"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

SMS wrote in
:

Subject: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in
Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." From: SMS
Newsgroups:
alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environme nt,sci.env
ironment

After yakking away about mountain bikes during Hurricane Katrina hit and while people were still drowning, I
decree that mountain bike talk is outta sci.environment.

Anybody posting about mountain bikes in sci.environment is added to my killfile so I never have to read their
psychopathic pro or con **** ever again.

Current killfile outcasts:

39036
0
0
0
39036
39038
39054
39036
a_plutonium 0
alan connor lid 0
alan connor faq 39037
alexandra ceelie 39036
andy h 0
arachnid 39049
bill sornson 39037
brad guth 0
caelan 0
cc 39036
chainsmoker 39054
chris foster 39038
david james polewka am 0
david reilly 0
39035
di 39038
ed pirrero 0
faruk.nur 0
fole haafstra reply.to.group.not.me 0
frankie lee 0
hairy hopelessly brain dead hairy hopeless@brain dead.com 39043
hanson 39038
(david polewka) 0
jacob navia 0
jason 0
jason 39036
jeff strickland 39036
john fernbach 39032
john smith 0
jp 0
laura friedman 0
39032
martin willett lid 39038
meltdarok 0
michael halliwell 0
mike vandeman 0
pmhilton 39054
r e l p o m i r a c u l o u s 0
rand simberg h 39036
s curtiss 39037
sbc yahoo 39036
sean elkins 39038
sohn 0
surfgeo 39036
thegist am 39037
tom 39037

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:05:25 -0700, SMS
wrote:

wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)

snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

Mountain bikes have been around for 25 years or so, and in that time
there has not been a single study that has shown greater impact on
trails from bicycles than from hikers or horses. All users have impact
on the wilderness, but in reality, the impact from mountain bikes is
less than impact from horses, and about the same as impact from hikers.

The opposition to mountain bikes is not based on trail impact or
wilderness impact, it's based on the problem of incompatible users
trying to use the same trails.

Pure BS. For the truth, see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
There has NEVER been a legitimate study showing that mountain biking
impacts are no worse than those of hiking. NOT ONE.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:32:07 GMT, "Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms"
wrote:

SMS wrote in
:

Subject: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in
Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." From: SMS
Newsgroups:
alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environme nt,sci.env
ironment

After yakking away about mountain bikes during Hurricane Katrina hit and while people were still drowning, I
decree that mountain bike talk is outta sci.environment.

Anybody posting about mountain bikes in sci.environment is added to my killfile so I never have to read their
psychopathic pro or con **** ever again.

Current killfile outcasts:

39036
0
0
0
39036
39038
39054
39036
a_plutonium 0
alan connor lid 0
alan connor faq 39037
alexandra ceelie 39036
andy h 0
arachnid 39049
bill sornson 39037
brad guth 0
caelan 0
cc 39036
chainsmoker 39054
chris foster 39038
david james polewka am 0
david reilly 0
39035
di 39038
ed pirrero 0
faruk.nur 0
fole haafstra reply.to.group.not.me 0
frankie lee 0
hairy hopelessly brain dead hairy hopeless@brain dead.com 39043
hanson 39038
(david polewka) 0
jacob navia 0
jason 0
jason 39036
jeff strickland 39036
john fernbach 39032
john smith 0
jp 0
laura friedman 0
39032
martin willett lid 39038
meltdarok 0
michael halliwell 0
mike vandeman 0
pmhilton 39054
r e l p o m i r a c u l o u s 0
rand simberg h 39036
s curtiss 39037
sbc yahoo 39036
sean elkins 39038
sohn 0
surfgeo 39036
thegist am 39037
tom 39037

Yawn.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms wrote:
SMS wrote in

Hey cool I made his hit list. Heh he's just another troll like alan
connor. It's sad that somenes life is so empty that they have to
announce they're killfiling someone.

At least mikey is an "honest" troll.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)

snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

Mountain bikes have been around for 25 years or so, and in that time there
has not been a single study that has shown greater impact on trails from
bicycles than from hikers or horses. All users have impact on the
wilderness, but in reality, the impact from mountain bikes is less than
impact from horses, and about the same as impact from hikers.

The opposition to mountain bikes is not based on trail impact or
wilderness impact, it's based on the problem of incompatible users trying
to use the same trails.

I leave the problem of trail impact to Mr. Vandeman who is an expert on the
subject. My objection is as you have noted, the incompatibility of various
users of the trails. I maintain that bikers need separate trails for that
reason alone. It is very strange to me that bikers can't seem to realize how
they destroy the wilderness experience for us hikers.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:13:46 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:39:41 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



Mike,

With regards to point 1, you have always stated that you feel it is
impossible for the mountain bikers to look at nature while they ride.




True. But they CAN stop! This paper offered ZERO evidence that
mountain bikers never stop.





But that has been your assertation...that mountain bikers have to be so
focused on their ride that they wouldn't see the sheep and therefore
wouldn't stop...your historic arguement makes your disagreement with
this part of the paper invalid...or are you changing your point of view?



You are (deliberately?) misisng the point: the authors have to do
science, not just try to make the conclusion come out the way they
want it to.



Gee...I think the same point has been made about your opinions and
"literature reviews."

My literature review IS science, much as you would like to believe
otherwise.

For my introduction to experimental design at the
Master's level, I designed an experiment that, due to my experience, I
already knew the variables for...they are well documented scientific
fact and based on some fairly simple physics and math.

That's not the case with mountain biking.

The exercise was
in the design and testing of the initial hypothesis. Guess what?
Although I knew what the answer should be, there wasn't a statistically
significant difference developed in my experimental design....I ended up
learning more about the limitations of experimental design than most of
my counterparts. Just because you "know" the answer (and it really
doesn't matter at this point if you know the "truth"), you still have to
be able to prove it with scientific research.

That's exactly my point. Papuochis et al ASSUMED they knew what hikers
& mountain bikers do, rather than testing it.

To date, what you have
provided regarding the "truth about mountain biking" hasn't included
such research and, as such, it is little more than propaganda or trying
to make the conculsions come out the way *you* want them to.

BS. I ACCEPTED for the sake of argument that they authors proved what
they said they did. It follows that mountain biking has several times
the impact of hiking, because they travel several times as far as
hiking. You don't need an experiment to prove that. It's simple
arithmetic.

For point 2: At what point is it manipulation of the conditions to
manufacture proof vs. reflecting actual conditions?




This paper offered ZERO evidence that hikers approach sheep (and that
mountain bikers DON'T). They created those conditions deliberately. If
you are going to measure hikers, then measure hikers -- don't
manipulate them by telling them what to do!




Yet, from my personal observation, this reflects actual conditions where
I live...hikers, who generally don't get out into nature much, are so
enthralled by seeing wildlife that they approach to get a better look
and photos to show off at work or send to family. Those who bike see
the sheep and keep on going.



Your personal observation is not science, and is quitely probably
biased. If you saw hikers ignore sheep, ot a biker approach them, I
doubt that you would notice or remember it.



Funny, your personal observations were all the justification you needed
in many of your previous posts to a.m-b. Thanks for showing your double
standard when it comes to mountain biking.

I wasn't pretending to be doing science -- just telling the truth.
That's not enough for a scientific paper. But you already knew that.
You are just grasping at straws.

Where is your




proof that such a manipulation has occurred.




I can see that you never actually READ the paper, invalidating 100% of
your comments. They admitted it in the paper! DUH!




Once again, at which point is it a manipulation to unrealistic
conditions vs. a reflection of actual happenings?



Only science will tell, not your opinion.


And now you want to rely on science....geee...is that the same "junk
science" you keep trying to discredit here or is it the science that you
haven't done yet?

Not having the


assistants approach (like I've seen hikers do on a regular basis) could
also be viewed as a manipulation of the experimental conditions....shy
of hiding in the bushes and hoping you have a representative popluations
and adequate sample size, some experimental design will be required.



It must be normal conditions. No one has ever TOLD me on a hike to
approach wildlife, so that's not normal.



Maybe not for you....but then again, you're so concerned about the
plants you're stepping on, you wouldn't notice the sheep to go for a
closer look anyway. So maybe it's just that you're not normal? My
personal observation (once again, using your standard from previous
posts) is that hikers are more prone approach wildlife than those on
mountain bikes...in my books, that makes it at least a plausible
methodology.

As these papers are peer




reviewed




I see no evidence that it was peer-reviewed. Not all articles are
peer-reviewed. If it was peer-reviewed, that process is not
infallible. People are very busy and could easily have missed that
important point, especially if they aren't aware how contentious this
issue is and how strong, therefore, is the motivation to cheat, as
they have done.




