Re: habitat

[RobertH]

On Jul 14, 2:38 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 1:02 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7/14/2011 10:48 AM, SMS wrote:
>
> > > On 7/12/2011 5:08 PM, James wrote:
>
> > >> Horses also leave lots of manure that may contain foreign seeds, and it
> > >> is said heavy hooves damage delicate soil structures, in this country.
>
> > > MV is probably very opposed to horses as well but since one of his only
> > > supporters is a real estate agent that bills herself as a "Horse
> > > Property Specialist," he feels obligated to not publicly oppose them.
>
> > > This is a shame since if he could be educated to direct his efforts
> > > against the trail users that cause the most damage he would give up on
> > > mountain bikes and concentrate on equestrians.
>
> > India has sacred cows, we've got sacred horses. I've ridden horses,
> > mountain biked and hiked on the same trails. No contest, horses trash
> > the place, but they're grandfathered in. It's ironic that many of our
> > local trails have seasonal closures during mud season, but the only
> > users who are excluded are bikers.
>
> You obviously haven't studied the SCIENCE (REAL science, not the JUNK
> science created by mountain bikers). The SCIENCE shows that mountain
> bikers have greater impacts on erosion, plants, and animals, partly
> because they generally travel several times as FAR and as FAST as
> other trail users, multiplying their impacts. (Seehttp://mjvande/nfshost.com/scb7.htm.)

Your link doesn't work.

It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby
creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed
is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is
in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also,
some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on
foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of
a slow human on foot.

Generally speaking, mtn bikers have some negative impact on wildlife.
But hikers are in no position to get all self-righteous about the
negative impact caused by mtn. bikers. That would be very
hypocritical, based on all available evidence.

> Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
> the right to go wherever they want to.

Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.

What is your "PhD" all about?

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 19, 11:09*pm, RobertH > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:38 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 1:02 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
> > > On 7/14/2011 10:48 AM, SMS wrote:
>
> > > > On 7/12/2011 5:08 PM, James wrote:
>
> > > >> Horses also leave lots of manure that may contain foreign seeds, and it
> > > >> is said heavy hooves damage delicate soil structures, in this country.
>
> > > > MV is probably very opposed to horses as well but since one of his only
> > > > supporters is a real estate agent that bills herself as a "Horse
> > > > Property Specialist," he feels obligated to not publicly oppose them.
>
> > > > This is a shame since if he could be educated to direct his efforts
> > > > against the trail users that cause the most damage he would give up on
> > > > mountain bikes and concentrate on equestrians.
>
> > > India has sacred cows, we've got sacred horses. I've ridden horses,
> > > mountain biked and hiked on the same trails. No contest, horses trash
> > > the place, but they're grandfathered in. It's ironic that many of our
> > > local trails have seasonal closures during mud season, but the only
> > > users who are excluded are bikers.
>
> > You obviously haven't studied the SCIENCE (REAL science, not the JUNK
> > science created by mountain bikers). The SCIENCE shows that mountain
> > bikers have greater impacts on erosion, plants, and animals, partly
> > because they generally travel several times as FAR and as FAST as
> > other trail users, multiplying their impacts. (Seehttp://mjvande/nfshost.com/scb7.htm.)
>
> Your link doesn't work.
>
> It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby
> creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed
> is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is
> in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also,
> some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on
> foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of
> a slow human on foot.
>
> Generally speaking, mtn bikers have some negative impact on wildlife.
> But hikers are in no position to get all self-righteous about the
> negative impact caused by mtn. bikers. That would be very
> hypocritical, based on all available evidence.
>
> > Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
> > the right to go wherever they want to.
>
> Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.

That has nothing to do with what I said: "horses evolved in North
America, and hence arguably have
the right to go wherever they want to".

> What is your "PhD" all about?

Psychology/Psychometrics,

[Chalo]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> RobertH wrote:
> >
> > What is your "PhD" all about?
>
> Psychology/Psychometrics,

LOL!

[James[_8_]]

On 20/07/2011 4:34 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:09 pm, > wrote:

>> What is your "PhD" all about?
>
> Psychology/Psychometrics,

You forgot comedy?

--
JS

[SMS]

On 7/19/2011 11:09 PM, RobertH wrote:

> It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby
> creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed
> is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is
> in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also,
> some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on
> foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of
> a slow human on foot.

This is what all the scientists have found (and what docents and rangers
have also observed). A human that moves quickly
(and quietly) through an area is far less disruptive than a human that
moves slowly. Of course this all changes when the human is on a
motorized vehicle or riding an animal. Amusingly, if you wanted to
minimize wildlife impact you would ban hikers and allow only mountain
bikes, but I don't see any mountain bikers lobbying for this.

The bottom line is that whether using boots made of rubber, leather,
plastic, and metal, or a bicycle made of metal, rubber, and plastic,
trail users have an impact both on the trail and on wildlife. The reason
that a few hikers are so opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
nothing to do with the relative impact on trails and wildlife and
everything to do with preferring to have the trails to themselves. I
don't blame them for not wanting mountain bikes on the trail, it's
annoying to have to move over to let them pass. At least most are honest
about it and don't make up stories about trail damage or wildlife
impact, which is wise considering all the scientific evidence.

[RobertH]

On Jul 20, 10:27 am, SMS > wrote:
> On 7/19/2011 11:09 PM, RobertH wrote:
>
> > It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby
> > creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed
> > is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is
> > in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also,
> > some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on
> > foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of
> > a slow human on foot.
>
> This is what all the scientists have found (and what docents and rangers
> have also observed). A human that moves quickly
> (and quietly) through an area is far less disruptive than a human that
> moves slowly. Of course this all changes when the human is on a
> motorized vehicle or riding an animal. Amusingly, if you wanted to
> minimize wildlife impact you would ban hikers and allow only mountain
> bikes, but I don't see any mountain bikers lobbying for this.
>
> The bottom line is that whether using boots made of rubber, leather,
> plastic, and metal, or a bicycle made of metal, rubber, and plastic,
> trail users have an impact both on the trail and on wildlife. The reason
> that a few hikers are so opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
> nothing to do with the relative impact on trails and wildlife and
> everything to do with preferring to have the trails to themselves. I
> don't blame them for not wanting mountain bikes on the trail, it's
> annoying to have to move over to let them pass. At least most are honest
> about it and don't make up stories about trail damage or wildlife
> impact, which is wise considering all the scientific evidence.


Yes..

Here are some more ref's if anyone is interested in this stuff:

Bennett and Zuelke, 1999. Showed passing or stopping vehicles less
disturbing than people on foot.

Papouchis, Singer and Sloan, 2001. Desert bighorn sheep study showed
hikers have more impact than vehicles or mountain bikes.

Spahr, 1990 grad. thesis, on eagle flushing, walkers most disturbing.

Knight and Cole, "Wildlife Responses to Recreationists," in Knight,
ed., Wildlife and Rescreationists: Coexistence through Management and
Research, 1995.

Gutzwiller, et al, 1994.

On the outsized impact from horses: Nagy and Scotter, 1974.

in addition to the two already mentioned up-thread. Etc.

[AMuzi]

RobertH wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:38 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 1:02 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7/14/2011 10:48 AM, SMS wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2011 5:08 PM, James wrote:
>>>>> Horses also leave lots of manure that may contain foreign seeds, and it
>>>>> is said heavy hooves damage delicate soil structures, in this country.
>>>> MV is probably very opposed to horses as well but since one of his only
>>>> supporters is a real estate agent that bills herself as a "Horse
>>>> Property Specialist," he feels obligated to not publicly oppose them.
>>>> This is a shame since if he could be educated to direct his efforts
>>>> against the trail users that cause the most damage he would give up on
>>>> mountain bikes and concentrate on equestrians.
>>> India has sacred cows, we've got sacred horses. I've ridden horses,
>>> mountain biked and hiked on the same trails. No contest, horses trash
>>> the place, but they're grandfathered in. It's ironic that many of our
>>> local trails have seasonal closures during mud season, but the only
>>> users who are excluded are bikers.
>> You obviously haven't studied the SCIENCE (REAL science, not the JUNK
>> science created by mountain bikers). The SCIENCE shows that mountain
>> bikers have greater impacts on erosion, plants, and animals, partly
>> because they generally travel several times as FAR and as FAST as
>> other trail users, multiplying their impacts. (Seehttp://mjvande/nfshost.com/scb7.htm.)
>
> Your link doesn't work.
>
> It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby
> creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed
> is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is
> in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also,
> some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on
> foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of
> a slow human on foot.
>
> Generally speaking, mtn bikers have some negative impact on wildlife.
> But hikers are in no position to get all self-righteous about the
> negative impact caused by mtn. bikers. That would be very
> hypocritical, based on all available evidence.
>
>> Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
>> the right to go wherever they want to.
>
> Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.
>
> What is your "PhD" all about?

meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-lake-forest-teen-20110720,0,7468891.story

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[mike fee]

In article <47856de2-10e9-4505-810f-
>,
says...
> On Jul 19, 11:09*pm, RobertH > wrote:
> >
> > Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.
>
> That has nothing to do with what I said: "horses evolved in North
> America, and hence arguably have
> the right to go wherever they want to".
>
So presumably, with consideration of the historic presence of mammoths
and camels in north america, you would not be against the re-
introduction of these species where possible and would support elephant
treking in US national parks?

Mike

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
RobertH > wrote:

> On Jul 14, 2:38 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:

[...]

> > Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
> > the right to go wherever they want to.
>
> Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.

Both are true statements.

--
Michael Press

[SMS]

On 7/20/2011 9:47 AM, RobertH wrote:

<snip>

> Here are some more ref's if anyone is interested in this stuff:
>
> Bennett and Zuelke, 1999. Showed passing or stopping vehicles less
> disturbing than people on foot.
>
> Papouchis, Singer and Sloan, 2001. Desert bighorn sheep study showed
> hikers have more impact than vehicles or mountain bikes.
>
> Spahr, 1990 grad. thesis, on eagle flushing, walkers most disturbing.
>
> Knight and Cole, "Wildlife Responses to Recreationists," in Knight,
> ed., Wildlife and Rescreationists: Coexistence through Management and
> Research, 1995.
>
> Gutzwiller, et al, 1994.
>
> On the outsized impact from horses: Nagy and Scotter, 1974.
>
> in addition to the two already mentioned up-thread. Etc.

Just confirms what everyone already knew.

It's not surprising that facts, logic, and science are of no interest to
criminals. Criminals don't read much and are not well-informed. Many
cannot read at all.

[T°m Sherm@n]

On 7/20/2011 1:09 AM, RobertH wrote:
> [...]
> What is your (Vandeman) "PhD" all about?

Allegedly [1]:

------------

From the UCLA library:

Author/Name: Vandeman, Michael Joseph, 1943-
Title: Chemical description of food taste preferences among Black-,
Japanese-, and Mexican-Americans derived by means of nonmetric
multidimensional scaling / by Michael Joseph Vandeman.
Published/distributed: 1973.
Physical description: vii, 109 leaves : ill.
Subject(s): Food preferences.
Food --Research.
Taste.
Genre/form: Dissertations, Academic --UCLA --Psychology.
Record ID: 3531915
Collection: UCLA Libraries and Collections
Location: SRLF (Select "Request an item" from the menu bar)
Call Number: LD791.9.P9 V281 [Barcode: D0003805421]
Status: Not Checked Out
Number of Items: 1
-------------

[1] <http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=634668&page=13>.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[T°m Sherm@n]

On 7/20/2011 1:45 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>> RobertH wrote:
>>>
>>> What is your "PhD" all about?
>>
>> Psychology/Psychometrics,
>
> LOL!
>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_therapy>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanon>

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 20, 9:27*am, SMS > wrote:
> On 7/19/2011 11:09 PM, RobertH wrote:
>
> > It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby
> > creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed
> > is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is
> > in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also,
> > some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on
> > foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of
> > a slow human on foot.
>
> This is what all the scientists have found (and what docents and rangers
> have also observed). A human that moves quickly
> (and quietly) through an area is far less disruptive than a human that
> moves slowly.

You just fabricated that. There is no research supporting that. On the
contrary, Wisdom et al showed that mountain bikers have a greater
impact on willdife than either hikers or equestrians.

Of course this all changes when the human is on a
> motorized vehicle or riding an animal. Amusingly, if you wanted to
> minimize wildlife impact you would ban hikers and allow only mountain
> bikes, but I don't see any mountain bikers lobbying for this.
>
> The bottom line is that whether using boots made of rubber, leather,
> plastic, and metal, or a bicycle made of metal, rubber, and plastic,
> trail users have an impact both on the trail and on wildlife. The reason
> that a few hikers are so opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
> nothing to do with the relative impact on trails and wildlife and
> everything to do with preferring to have the trails to themselves.

You just fabricated that. We have no problem sharing trails with
mountain bikers. It's only BIKES that we want banned.

I
> don't blame them for not wanting mountain bikes on the trail, it's
> annoying to have to move over to let them pass. At least most are honest
> about it and don't make up stories about trail damage or wildlife
> impact, which is wise considering all the scientific evidence.

You are full of it. You obviously know NOTHING about that research.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 20, 9:47*am, RobertH > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:27 am, SMS > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/19/2011 11:09 PM, RobertH wrote:
>
> > > It's true that mtn bikers reach farther into the woods, thereby
> > > creating more impact than they would on a short ride. However, speed
> > > is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of wildlife impact. A hiker is
> > > in the area longer, and therefore creates a longer-term impact. Also,
> > > some species have been shown to recognize the threat of a human on
> > > foot, while basically ignoring vehicles. This multiplies the impact of
> > > a slow human on foot.
>
> > This is what all the scientists have found (and what docents and rangers
> > have also observed). A human that moves quickly
> > (and quietly) through an area is far less disruptive than a human that
> > moves slowly. Of course this all changes when the human is on a
> > motorized vehicle or riding an animal. Amusingly, if you wanted to
> > minimize wildlife impact you would ban hikers and allow only mountain
> > bikes, but I don't see any mountain bikers lobbying for this.
>
> > The bottom line is that whether using boots made of rubber, leather,
> > plastic, and metal, or a bicycle made of metal, rubber, and plastic,
> > trail users have an impact both on the trail and on wildlife. The reason
> > that a few hikers are so opposed to mountain bikes has absolutely
> > nothing to do with the relative impact on trails and wildlife and
> > everything to do with preferring to have the trails to themselves. I
> > don't blame them for not wanting mountain bikes on the trail, it's
> > annoying to have to move over to let them pass. At least most are honest
> > about it and don't make up stories about trail damage or wildlife
> > impact, which is wise considering all the scientific evidence.
>
> Yes..
>
> Here are some more ref's if anyone is interested in this stuff:
>
> Bennett and Zuelke, 1999. Showed passing or stopping vehicles less
> disturbing than people on foot.
>
> Papouchis, Singer and Sloan, 2001. Desert bighorn sheep study showed
> hikers have more impact than vehicles or mountain bikes.
>
> Spahr, 1990 grad. thesis, on eagle flushing, walkers most disturbing.
>
> Knight and Cole, "Wildlife Responses to Recreationists," in Knight,
> ed., Wildlife and Rescreationists: Coexistence through Management and
> Research, 1995.
>
> Gutzwiller, et al, 1994.
>
> On the outsized impact from horses: Nagy and Scotter, 1974.
>
> in addition to the two already mentioned up-thread.

I refuted that biased "research" years ago: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7..htm.

[RobertH]

On Jul 20, 4:49 pm, Michael Press > wrote:

> > > Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
> > > the right to go wherever they want to.
>
> > Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.
>
> Both are true statements.

Well it's complicated isn't it. The 'horses' that evolved in 'N.
America' evolved in a very different climate -- wasn't so-called N.
America down near the equator tens of millions of years ago? And then
didn't those horses become extinct in an evolutionary process as time
went on and 'N. America' changed? So arguably the timeline of horse
development in 'n. america' proves even further that Mother Nature
doesnt actually want them here. They are introduced species.

That is, unless the early horses were hunted to extinction by early
man, then all bets are off.

Anyway Vandemort's point is a non-starter. Horses almost never get to
'go wherever they want to go.' I love horses and that would be fine
with me, but the reality is they are fenced into pens and parcels then
directed along a very narrow path by their riders, thus destroying the
surface of that path.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 20, 2:20*pm, mike fee > wrote:
> In article <47856de2-10e9-4505-810f-
> >,
> says...> On Jul 19, 11:09*pm, RobertH > wrote:
>
> > > Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.
>
> > That has nothing to do with what I said: "horses evolved in North
> > America, and hence arguably have
> > the right to go wherever they want to".
>
> So presumably, with consideration of the historic presence of mammoths
> and camels in north america, you would not be against the re-
> introduction of these species where possible and would support elephant
> treking in US national parks?

No. I never said that. Mammoths and camels have the right to be here,
but not as vehicles for humans.

[RobertH]

On Jul 20, 11:20 am, AMuzi > wrote:

> meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:

Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.

In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
storm.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 21, 12:00*am, RobertH > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 4:49 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>
> > > > Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
> > > > the right to go wherever they want to.
>
> > > Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.
>
> > Both are true statements.
>
> Well it's complicated isn't it. The 'horses' that evolved in 'N.
> America' evolved in a very different climate -- wasn't so-called N.
> America down near the equator tens of millions of years ago? And then
> didn't those horses become extinct in an evolutionary process as time
> went on and 'N. America' changed? So arguably the timeline of horse
> development in 'n. america' proves even further that Mother Nature
> doesnt actually want them here. They are introduced species.
>
> That is, unless the early horses were hunted to extinction by early
> man, then all bets are off.
>
> Anyway Vandemort's point is a non-starter. Horses almost never get to
> 'go wherever they want to go.' I love horses and that would be fine
> with me, but the reality is they are fenced into pens and parcels then
> directed along a very narrow path by their riders, thus destroying the
> surface of that path.

But since they have the right to go wherever they want to, that's not
a problem. Bikes, on the other hand, have NO rights.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 21, 12:17*am, RobertH > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 11:20 am, AMuzi > wrote:
>
> > meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:
>
> Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.
>
> In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
> ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
> were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
> timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
> someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
> storm.

Neither were killed due to doing something stupid, as mountain bikers
are. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY stupid and predictably dangerous.

[SMS]

On 7/21/2011 12:17 AM, RobertH wrote:
> On Jul 20, 11:20 am, > wrote:
>
>> meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:
>
> Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.
>
> In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
> ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
> were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
> timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
> someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
> storm.

There are tragic accidents for both hikers and cyclists, as well as
non-accidents caused by doing something stupid. Look what happened at
Yosemite a couple of days ago to two hikers. Tragic, but it should not
reflect on all hikers.

If you're just looking at the impact of various activities upon habitat,
all the studies and evidence have proven that there is basically no
difference between cyclists and hikers, but that horses have a far
greater negative impact. For disturbing wildlife, cyclists have the
least impact of the three activities.

It's immaterial as to a) when horses came to North America, or b) when
mountain bikes were invented. This is not a debate on who was here
first, it's a debate on who is creating the most negative impact on
habitat and who is damaging trails the most. In that respect, our
favorite troll has absolutely no scientific evidence to back his position.

[T°m Sherm@n]

On 7/21/2011 7:22 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:17 am, > wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 11:20 am, > wrote:
>>
>>> meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:
>>
>> Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.
>>
>> In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
>> ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
>> were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
>> timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
>> someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
>> storm.
>
> Neither were killed due to doing something stupid, as mountain bikers
> are. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY stupid and predictably dangerous.

Yes, a person could get attacked by a HANDSAW wielding wacko nut while
mountain biking.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[T°m Sherm@n]

On 7/21/2011 7:20 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:00 am, > wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 4:49 pm, Michael > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
>>>>> the right to go wherever they want to.
>>
>>>> Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.
>>
>>> Both are true statements.
>>
>> Well it's complicated isn't it. The 'horses' that evolved in 'N.
>> America' evolved in a very different climate -- wasn't so-called N.
>> America down near the equator tens of millions of years ago? And then
>> didn't those horses become extinct in an evolutionary process as time
>> went on and 'N. America' changed? So arguably the timeline of horse
>> development in 'n. america' proves even further that Mother Nature
>> doesnt actually want them here. They are introduced species.
>>
>> That is, unless the early horses were hunted to extinction by early
>> man, then all bets are off.
>>
>> Anyway Vandemort's point is a non-starter. Horses almost never get to
>> 'go wherever they want to go.' I love horses and that would be fine
>> with me, but the reality is they are fenced into pens and parcels then
>> directed along a very narrow path by their riders, thus destroying the
>> surface of that path.
>
> But since they have the right to go wherever they want to, that's not
> a problem. Bikes, on the other hand, have NO rights.

I understand that hiking on the UC Berkeley trail system is a privilege
and not a right.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 21, 7:42*am, SMS > wrote:
> On 7/21/2011 12:17 AM, RobertH wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 11:20 am, > *wrote:
>
> >> meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:
>
> > Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.
>
> > In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
> > ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
> > were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
> > timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
> > someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
> > storm.
>
> There are tragic accidents for both hikers and cyclists, as well as
> non-accidents caused by doing something stupid. Look what happened at
> Yosemite a couple of days ago to two hikers. Tragic, but it should not
> reflect on all hikers.
>
> If you're just looking at the impact of various activities upon habitat,
> all the studies and evidence have proven that there is basically no
> difference between cyclists and hikers, but that horses have a far
> greater negative impact. For disturbing wildlife, cyclists have the
> least impact of the three activities.
>
> It's immaterial as to a) when horses came to North America, or b) when
> mountain bikes were invented. This is not a debate on who was here
> first, it's a debate on who is creating the most negative impact on
> habitat and who is damaging trails the most. In that respect, our
> favorite troll has absolutely no scientific evidence to back his position..

Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and
some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see
that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong.

[Chalo]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and
> some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see
> that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong.

For the above statement to be true, [anyone] must be equal to [Mike
Vandeman]. That's some kind of inflexible technical definition of
insanity, I think.

For your own benefit, I urge you to

1) seek help and treatment for your illness, and

2) stop pestering sane people.

Chalo

[SMS]

On 7/22/2011 1:33 AM, Chalo wrote:

<snip>

> 2) stop pestering sane people.

Most people here have had him filtered out for years.

Usenet is an emotional outlet for him. It's better that our favorite
troll spend his time posting this nonsense than committing more crimes
against trail users. He may be banned from the trails where the previous
crimes occurred, but there are lots of other trails around where he
could re-offend.

Another positive is that by posting so much fact-free nonsense he is
actually helping to promote mountain biking, which not only aids in
creating a bigger constituency for habitat protection, but helps the
economy in terms of equipment sales. Perhaps that's been his goal all
along, to publicize the positive aspects of mountain biking.

This has been a good thread since it included many links to definitive
research that proves that mountain biking is no more destructive on
habitat than hiking. It's always good to discredit trolls with
irrefutable facts. A lot of people that have done no research
instinctively consider mountain biking to be higher impact to habitat
than hiking or horseback riding, when in fact all the research ever
performed shows the opposite to be the case.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 22, 1:33*am, Chalo > wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and
> > some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see
> > that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong.
>
> For the above statement to be true, [anyone] must be equal to [Mike
> Vandeman]. *That's some kind of inflexible technical definition of
> insanity, I think.
>
> For your own benefit, I urge you to
>
> 1) seek help and treatment for your illness, and

Your libel is duly noted. Attacking others is how mountain bikers TRY
(and fail) to get the attention off their selfish, destrictive,
disgusting sport.

> 2) stop pestering sane people.

Liars like you and Tom Sherman are the REAL sickos. All you are doing
is reinforcing mountain bikers' rotten (and accurate) image.

> Chalo

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 22, 8:37*am, SMS > wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 1:33 AM, Chalo wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > 2) stop pestering sane people.
>
> Most people here have had him filtered out for years.
>
> Usenet is an emotional outlet for him. It's better that our favorite
> troll spend his time posting this nonsense than committing more crimes
> against trail users. He may be banned from the trails where the previous
> crimes occurred, but there are lots of other trails around where he
> could re-offend.
>
> Another positive is that by posting so much fact-free nonsense he is
> actually helping to promote mountain biking, which not only aids in
> creating a bigger constituency for habitat protection, but helps the
> economy in terms of equipment sales. Perhaps that's been his goal all
> along, to publicize the positive aspects of mountain biking.
>
> This has been a good thread since it included many links to definitive
> research that proves that mountain biking is no more destructive on
> habitat than hiking. It's always good to discredit trolls with
> irrefutable facts. A lot of people that have done no research
> instinctively consider mountain biking to be higher impact to habitat
> than hiking or horseback riding, when in fact all the research ever
> performed shows the opposite to be the case.

At the dozens of SCIENTIFIC conferences where I have presented my
papers on mountain biking, only ONE mountain biker has ever tried to
give a pro-mountain biking talk. He left with his tail between his
legs, after I pointed out that the "research" he was talking about is
BS. There isn't one shred of real science that supports mountain
biking. OF COURSE. The only people who believe otherwise are mountain
bikers like you, who are AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest.

[T°m Sherm@n]

On 7/23/2011 2:01 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> At the dozens of SCIENTIFIC conferences where I have presented my
> papers on mountain biking, only ONE mountain biker has ever tried to
> give a pro-mountain biking talk. He left with his tail between his
> legs, after I pointed out that the "research" he was talking about is
> BS. There isn't one shred of real science that supports mountain
> biking. OF COURSE. The only people who believe otherwise are mountain
> bikers like you, who are AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest.

Does your probation status allow you to leave the State of California to
attend conferences?

Would you use fossil-fuel powered transportation to get to the
conference, if you were allowed to travel?

Would you take your HANDSAW with you, in case you met up with someone
riding a mountain bike?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[T°m Sherm@n]

On 7/24/2011 9:37 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "T°m "> considered
> Sun, 24 Jul 2011 05:41:48 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 7/23/2011 2:01 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>> At the dozens of SCIENTIFIC conferences where I have presented my
>>> papers on mountain biking, only ONE mountain biker has ever tried to
>>> give a pro-mountain biking talk. He left with his tail between his
>>> legs, after I pointed out that the "research" he was talking about is
>>> BS. There isn't one shred of real science that supports mountain
>>> biking. OF COURSE. The only people who believe otherwise are mountain
>>> bikers like you, who are AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest.
>>
>> Does your probation status allow you to leave the State of California to
>> attend conferences?
>>
>> Would you use fossil-fuel powered transportation to get to the
>> conference, if you were allowed to travel?
>>
>> Would you take your HANDSAW with you, in case you met up with someone
>> riding a mountain bike?
>
> I can't imagine any airline allowing someone to carry a handsaw,
> particularly someone with a criminal conviction for using it on
> people.
>
> In fact, any airline captain I know about wouldn't carry anyone with
> that kind of record, with or without their favourite weapon.

Mikey V. is retired from Pacific Bell, so he would have plenty of time
to ride his bike and/or take a sailboat to a conference.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 24, 7:37*am, Phil W Lee > wrote:
> "T°m Sherm@n" "> considered
> Sun, 24 Jul 2011 05:41:48 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7/23/2011 2:01 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> >> At the dozens of SCIENTIFIC conferences where I have presented my
> >> papers on mountain biking, only ONE mountain biker has ever tried to
> >> give a pro-mountain biking talk. He left with his tail between his
> >> legs, after I pointed out that the "research" he was talking about is
> >> BS. There isn't one shred of real science that supports mountain
> >> biking. OF COURSE. The only people who believe otherwise are mountain
> >> bikers like you, who are AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest.
>
> >Does your probation status allow you to leave the State of California to
> >attend conferences?
>
> >Would you use fossil-fuel powered transportation to get to the
> >conference, if you were allowed to travel?
>
> >Would you take your HANDSAW with you, in case you met up with someone
> >riding a mountain bike?
>
> I can't imagine any airline allowing someone to carry a handsaw,
> particularly someone with a criminal conviction for using it on
> people.

Who might that be? Idiot.

[James[_8_]]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> You continue to demonstrate the most AMAZING ignorance. It's obvious
> that you knw NOTHING!

Speaking about yourself again?

--
JS.

[T°m Sherm@n]

On 7/24/2011 7:30 PM, James wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> You continue to demonstrate the most AMAZING ignorance. It's obvious
>> that you knw NOTHING!
>
> Speaking about yourself again?
>

I think Mikey V. is building a supporting background with his Usenet
postings for a future insanity defense.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.