The "Science" on Mountain Biking Impacts



"Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dano" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > >From: "Don Weir" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: RE: Mountain Biking
> > > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:45:41 -0400
> > > X-URL: <http://www.mtnforum.org/>
> >
> <SNIP>


"that's a nice but false generalization. it's like saying that all
cars get
poor gas mileage because the Hummer gets poor gas mileage."

I'm not sure I follow your analogy. It's more like saying that 5 boys
do a lot of damage. A more accurate and perhaps less tendentious
analogy would be "it's like saying all the damage caused by Hummers
outweighs that of the rest of the automobile fleet".

"although, you raise [a]n interesting point. you only cite anectotal
evidence for "boys whooping down hill". does that mean that boys (or
girls for that
matter) riding (not whooping) on level or even inclined terrain do
not have
greater impact?"

I don't know why you would address my argument in this way. If you
wish to try to set up a condition where I give a likely false
assertion, that's great. It's a little simplistic and you should try
harder. But you don't know me and perhaps you assumed I'm typical of
of some group.

Why don't you try to bolster your case with some, um, facts? The
assertion is that MTBs have greater impacts than hikers and
equestrians. Find a peer-reviewed study that asserts a different
conclusion.

I shall read the USFS paper, search the PNW pubs database for more
studies, and search other DBs as well to address the facts you
present.

D
 
> "that's a nice but false generalization. it's like saying that all
> cars get
> poor gas mileage because the Hummer gets poor gas mileage."
>
> I'm not sure I follow your analogy. It's more like saying that 5 boys
> do a lot of damage. A more accurate and perhaps less tendentious
> analogy would be "it's like saying all the damage caused by Hummers
> outweighs that of the rest of the automobile fleet".
>
> "although, you raise [a]n interesting point. you only cite anectotal
> evidence for "boys whooping down hill". does that mean that boys (or
> girls for that
> matter) riding (not whooping) on level or even inclined terrain do
> not have
> greater impact?"
>
> I don't know why you would address my argument in this way. If you
> wish to try to set up a condition where I give a likely false
> assertion, that's great. It's a little simplistic and you should try
> harder. But you don't know me and perhaps you assumed I'm typical of
> of some group.
>
> Why don't you try to bolster your case with some, um, facts? The
> assertion is that MTBs have greater impacts than hikers and
> equestrians. Find a peer-reviewed study that asserts a different
> conclusion.
>
> I shall read the USFS paper, search the PNW pubs database for more
> studies, and search other DBs as well to address the facts you
> present.
>
> D

Dano,

Congrats on adding a coherent argument to the debate. Mikes stuff is so
poorly written and argued as to be totally worthless to his side.

In my opinion, you implied the real difference in "damage" to the trail, of
bikers to hikers, without emphasizing it.

Once trails are open to bikers, they tend to get more biker traffic than
hiker traffic. This is what really causes the added erosion. I think
anyone would be a fool to argue that on a mile per mile comparison a
mountain bike causes more erosion than a horse.

Having said that, it leads to other questions.

1. Could trails be made to support the added traffic? (say by applying some
type of suface material...not concrete or blacktop, but something more
natural that would hold down the surface.)

2. Would more trails lead to less erosion due to spreading out the traffic?

3. Would limiting access volume help? (say only allowing so many entries
per day...etc.)

4. Should trails be physically closed during wet periods?

5. Should access fees be charged?

It would be nice to see a healthy, logical debate.
 
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:02:17 -0400, "Daniel Lauring"
<[email protected]> wrote:

..> "that's a nice but false generalization. it's like saying that all
..> cars get
..> poor gas mileage because the Hummer gets poor gas mileage."
..>
..> I'm not sure I follow your analogy. It's more like saying that 5 boys
..> do a lot of damage. A more accurate and perhaps less tendentious
..> analogy would be "it's like saying all the damage caused by Hummers
..> outweighs that of the rest of the automobile fleet".
..>
..> "although, you raise [a]n interesting point. you only cite anectotal
..> evidence for "boys whooping down hill". does that mean that boys (or
..> girls for that
..> matter) riding (not whooping) on level or even inclined terrain do
..> not have
..> greater impact?"
..>
..> I don't know why you would address my argument in this way. If you
..> wish to try to set up a condition where I give a likely false
..> assertion, that's great. It's a little simplistic and you should try
..> harder. But you don't know me and perhaps you assumed I'm typical of
..> of some group.
..>
..> Why don't you try to bolster your case with some, um, facts? The
..> assertion is that MTBs have greater impacts than hikers and
..> equestrians. Find a peer-reviewed study that asserts a different
..> conclusion.
..>
..> I shall read the USFS paper, search the PNW pubs database for more
..> studies, and search other DBs as well to address the facts you
..> present.
..>
..> D
..
..Dano,
..
..Congrats on adding a coherent argument to the debate. Mikes stuff is so
..poorly written and argued as to be totally worthless to his side.
..
..In my opinion, you implied the real difference in "damage" to the trail, of
..bikers to hikers, without emphasizing it.
..
..Once trails are open to bikers, they tend to get more biker traffic than
..hiker traffic. This is what really causes the added erosion. I think
..anyone would be a fool to argue that on a mile per mile comparison a
..mountain bike causes more erosion than a horse.

No one has ever argued that. The fact is that a biker causes more damage than a
hiker, partly because they travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAR!

..Having said that, it leads to other questions.
..
..1. Could trails be made to support the added traffic? (say by applying some
..type of suface material...not concrete or blacktop, but something more
..natural that would hold down the surface.)

No. It's impossible. Just look at your tires! Besides, if you add something, it
is automatically exotic & hence not natural.

..2. Would more trails lead to less erosion due to spreading out the traffic?

No, people just ride more.

..3. Would limiting access volume help? (say only allowing so many entries
..per day...etc.)

Yes. ZERO bikes. That automatically reduces the number of people, as well as how
far they travel.

..4. Should trails be physically closed during wet periods?

Only to bikes. Most people would automatically reduce their use, due to not
wanting to get wet.

..5. Should access fees be charged?

What for? The real issue is not money, but unnatural MACHINERY in nature, which
doesn't belong there.

..It would be nice to see a healthy, logical debate.
..
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:02:17 -0400, "Daniel Lauring"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Congrats on adding a coherent argument to the debate. Mikes stuff is so
>poorly written and argued as to be totally worthless to his side.
>
>In my opinion, you implied the real difference in "damage" to the trail, of
>bikers to hikers, without emphasizing it.
>
>Once trails are open to bikers, they tend to get more biker traffic than
>hiker traffic. This is what really causes the added erosion. I think
>anyone would be a fool to argue that on a mile per mile comparison a
>mountain bike causes more erosion than a horse.
>
>Having said that, it leads to other questions.
>
>1. Could trails be made to support the added traffic? (say by applying some
>type of suface material...not concrete or blacktop, but something more
>natural that would hold down the surface.)
>
>2. Would more trails lead to less erosion due to spreading out the traffic?
>
>3. Would limiting access volume help? (say only allowing so many entries
>per day...etc.)
>
>4. Should trails be physically closed during wet periods?
>
>5. Should access fees be charged?
>
>It would be nice to see a healthy, logical debate.
>
This is an excellent example of the sort of rational debate here which
Mikey's approach completely stifles. See his response, utterly
reflexive and unreasoning and uncompromising.

A data point for you in this area would be to look at the Walden Woods
Project here in Massachusetts. This has been rebuilding erosion damage
and hardening trails and protecting vegetation around Walden Pond,
which is heavily used both by fans of HDT, but as one of the better
recreational walks in the area.

Very impressive use of high-thought, low-tech trail building
techniques to stabilize soil and encourage plant growth. Another few
years, it will be visually close to what Henry saw from his cabin, and
able to handle the many visitors.

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

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
 
"Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Happy trails,
> Gary (net.yogi.bear)

No fair, Gary. But the exception always proves the rule!

Wouldn't it be funny if you guys could get a constructive debate going in
spite of it all? Being driven to the margins must shatter certain
personality types!!

Kum Ba Ya and all...
 
Dano said...

> Why don't you try to bolster your case with some, um, facts? The
> assertion is that MTBs have greater impacts than hikers and
> equestrians. Find a peer-reviewed study that asserts a different
> conclusion.

MTBs have a greater impact than horses? You're stoned out of your skull.
Nothing pulverizes a trail like horses. I suppose you think the huge
piles of **** they leave behind are nutritious fertilizer. But in the
big picture the threats posed to wildlife and forests by hikers, bikers
and horses are minuscule compared to the overwhelming threats of
pollution, road construction and urban sprawl. How does wildlife migrate
across a limited access highway? It doesn't. And even cities that are
shrinking in population, like Cleveland, are growing in area as more and
more outlying acres are gobbled up to build more and more cloverleaf
intersections, truck stops and exurban strips.

While Vandemoron and whoever is stupid enough to agree with him
regurgitate their futile trolls on Usenet, the only place they would
ever be published, the world is being paved over so that fat asses never
have to get out of their gas guzzling SUVs. As ironic as it may seem, at
the end of the day we are all on the same team, and idiots like
Vandetwit are the best thing that ever happened to the big developers,
because he makes all environmentalists look like idiots. He is the Yin
to Rush Limbaugh's Yang. They both use each other to preach to their own
close-minded audience while any constructive debate on urban planning
and alternative fuels is lost in the noise. Congratulations to all for
being part of the problem.
 
"Daniel Lauring" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[snip]

> Dano,

[snip]

> In my opinion, you implied the real difference in "damage" to the trail, of
> bikers to hikers, without emphasizing it.

Correct, all things being equal.

> Once trails are open to bikers, they tend to get more biker traffic than
> hiker traffic. This is what really causes the added erosion.

And causes conflict, as the users are there for different purposes,
although some interests may overlap.

>I think
> anyone would be a fool to argue that on a mile per mile comparison a
> mountain bike causes more erosion than a horse.

I am a plant and ecosystem person, so scalar issues are important to
my consideratons. I, personally, would analyze impacts on smaller
scales than mile-per-mile, as it is likely there could be areas
severely impacted by MTB traffic, viz. sharp corners taken at speed,
or long uphills. Conversely, similar impacts may be found on hiking
trails where switchbacks are cut.

> Having said that, it leads to other questions.
>
> 1. Could trails be made to support the added traffic? (say by applying some
> type of suface material...not concrete or blacktop, but something more
> natural that would hold down the surface.)

This is a resource allocation issue. In these days of fiscal
constraint, I'm not sure where the money would come from. Conceptually
it is a valid consideration.

> 2. Would more trails lead to less erosion due to spreading out the traffic?

Good question. Possibly. It may also lessen the likelihood of
conflict. Again, finding the money to build these trails is an issue.
Although, certain NFs, such as Lassen, Tahoe, ElDorado, Shasta-Trinity
have extensive fire road and old logging road systems that commonly
lead to views. Securing easements or rights-of-way on some of these
systems may be a viable strategy.

> 3. Would limiting access volume help? (say only allowing so many entries
> per day...etc.)

It is a strategy employed in certain WAs to limit foot traffic. I'm
sure the business interests nearby would complain of adverse impacts,
as most business models are predicated upon steady growth to succeed.
Traffic may also shift to other areas, possibly shifting impacts.
However, this limitation strategy can be part of a larger package of
options and not a sole solution. Certainly a concession may show that
one side is willing to sit at the table and work out viable solutions.

> 4. Should trails be physically closed during wet periods?

IMHO, some trails yes. My interest here is the transportation of
exotic species or pathogens - e.g. the Coastal Ranges of CA are now
susceptible to Sudden Oak Death, and wet conditions there raise higher
likelihoods for the pathogen to be transported out to new areas
(active sporulation).

> 5. Should access fees be charged?

If mitigating impacts is a viable management alternative, then yes -
again, fiscal conservatism with regard to who pays for stewardship is
driving my answer. If the public land managers aren't getting the
funds to manage public lands, then the users have to step up, IMO,
because no one else will. My 'business interests' portion of answer 3
applies here as well.

> It would be nice to see a healthy, logical debate.

It would indeed. I just started reading the articles on this topic and
am quite surprised at the level of dissembling, tendention, vitriol
and polarization.

Best Daniel,

D
 
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:36:31 GMT, Super Slinky <[email protected]> wrote:

..Dano said...
..
..> Why don't you try to bolster your case with some, um, facts? The
..> assertion is that MTBs have greater impacts than hikers and
..> equestrians. Find a peer-reviewed study that asserts a different
..> conclusion.
..
..MTBs have a greater impact than horses?

On wildlife. Yes. We aren't talking about trails.

