Re: habitat

[RobertH]

On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:

> BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
> "scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
> dishonest.

I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
dishonest:

IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
activities, and similar recovery times.

EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
Development, 1994.

If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose
we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy
unnatural gash through the wilderness. (This also confirmed by
scientific research.) Worrying so much about trail damage is kind of
fundamentally bogus as an environmentalist cause.

If you really care about wildlife, destroy the trail entirely, then
keep your animal-terrorizing self at home and out of the wilderness..

[James[_8_]]

On Jul 20, 4:54*pm, RobertH > wrote:

> If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose
> we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy
> unnatural gash through the wilderness.

Wild animals make and use "game trails" all the time. Domestic
animals do the same. Just look at sheep tracks around hillsides.

--
JS.

[RobertH]

On Jul 20, 7:13 am, James > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 4:54 pm, RobertH > wrote:
>
> > If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose
> > we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy
> > unnatural gash through the wilderness.
>
> Wild animals make and use "game trails" all the time. Domestic
> animals do the same. Just look at sheep tracks around hillsides.

Yes.. but a man-made trail or trail associated with humans will cause
disruption even if nobody is on it. Certain species incl. birds will
alter their natural migration patterns to avoid the trail entirely. In
arid areas or high altitude the trail itself represents the biggest
erosion-starter around, even if it is in perfect condition. This is
true for trails that have never hosted a single mtb'er.

It is environmentally bogus to 'protect' trails. There are a lot of
fine reasons for keeping trails in good shape, ecology aint one of em.

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH > wrote:
> On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
> > "scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
> > dishonest.
>
> I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
> dishonest:

Then you know NOTHING about science. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm
for the details.

> IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
> VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
> Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
> activities, and similar recovery times.
>
> EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
> ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
> Development, 1994.
>
> If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose
> we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy
> unnatural gash through the wilderness. (This also confirmed by
> scientific research.) Worrying so much about trail damage is kind of
> fundamentally bogus as an environmentalist cause.

Yes, of course. The mouyntain bikers think "conservation" means
"preserving trails".

> If you really care about wildlife, destroy the trail entirely, then
> keep your animal-terrorizing self at home and out of the wilderness..

I agree, I have been saying that for 15 years. Where have you been?

[James[_8_]]

On Jul 21, 2:31*am, RobertH > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 7:13 am, James > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 4:54 pm, RobertH > wrote:
>
> > > If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose
> > > we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy
> > > unnatural gash through the wilderness.
>
> > Wild animals make and use "game trails" all the time. *Domestic
> > animals do the same. *Just look at sheep tracks around hillsides.
>
> Yes.. but a man-made trail or trail associated with humans will cause
> disruption even if nobody is on it. Certain species incl. birds will
> alter their natural migration patterns to avoid the trail entirely.

I have observed many animals, including some birds, _using_ man made
trails. Kangaroos, wallabies, wombats, dingos, deer, pigs, goats,
emus (a bird), foxes, etc.

--
JS.

[James[_8_]]

On Jul 21, 4:54*pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH > wrote:

> > If you really care about wildlife, destroy the trail entirely, then
> > keep your animal-terrorizing self at home and out of the wilderness..
>
> I agree, I have been saying that for 15 years. Where have you been?

You don't practice what you preach?

--
JS.

[SMS]

On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH > wrote:
> On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
> > "scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
> > dishonest.
>
> I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
> dishonest:
>
> IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
> VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
> Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
> activities, and similar recovery times.
>
> EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
> ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
> Development, 1994.

Yes, these are all peer-reviewed and published papers so you have at
least some assurance that they are based on fact.

It speaks volumes that there are zero papers that have ever concluded
that mountain bikes cause any more damage to trails or wildlife
habitat than hikers. After all this time you can be sure that if there
were any evidence that mountain bikes caused more damage than hikers
that a reputable and qualified person would have written a peer-
reviewed and published paper on the subject, but no one has.

[T°m Sherm@n]

On 7/21/2011 1:54 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:54 pm, > wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike > wrote:
>>
>>> BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
>>> "scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
>>> dishonest.
>>
>> I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
>> dishonest:
>
> Then you know NOTHING about science. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm
> for the details.
>
>> IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
>> VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
>> Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
>> activities, and similar recovery times.
>>
>> EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
>> ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
>> Development, 1994.
>>
>> If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose
>> we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy
>> unnatural gash through the wilderness. (This also confirmed by
>> scientific research.) Worrying so much about trail damage is kind of
>> fundamentally bogus as an environmentalist cause.
>
> Yes, of course. The mouyntain bikers think "conservation" means
> "preserving trails".
>
>> If you really care about wildlife, destroy the trail entirely, then
>> keep your animal-terrorizing self at home and out of the wilderness..
>
> I agree, I have been saying that for 15 years. Where have you been?

Cutting down trees with a HANDSAW to build a tree fort, perhaps?

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

[Mike Vandeman[_4_]]

On Jul 21, 9:43*am, SMS > wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Vandeman > wrote:
>
> > > BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
> > > "scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
> > > dishonest.
>
> > I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
> > dishonest:
>
> > IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
> > VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
> > Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
> > activities, and similar recovery times.
>
> > EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
> > ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
> > Development, 1994.
>
> Yes, these are all peer-reviewed and published papers so you have at
> least some assurance that they are based on fact.
>
> It speaks volumes that there are zero papers that have ever concluded
> that mountain bikes cause any more damage to trails or wildlife
> habitat than hikers. After all this time you can be sure that if there
> were any evidence that mountain bikes caused more damage than hikers
> that a reputable and qualified person would have written a peer-
> reviewed and published paper on the subject, but no one has.

1. You are wrong. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
2. Absence of research doesn't imply absence of impact. DUH!