E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aDRcg.184273$7a.163938@pd7tw1no...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:23:08 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:tc9cg.14353$B42.4898@dukeread05...
>>>
>>>>Vandeman must be a closet Republican - After all, it is the Republicans
>>>>who usually subscribe to the notion "If You Say Something Often Enough
>>>>People Will Believe It To Be True"
>>>>
>>>>This same piece has been posted and refuted many times over the years.
>>>>If its raining outside, kill some time by reviewing Google Group search
>>>>"vandeman" "The Effects of Mountain Biking" - You will find many replies
>>>>and Vandeman's tactic responses to them. You will find Vandeman's
>>>>"science" reduced to the reality of name-calling, character assasination
>>>>and slander on his part towards anyone who questions his opinions.
>>>>Happy reading!
>>>
>>>Im well aware of Vandemans 'work' and website.
>>>
>>>As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can post
>>>substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>>>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>>>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>>>vegetation, in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and
>>>on three different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what, the
>>>results of his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between mountain
>>>biking and walking.
>>
>>
>> So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
>> "researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that
>> hikers vs. bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it
>> follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers,
>> since they travel several times as far! Idiot.
>>
>> There
>
> Mike, we've been over this before. Impact per foot is the same and you
> appear to have no problem with that statement.
>
> Granted, bikes do go further; however, you keep forgetting that hikers
> have more impact in the areas they do travel due to their sheer
> numbers....one cyclist going 2x or 3x as far has less impact than the 100
> hikers out there for every mountain biker.
Most trails that hikers have a great impact on are rather short trails
located near popular trail heads and visitor centers. Once you get beyond
the first few miles, you are into true hiking country where there are few
hikers at which point there is very little impact on the trail. As usual,
Vandeman is right and Halliwell is wrong.
> Taken as a whole with total impacts of mountain biking vs hiking (and
> taking into account the relative populations of participants in the
> sport), then mountain biking does less *total* damage. Perhaps you should
> be trying to get Ed to stay off his walking paths, hiking trails and
> "sacred places?" There are a few good hiking related newsgroups out there
> that I'm sure would be happy to hear from you.
The Great Ed Dolan mainly treks where few others venture to go. On many of
my hikes I can go for days without ever encountering anyone at all. When
that happens, I know I am in paradise.
All wilderness is sacred to me. The reason for that is because there is so
little of it left. Halliwell is a Canadian and there may be more wilderness
left in that huge country. But as goes the US, so goes the rest of the
world. Halliwell should be very worried about the future of wilderness
everywhere in the world.
Curtiss and his ilk want mountain bikes to be able to go everywhere,
desecrating and despoiling everything in their wake. They are soulless
creatures who know nothing of the sacred and have no notion of wilderness
and what it is good for. The out-of-doors is nothing but a playground to
them. They are the ultimate savages and not worthy of living in a civilized
society. In short, they belong in New Guinea or Borneo.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
news:aDRcg.184273$7a.163938@pd7tw1no...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:23:08 GMT, "Jules Augley"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:tc9cg.14353$B42.4898@dukeread05...
>>>
>>>>Vandeman must be a closet Republican - After all, it is the Republicans
>>>>who usually subscribe to the notion "If You Say Something Often Enough
>>>>People Will Believe It To Be True"
>>>>
>>>>This same piece has been posted and refuted many times over the years.
>>>>If its raining outside, kill some time by reviewing Google Group search
>>>>"vandeman" "The Effects of Mountain Biking" - You will find many replies
>>>>and Vandeman's tactic responses to them. You will find Vandeman's
>>>>"science" reduced to the reality of name-calling, character assasination
>>>>and slander on his part towards anyone who questions his opinions.
>>>>Happy reading!
>>>
>>>Im well aware of Vandemans 'work' and website.
>>>
>>>As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can post
>>>substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>>>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>>>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>>>vegetation, in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and
>>>on three different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what, the
>>>results of his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between mountain
>>>biking and walking.
>>
>>
>> So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
>> "researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that
>> hikers vs. bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it
>> follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers,
>> since they travel several times as far! Idiot.
>>
>> There
>
> Mike, we've been over this before. Impact per foot is the same and you
> appear to have no problem with that statement.
>
> Granted, bikes do go further; however, you keep forgetting that hikers
> have more impact in the areas they do travel due to their sheer
> numbers....one cyclist going 2x or 3x as far has less impact than the 100
> hikers out there for every mountain biker.
Most trails that hikers have a great impact on are rather short trails
located near popular trail heads and visitor centers. Once you get beyond
the first few miles, you are into true hiking country where there are few
hikers at which point there is very little impact on the trail. As usual,
Vandeman is right and Halliwell is wrong.
> Taken as a whole with total impacts of mountain biking vs hiking (and
> taking into account the relative populations of participants in the
> sport), then mountain biking does less *total* damage. Perhaps you should
> be trying to get Ed to stay off his walking paths, hiking trails and
> "sacred places?" There are a few good hiking related newsgroups out there
> that I'm sure would be happy to hear from you.
The Great Ed Dolan mainly treks where few others venture to go. On many of
my hikes I can go for days without ever encountering anyone at all. When
that happens, I know I am in paradise.
All wilderness is sacred to me. The reason for that is because there is so
little of it left. Halliwell is a Canadian and there may be more wilderness
left in that huge country. But as goes the US, so goes the rest of the
world. Halliwell should be very worried about the future of wilderness
everywhere in the world.
Curtiss and his ilk want mountain bikes to be able to go everywhere,
desecrating and despoiling everything in their wake. They are soulless
creatures who know nothing of the sacred and have no notion of wilderness
and what it is good for. The out-of-doors is nothing but a playground to
them. They are the ultimate savages and not worthy of living in a civilized
society. In short, they belong in New Guinea or Borneo.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota