinterested sources, which kind of
    eliminates your websites.
    And most of your backup can only be found on your pages. Question of
    credibility.
     
  12. Gary S.

    Gary S. Guest

    On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:47:21 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Mike Vandeman wrote:
    >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:20 -0800, "Chris Glidden"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >> .Au contraire. I win. I'm leaving for a ride in 10 minutes. It's a
    >> .beautiful day and all is good.
    >>
    >> Break a leg. :)

    >
    >DEATH THREAT FROM TYPICAL HIKER DULY NOTED.
    >
    >Bill "it's obvious...Duh!" S.
    >

    Mikey does not speak for most hikers, and in fact he wants to ban
    hiking as well as mountain biking.

    His own hiking experience seems rather limited in scope as well as
    geography. To give you an idea, he thinks all hikers must wear smooth
    soled shoes instead of hiking boots.

    He is just as bad as the fundamentalists who think that natural
    disasters are because other people did not believe the right religion.

    He enjoys the pain of others, or at least is indifferent to it. He
    only notices it if it gives him a way to promote his own agenda.

    Psychopaths are also indifferent to the pain of others.

    Happy trails,
    Gary (net.yogi.bear)
    ------------------------------------------------
    at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

    Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
    Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
     
  13. JP

    JP Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:15:30 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]>

    wrote:
    >
    > .
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip snip snip>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >
    > Coincidentally, you weren't able to give even ONE example (because then

    you
    > could easily be refuted).


    Since you don't operate with accepted methodology you do find it easy
    to refute, but without the rigor of science your refutation is without
    merit.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip snip.........

    > .> .
    > .> .>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.
    >
    > Motirized bikes aren't allowed on that road.


    But you said that mountain bikes aren't allowed on that road either.
    So the violator must be a mountain bike instead of a motorized
    dirt bike.

    >
    > And about the same width as a waffle-soled
    > .Nike.
    >
    > Nonsense. Shoes are wider than any mountain bike tire. And that snake is

    too
    > fast for anyone to step on it.


    Actually not really, the instep of my Saucony Predators (a trail running
    shoe)
    is the same width as my Mavic Hansventure 26x2.35 tire and the lugs on the
    sole mimic a tire tread quite well
    >
    > . Or an easily wieldable dropped tree limb.
    >
    > Nonsense. There are no tree limbs like that in the area.


    Perhaps you are mistaken?

    May I excerpt a description from http://www.ebparks.org/parks/black.htm ,
    ****************************************************************************
    **
    NATURAL FEATURES
    VEGETATION
    The Preserve's 47 miles of trails traverse areas of grassland, foothill
    woodland,
    mixed evergreen forest, chaparral, stream vegetation and exotic plantings.
    Notable among the latter are several tree species introduced by the coal
    miners.
    These include the black locust, pepper tree, almond, eucalyptus and tree of
    heaven.

    Black Diamond is noted as the northernmost location of Coulter pine, black
    sage,
    desert olive and dudleya. In addition, several species that are restricted
    to the
    Mt. Diablo area occur here, including the Mt. Diablo globe lily, Mt. Diablo
    helianthella
    and Mt. Diablo manzanita. In the springtime, the hills are covered with some
    of the
    most remarkable wildflower displays in the Bay Area.
    ****************************************************************************
    *****************

    Sounds like a branch might be located in woodland or mixed evergreen forest.
    I've got a black locust in the yard, real gnarled bark pattern and they
    drop limbs
    all the time.

    >
    > .Seems to me like you jumped to a conclusion.
    >
    > No, the professional herpetologist made that judgment.


    Made that assumption that was qualified by the word "apparently.
    "
    >
    > .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.
    >
    > It is if there is no other possible explanation.


    But it could have been a motorized vehicle since dirt bikers do violate
    restrictions
    on access, with impunity since it is difficult if not impossible to catch
    them,
    could have been a sneaker mark, and could have been a tree limb since they
    obviously do exist in that area. I will refrain from calling you a liar
    though, Michael.

