#1
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
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.. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[OT] habitat | SMS | Techniques | 128 | July 28th 11 06:43 AM |
habitat | RobertH | Mountain Biking | 34 | July 28th 11 06:43 AM |
BIKE HABITAT | kolldata | Techniques | 2 | March 6th 11 11:52 PM |
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 17 | July 31st 08 02:15 AM |