A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Recumbent Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Solution to Bashed Chainrings?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old July 20th 11, 07:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default habitat

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
Ads
  #132  
Old July 20th 11, 08:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default habitat

On Jul 18, 3:29*pm, James wrote:
I would like to see a lot of access restricted to "under your own power"
types of recreation. No power boats. No snowmobiles. No horses.


Interesting. *Bicycles are obviously accepted.


A long time ago, AYH (American Youth Hostels) had something in their
handbook that stated that priority would be given to travelers
arriving 'under their own power.' The reality was that few hostels in
the U.S. abided by that policy.
  #133  
Old July 20th 11, 02:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default habitat

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.
  #134  
Old July 20th 11, 05:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default habitat

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.

  #135  
Old July 20th 11, 05:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
RobertH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default habitat

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.

  #136  
Old July 20th 11, 05:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
RobertH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default habitat

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.
  #137  
Old July 20th 11, 06:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default habitat

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/l...,7468891.story

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
  #139  
Old July 20th 11, 11:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Michael Press
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,202
Default habitat

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
  #140  
Old July 21st 11, 04:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default habitat

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cyclist Bashed Craig Strong Australia 21 January 31st 07 04:58 AM
Bush bashed by bike Grazza Australia 0 February 28th 06 02:43 AM
McEwen bashed by thugs at Indy Shabby Australia 14 October 26th 05 12:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.