Solution to Bashed Chainrings?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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" wrote in message
...
On Jul 15, 10:03 am, "Ronsonic" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

...
On Jul 14, 1:02 pm, Peter Cole wrote:

Can't you read? "horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably
have the right to go wherever they want to". Did you flunk grade school
English, as well?

I read what you wrote. Horses were extinct in North America until introduced
some 500 years ago. Now if you want to argue that they were re-introduced,
you could, but you'd have to explain the differences between the fossil
record and the horses that are out there now. Shall we release some wolves
into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there.

I agree with you on a philosophic basis, bikes are indeed inanimate and if
I
ever see one out on a trail on its own, I'll order it off the trail.

There is no right to bring a bike onto a trail.

Why ever do you say such a silly thing. I have every right to ride the
trails.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Jul 18, 1:45 pm, SMS wrote:
On 7/17/2011 8:36 AM, Opus wrote:

On Jul 17, 9:53 am, wrote:
snipity
Since all the experts agree that mountain bicycling is no more damaging
to trails or wildlife than hiking, there is no reason to have such
limits on mountain biking in national parks.

"Experts" other than Mikey, you mean?

Yes, I'm referring to those that have done a scientific analysis of the
impact of each type of trail user. That explicitly excludes our favorite
troll.

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

Are you trying to tell us that you are unbiased?