    >
    > .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.
    >
    > Because he's a scientist, and wants to be impeccable.


    But you don't care about that and that is precisely your problem, you have
    decided
    that the uncertainty inherent in science does not meet your needs and so,
    like a child, have resorted to yelling louder and name calling to "prove"
    your point.

    >>>>>>>>>>>snip>>>>>>>


    >
    > Now you are just lying. The scientist wrote on the tag attached to the

    snake
    > "apparently killed by a mountain biker".


    Again with the "lying."

    >>>>>>>>>>>>snip>>>>>>

    >
    > .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.
    >
    > BS. The paper it was based on was already accepted by TWO international
    > scientific conferences.


    The papers you cite and attack have been accepted, your half-baked
    conclusions that refer to these papers have not been accepted anywhere.
    You are trying to use the credibility of the study to buttress your
    argument.
    You're an adman, not a scientist.

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > That's not what the researchers say. They know more than you do.


    Really. As do you in your robust sense of self I am sure.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    > .
    > .But I despise your intellectual dishonesty and so we will joust.
    >
    > BS. You just don't like my CONCLUSIONS.


    No, I disagree with your conclusions because they are biased and sloppy.
    I don't know you but I don't like your name-calling close-minded and nasty
    persona.
    I can and do accept new input and data constantly, but I do not accept
    blindly
    without verification and in reviewing your "Review" I found your arguments
    lacked merit
    and your conclusions wanting.
     
  14. "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Mike Vandeman wrote:
    >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:20 -0800, "Chris Glidden"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >> .Au contraire. I win. I'm leaving for a ride in 10 minutes. It's a
    >> .beautiful day and all is good.
    >>
    >> Break a leg. :)

    >
    > DEATH THREAT FROM TYPICAL HIKER DULY NOTED.
    >
    > Bill "it's obvious...Duh!" S.
    >

    I sould report him to the proper authorities. Anyone got the number for
    Bellview?
     
  15. Chris Glidden wrote:
    > "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:20 -0800, "Chris Glidden"
    > >> <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >
    > >> .Au contraire. I win. I'm leaving for a ride in 10 minutes.

    It's a
    > >> .beautiful day and all is good.
    > >>
    > >> Break a leg. :)

    > >
    > > DEATH THREAT FROM TYPICAL HIKER DULY NOTED.
    > >
    > > Bill "it's obvious...Duh!" S.
    > >

    > I sould report him to the proper authorities. Anyone got the number

    for
    > Bellview?


    212-562-4141
     
  16. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Chris Glidden wrote:
    >> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> > Mike Vandeman wrote:
    >> >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:20 -0800, "Chris Glidden"
    >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> .Au contraire. I win. I'm leaving for a ride in 10 minutes.

    > It's a
    >> >> .beautiful day and all is good.
    >> >>
    >> >> Break a leg. :)
    >> >
    >> > DEATH THREAT FROM TYPICAL HIKER DULY NOTED.
    >> >
    >> > Bill "it's obvious...Duh!" S.
    >> >

    >> I sould report him to the proper authorities. Anyone got the number

    > for
    >> Bellview?

    >
    > 212-562-4141
    >

    Nice. Hopefully they have a padded cell for him. ;-)
     