You're stoned out of your skull.
..Nothing pulverizes a trail like horses. I suppose you think the huge
..piles of **** they leave behind are nutritious fertilizer. But in the
..big picture the threats posed to wildlife and forests by hikers, bikers
..and horses are minuscule compared to the overwhelming threats of
..pollution, road construction and urban sprawl. How does wildlife migrate
..across a limited access highway? It doesn't. And even cities that are
..shrinking in population, like Cleveland, are growing in area as more and
..more outlying acres are gobbled up to build more and more cloverleaf
..intersections, truck stops and exurban strips.
..
..While Vandemoron and whoever is stupid enough to agree with him
..regurgitate their futile trolls on Usenet, the only place they would
..ever be published, the world is being paved over so that fat asses never
..have to get out of their gas guzzling SUVs.

Funny, when I was working on trying to STOP that paving, NOT ONE mountain biker
ever showed up at any hearing to speak against the highway construction, nor did
they ever write a letter. They were and ARE too preoccupied with maximizing
their access to our public lands and trails.

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 24 Apr 2004 12:45:13 -0700, [email protected] (Dano) wrote:

.."Daniel Lauring" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..
..[snip]
..
..> Dano,
..
..[snip]
..
..> In my opinion, you implied the real difference in "damage" to the trail, of
..> bikers to hikers, without emphasizing it.
..
..Correct, all things being equal.
..
..> Once trails are open to bikers, they tend to get more biker traffic than
..> hiker traffic. This is what really causes the added erosion.
..
..And causes conflict, as the users are there for different purposes,
..although some interests may overlap.
..
..>I think
..> anyone would be a fool to argue that on a mile per mile comparison a
..> mountain bike causes more erosion than a horse.
..
..I am a plant and ecosystem person, so scalar issues are important to
..my consideratons. I, personally, would analyze impacts on smaller
..scales than mile-per-mile, as it is likely there could be areas
..severely impacted by MTB traffic, viz. sharp corners taken at speed,
..or long uphills. Conversely, similar impacts may be found on hiking
..trails where switchbacks are cut.
..
..> Having said that, it leads to other questions.
..>
..> 1. Could trails be made to support the added traffic? (say by applying some
..> type of suface material...not concrete or blacktop, but something more
..> natural that would hold down the surface.)
..
..This is a resource allocation issue. In these days of fiscal
..constraint, I'm not sure where the money would come from. Conceptually
..it is a valid consideration.
..
..> 2. Would more trails lead to less erosion due to spreading out the traffic?
..
..Good question. Possibly. It may also lessen the likelihood of
..conflict. Again, finding the money to build these trails is an issue.
..Although, certain NFs, such as Lassen, Tahoe, ElDorado, Shasta-Trinity
..have extensive fire road and old logging road systems that commonly
..lead to views. Securing easements or rights-of-way on some of these
..systems may be a viable strategy.
..
..> 3. Would limiting access volume help? (say only allowing so many entries
..> per day...etc.)
..
..It is a strategy employed in certain WAs to limit foot traffic. I'm
..sure the business interests nearby would complain of adverse impacts,
..as most business models are predicated upon steady growth to succeed.
..Traffic may also shift to other areas, possibly shifting impacts.
..However, this limitation strategy can be part of a larger package of
..options and not a sole solution. Certainly a concession may show that
..one side is willing to sit at the table and work out viable solutions.
..
..> 4. Should trails be physically closed during wet periods?
..
..IMHO, some trails yes. My interest here is the transportation of
..exotic species or pathogens - e.g. the Coastal Ranges of CA are now
..susceptible to Sudden Oak Death, and wet conditions there raise higher
..likelihoods for the pathogen to be transported out to new areas
..(active sporulation).

If you were to be honest, you would oppose the use of mountain bikes (due to
their knobby tires, which pick up dirt & mud & transport it long distances) and
lug-soled shoes.

..> 5. Should access fees be charged?
..
..If mitigating impacts is a viable management alternative, then yes -
..again, fiscal conservatism with regard to who pays for stewardship is
..driving my answer. If the public land managers aren't getting the
..funds to manage public lands, then the users have to step up, IMO,
..because no one else will. My 'business interests' portion of answer 3
..applies here as well.
..
..> It would be nice to see a healthy, logical debate.
..
..It would indeed. I just started reading the articles on this topic and
..am quite surprised at the level of dissembling, tendention, vitriol
..and polarization.
..
..Best Daniel,
..
..D

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 24 Apr 2004 12:45:13 -0700, [email protected] (Dano) wrote:

[snip]

> If you were to be honest, you would oppose the use of mountain bikes (due to
> their knobby tires, which pick up dirt & mud & transport it long distances) and
> lug-soled shoes.

[snip]

I am being honest.

I don't know why you would say that I'm not, when you do not know me
nor do you know my views.

I don't know how to solve the impacts issue. I DO know that strident
extremism creates polarization. I believe a quotation from Ursula K
LeGuin is appropriate here:

To oppose something is to maintain it.

Education is a better strategy, IMO. I would rather ask people to
clean their bikes and shoes before leaving the parking area. That way
you appear to promote reasonable solutions.

D
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:16:15 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .
> .> I was present when Audrey Taylor, Rick Knight's student, presented her
> .paper.
> .> She said that mountain bikers and hikers have the same impact on
wildlife.
> .I
> .> pointed out to her and Rick that that conclusion wasn't warranted,
since
> .she had
> .> IGNORED the greater distance travelled by mountain bikers. They
couldn't
> .answer
> .> that.
> .>
> .
> .If a hiker and a biker travelled the same distance over the same trail,
the
> .impact would be the same.
>
> BS. There are no scientific studies supporting that.
>

There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

You posted a study that placed the mountain bike impact and the hiking
impact at the same level during a particular time period of the study. I
merely extrapolated on the hypothisys.
 
On 25 Apr 2004 13:59:10 -0700, [email protected] (Dano) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> On 24 Apr 2004 12:45:13 -0700, [email protected] (Dano) wrote:
..
..[snip]
..
..> If you were to be honest, you would oppose the use of mountain bikes (due to
..> their knobby tires, which pick up dirt & mud & transport it long distances) and
..> lug-soled shoes.
..
..[snip]
..
..I am being honest.
..
..I don't know why you would say that I'm not, when you do not know me
..nor do you know my views.

I know you from whaat you said (and FAILED to say).

..I don't know how to solve the impacts issue. I DO know that strident
..extremism creates polarization. I believe a quotation from Ursula K
..LeGuin is appropriate here:
..
..To oppose something is to maintain it.

That is nothing but rationalization.

..Education is a better strategy, IMO. I would rather ask people to
..clean their bikes and shoes before leaving the parking area. That way
..you appear to promote reasonable solutions.

Good luck! And since they aren't going to (how many trailheads are supplied with
running water?!), bikes should be banned from trails.

..D

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 19:13:10 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:16:15 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .> I was present when Audrey Taylor, Rick Knight's student, presented her
..> .paper.
..> .> She said that mountain bikers and hikers have the same impact on
..wildlife.
..> .I
..> .> pointed out to her and Rick that that conclusion wasn't warranted,
..since
..> .she had
..> .> IGNORED the greater distance travelled by mountain bikers. They
..couldn't
..> .answer
..> .> that.
..> .>
..> .
..> .If a hiker and a biker travelled the same distance over the same trail,
..the
..> .impact would be the same.
..>
..> BS. There are no scientific studies supporting that.
..>
..
..There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.
..
..You posted a study that placed the mountain bike impact and the hiking
..impact at the same level during a particular time period of the study. I
..merely extrapolated on the hypothisys.

You aren't reporting the results honestly. They found that mountain bikers had a
greater impact on elk. The fact that ther weren't significantly different during
one part of the day doesnt change that overall fact.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[snip]

> I know you from whaat you said (and FAILED to say).

[snip]

> Good luck! And since they aren't going to (how many trailheads are supplied with
> running water?!), bikes should be banned from trails.

Yes, now I'm beginning to understand the reason for the vitriol toward your posts.

Good luck in your...um...single-mindedness.

[/ignore]

D
 
> You aren't reporting the results honestly. They found that mountain bikers
had a
> greater impact on elk. The fact that ther weren't significantly different
during
> one part of the day doesnt change that overall fact.


What the study exposes is that the difference overall between biking and
hiking is not significant, not that the insignificance only occurs during
certain parts of the day. There is a very small difference (weighted in
favor of hiking) at one part of the day, but at another part of the day, the
two activities are virtually identical.

You are the one that is not reporting the results honestly. You are pulling
out a single point of the results, and making that point central to the
entire study. The fact is, the study is looking at 4 types of human activity
and attempts to guage the impacts of those activities. Its goal is not to
show that biking, or any of the 4 activities, is a particular "problem", the
goal is to illustrate that we need to consider management options to
facilitate each of the activities while meeting the needs of the animals.
The study itself points out that it may have skewwed the results because of
the way the study was organized and conducted.

I agree with the premise of the study, what I disagree with is your blanket
condemnation of an activity (biking) while suggesting that another activity
(hiking) is preferred. The facts brought out by this particular study shows
that your position is just not true.
 
Mike Vandeman said...

> On wildlife. Yes. We aren't talking about trails.

********. Why would wildlife be more afraid of a bike than a horse? Give
me some scientific proof. Of course we both know there isn't any. I know
from personal experience that wildlife gets used to seeing bikes and
lose their fear of it. At one local park you can ride almost within
reaching distance of deer and they don't even flinch. Bikers are
interested in biking and not killing, harassing or otherwise interacting
with wildlife. Oh, and that park started out as an unofficial dump where
scumbags would throw out their old junk without having to pay the
landfill. Bikers cleaned it up so they would have a place to ride. They
took out huge dumpster loads of trash with a considerable investment of
labor and money. Now it is a clean park open to hikers, bikers and it is
a safe oasis for wildlife.

> Funny, when I was working on trying to STOP that paving, NOT ONE mountain biker
> ever showed up at any hearing to speak against the highway construction, nor did
> they ever write a letter. They were and ARE too preoccupied with maximizing
> their access to our public lands and trails.

Again, ********. I personally know of biking organizations working to
raise the alarm about the consequences of road construction.
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 19:13:10 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:16:15 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> .> I was present when Audrey Taylor, Rick Knight's student, presented her
> .> .paper.
> .> .> She said that mountain bikers and hikers have the same impact on
> .wildlife.
> .> .I
> .> .> pointed out to her and Rick that that conclusion wasn't warranted,
> .since
> .> .she had
> .> .> IGNORED the greater distance travelled by mountain bikers. They
> .couldn't
> .> .answer
> .> .> that.
> .> .>
> .> .
> .> .If a hiker and a biker travelled the same distance over the same trail,
> .the
> .> .impact would be the same.
> .>
> .> BS. There are no scientific studies supporting that.
> .>
> .
> .There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.
> .
> .You posted a study that placed the mountain bike impact and the hiking
> .impact at the same level during a particular time period of the study. I
> .merely extrapolated on the hypothisys.
>
> You aren't reporting the results honestly. They found that mountain bikers had a
> greater impact on elk. The fact that ther weren't significantly different during
> one part of the day doesnt change that overall fact.
> ===

As reported by the IMBA site, Chris Papouchis big horn work in the
Canyon Lands area found that hikers adversely affected bighorn more than
mt. bikers. I talk to Chris a couple times a week and a couple of weeks
a ago during our bi-weekly discussions, I inquired if the summary fairly
characterized his findings; Chris (not a mt. biker - never has and just
recently bought a bike after not having one for the last few years and
guess what, it was not a mt. bike) indicated that it did. By the way,
he had no idea what IMBA stands for since he does not mt. bike.


> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:10:03 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

..> You aren't reporting the results honestly. They found that mountain bikers
..had a
..> greater impact on elk. The fact that ther weren't significantly different
..during
..> one part of the day doesnt change that overall fact.
..
..
..What the study exposes is that the difference overall between biking and
..hiking is not significant, not that the insignificance only occurs during
..certain parts of the day. There is a very small difference (weighted in
..favor of hiking) at one part of the day, but at another part of the day, the
..two activities are virtually identical.

BS. You obviously know NOTHING about science or statistics. "Significant" means
that they differ, which they DO. That's obvious to everyone but mountain bikers
& a few other morons.

..You are the one that is not reporting the results honestly. You are pulling
..out a single point of the results, and making that point central to the
..entire study. The fact is, the study is looking at 4 types of human activity
..and attempts to guage the impacts of those activities. Its goal is not to
..show that biking, or any of the 4 activities, is a particular "problem", the
..goal is to illustrate that we need to consider management options to
..facilitate each of the activities while meeting the needs of the animals.
..The study itself points out that it may have skewwed the results because of
..the way the study was organized and conducted.
..
..I agree with the premise of the study, what I disagree with is your blanket
..condemnation of an activity (biking) while suggesting that another activity
..(hiking) is preferred.

Less harmful activities are ALWAYS preferred. DUH!

The facts brought out by this particular study shows
..that your position is just not true.

Liar.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back