  17. On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:12:20 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..
    .."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:[email protected]
    ..>
    ..>>>>>>snipped out of consideration
    ..>
    ..> ..
    ..> ..--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 took that out of context. I proved it in the following sentences,
    ..which you
    ..> .conveniently omitted.
    ..>
    ..
    ..
    ..Since your sentences prove nothing lets look at them.
    ..
    ..
    ..> Here's the full text:
    ..>
    ..> The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made
    ..available" by
    ..> the various treatments. 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. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the very weak
    .."simulated
    ..> rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the collecting tray;
    ..only
    ..> very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they admit that the
    ..simulator's
    ..> "small size . meant that the kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall
    ..events was
    ..> roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms".
    ..
    ..Lets look at your proof. You've disputed their measure and then verbally
    ..made
    ..some criticism to discredit it. You don't offer any other study to back
    ..your
    ..disagreement, just "for example......" and a discussion based on your
    ..
    .. OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..Call me a cynic Michael but since most of what you cite is available only
    ..through
    ..one of your various websites.......I DON'T TRUST IT. Your bias is
    ..obviously strong
    ..enough to challenge your judgement and maybe your integrity. My habit is
    ..verify
    ..information against third party disinterested sources, which kind of
    ..eliminates your websites.
    ..And most of your backup can only be found on your pages. Question of
    ..credibility.

    Stop beatng about the bush and address the "error" you mentioned above. Did he
    measure erosion properly, or not?! You said that there's something wrong with
    what I said, but you refuse to say exactly what's wrong with it! (Hint: the fact
    that I gave an opinion isn't it.) Was I right, or wrong? So far, you have quoted
    me out of context, but you haven't said what's wrong. (Hint: Yoy CAN'T!)
    ===
    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
     
  18. On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:02:36 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..
    .."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:[email protected]
    ..> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:15:30 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]>
    ..wrote:
    ..>
    ..> .
    ..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip snip snip>>>>>>>>>>>>
    ..>
    ..> Coincidentally, you weren't able to give even ONE example (because then
    ..you
    ..> could easily be refuted).
    ..
    ..Since you don't operate with accepted methodology you do find it easy
    ..to refute, but without the rigor of science your refutation is without
    ..merit.

    What did you just say? That IS science! Criticizing methodology is part of
    science. Otherwise, naive people will believe the BS.

    ..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip snip.........
    ..> .> .
    ..> .> .>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.
    ..>
    ..> Motirized bikes aren't allowed on that road.
    ..
    ..But you said that mountain bikes aren't allowed on that road either.
    ..So the violator must be a mountain bike instead of a motorized
    ..dirt bike.

    Yes, it WAS a mountain biker. That's what I said. They ride there illegally.
    Motorcyclists don't.

    ..> And about the same width as a waffle-soled
    ..> .Nike.
    ..>
    ..> Nonsense. Shoes are wider than any mountain bike tire. And that snake is
    ..too
    ..> fast for anyone to step on it.
    ..
    ..Actually not really, the instep of my Saucony Predators (a trail running
    ..shoe)
    ..is the same width as my Mavic Hansventure 26x2.35 tire and the lugs on the
    ..sole mimic a tire tread quite well
    ..>
    ..> . Or an easily wieldable dropped tree limb.
    ..>
    ..> Nonsense. There are no tree limbs like that in the area.
    ..
    ..Perhaps you are mistaken?
    ..
    ..May I excerpt a description from http://www.ebparks.org/parks/black.htm ,
    ..****************************************************************************
    ..**
    ..NATURAL FEATURES
    ..VEGETATION
    ..The Preserve's 47 miles of trails traverse areas of grassland, foothill
    ..woodland,
    ..mixed evergreen forest, chaparral, stream vegetation and exotic plantings.
    ..Notable among the latter are several tree species introduced by the coal
    ..miners.
    ..These include the black locust, pepper tree, almond, eucalyptus and tree of
    ..heaven.
    ..
    ..Black Diamond is noted as the northernmost location of Coulter pine, black
    ..sage,
    ..desert olive and dudleya. In addition, several species that are restricted
    ..to the
    ..Mt. Diablo area occur here, including the Mt. Diablo globe lily, Mt. Diablo
    ..helianthella
    ..and Mt. Diablo manzanita. In the springtime, the hills are covered with some
    ..of the
    ..most remarkable wildflower displays in the Bay Area.
    ..****************************************************************************
    ..*****************
    ..
    ..Sounds like a branch might be located in woodland or mixed evergreen forest.
    ..I've got a black locust in the yard, real gnarled bark pattern and they
    ..drop limbs
    ..all the time.

    BS. I have been hiking for half a century, and have never seen a branch fall.
    But I HAVE seen lots of mountain bikers riding illegally.

    ..> .Seems to me like you jumped to a conclusion.
    ..>
    ..> No, the professional herpetologist made that judgment.
    ..
    ..Made that assumption that was qualified by the word "apparently.

    That's how they talk, in order to be absolutely correct.

    ..> .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.
    ..>
    ..> It is if there is no other possible explanation.
    ..
    ..But it could have been a motorized vehicle since dirt bikers do violate
    ..restrictions
    ..on access, with impunity since it is difficult if not impossible to catch
    ..them,

    BS. They would leave wide tire tracks. There are NONE.

    ..could have been a sneaker mark,

    Nonsense: too wide.

    .. and could have been a tree limb since they
    ..obviously do exist in that area. I will refrain from calling you a liar
    ..though, Michael.

    EXTREMELY unlikely. The wound was made by something uniformly flat, the width of
    a mountain bike tire.

    ..> .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.
    ..>
    ..> Because he's a scientist, and wants to be impeccable.
    ..
    ..But you don't care about that and that is precisely your problem, you have
    ..decided
    ..that the uncertainty inherent in science does not meet your needs and so,
    ..like a child, have resorted to yelling louder and name calling to "prove"
    ..your point.

    BS. I just tell the truth. You just don't like it.

    ..>>>>>>>>>>>snip>>>>>>>
    ..
    ..>
    ..> Now you are just lying. The scientist wrote on the tag attached to the
    ..snake
    ..> "apparently killed by a mountain biker".
    ..
    ..Again with the "lying."
    ..
    ..>>>>>>>>>>>>snip>>>>>>
    ..>
    ..> .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.
    ..>
    ..> BS. The paper it was based on was already accepted by TWO international
    ..> scientific conferences.
    ..
    ..The papers you cite and attack have been accepted, your half-baked
    ..conclusions that refer to these papers have not been accepted anywhere.

    Yes, they have. Not ONE person at either conference objected to any of the
    paper.

    ..You are trying to use the credibility of the study to buttress your
    ..argument.
    ..You're an adman, not a scientist.

    I am a scientist. You are a liar.

    ..> 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.
    ..>
    ..> That's not what the researchers say. They know more than you do.
    ..
    ..Really. As do you in your robust sense of self I am sure.
    ..
    ..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    ..
    ..> .
    ..> .But I despise your intellectual dishonesty and so we will joust.
    ..>
    ..> BS. You just don't like my CONCLUSIONS.
    ..
    ..No, I disagree with your conclusions because they are biased and sloppy.

    You have yet to demonstrate any bias. You have yet to find any error in my
    paper.

    ..I don't know you but I don't like your name-calling close-minded and nasty
    ..persona.
    ..I can and do accept new input and data constantly, but I do not accept
    ..blindly
    ..without verification and in reviewing your "Review" I found your arguments
    ..lacked merit
    ..and your conclusions wanting.

    No, you didn't. You have yet to give a single specific. You provide nothing but
    hot air. Get specific, or get lost.
    ===
    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
     
  19. i'll bet a mt biker stole his girl/boyfriend once upon a time and this
    is all just an attempt to 'deal' with his anger and grief
     
  20. Argwailoe McCallister Jan 22, 6:42 am show options

    Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
    From: Argwailoe McCallister <[email protected]> - wrote:

    >i'll bet a mt biker stole his girl/boyfriend >once upon a time and

    this
    >is all just an attempt to 'deal' with his >anger and grief.


    For the 411 on Mike see:

    <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.mountain-bike/msg/50f3dd8eba56b618>
    A classic story if I say so myself. ;)
     
Loading...
Loading...