And so, how then would you defend your work against the same accusation?
Can you prove that you don't have a motivation to cheat as this is a
contentious issue? (Especially with your stated goals and views on your
website leading to a strong potential bias.) Where are the independent
peer reviews (though not infallable) on your work that are intended to
provide a third-party check and (hopefully) help weed out the errors,
bias and misleading statements that can interfere with the truth?



I don't need to prove anything, because anyone reading the articles I
reviewed can see the same things I saw. And, if they are honest (which
you are NOT), report them.


So, honest people putting their work through peer review is worthless as
things can be missed and so, with your word that you're honest, you
expect us to accept your view on their science without peer review? Do
you sell bridges on the side using the same logic, Mike?



Mike, as passionate as I understand you are on this subject, you are
going to have continued resistance.

Those of use who have so much as a basic understanding of the scientific
methodology see bias in what you have presented



Show me where that is. You are just mouthing the words.


I seem to recall not that long ago you taking a poster to task about
some preliminary research findings. His student hadn't completed the
work yet and it hadn't been graded, but yet, on the basis of a snippet
of the work posted, you resorted indicated that the research was clearly
flawed and resorted to personal attacks and calling the person a "liar"
and "mountain biker." For not having seen the actual paper, that sure
seems to demonstrate a clear bias.

As for other examples of your personal bias: do you own homework, Mike.
You claim that we're lazy and we shoud "learn to read" or "do your own
homework" when we ask for proof from you...now you ask for me to to do
it for you? Nice double standard again, Mike.

and no direct research


on your part...we basically see you as someone not willing to test their
hypotheses but will claim those that are attempting to gather actual
data are doing it wrong, incorrectly interpreting it or just outright
manipulating the data to provide a false conclusion. I would suggest
that you obtain funding and do your own research to disprove their
results



All you have to do is read their stuff, to see that what I say is
true. But you also have to be HONEST, which you are NOT.



As you put it "show me where that is." You claim I am dishonest....but
you don't give proof. Is it because I happen to ride a bicycle off road
that you believe I am not honest? Could that be bias, Mike?

(and possibly prove your hypotheses) and have the final report


peer reviewed and published in an appropriate journal for the subject.

For those who don't understand scientific methodology, your
presentations come across poorly (I have veiwed some of them almost as
tantrums...plus there is the avoidance of some replies, ignorant
comments to others, and name calling in yet more) and will generate
negative emotions towards you and your subject matter (or don't you
understand that with your psych degree?).

Not to get personal, but when you grow up in your posts or you step up
and actually do research (not just what you call "literature reviews")
you may have a chance at gaining back some credibility. Until such takes
place, you are wasting your efforts as your audience has discounted your
message.



Only mountain bikers. Others agree with me, because they aren't
biased.



Hmmm....do I detect some bias on your part here, Mike?

Once again, when you step up with your own experimental design, the
experiment(s) completed, the data interpreted, reported, peer reviewed
and published, perhaps I will receive some credibility...until then, I
don't think that what you claim as the "Truth" on your website (and
refer to constantly in your posts here) even rates as "junk science"
like you classify those reports that don't agree with.

Michael Halliwell
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:32:02 GMT, jason
wrote:

Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms wrote:
SMS wrote in

Hey cool I made his hit list. Heh he's just another troll like alan
connor. It's sad that somenes life is so empty that they have to
announce they're killfiling someone.

At least mikey is an "honest" troll.

Wow! Now I've really made it!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:20:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)

snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

Mountain bikes have been around for 25 years or so, and in that time there
has not been a single study that has shown greater impact on trails from
bicycles than from hikers or horses. All users have impact on the
wilderness, but in reality, the impact from mountain bikes is less than
impact from horses, and about the same as impact from hikers.

The opposition to mountain bikes is not based on trail impact or
wilderness impact, it's based on the problem of incompatible users trying
to use the same trails.

I leave the problem of trail impact to Mr. Vandeman who is an expert on the
subject. My objection is as you have noted, the incompatibility of various
users of the trails. I maintain that bikers need separate trails for that
reason alone. It is very strange to me that bikers can't seem to realize how
they destroy the wilderness experience for us hikers.

They DO know it; they just don't CARE!!!!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:55:28 +1000, stevemtbsteve
wrote:


'It is very strange to me that bikers can't seem to realize how
they destroy the wilderness experience for us hikers.'

Nice, based on the view of one, believing themself to be so important
as to speak on behalf of all 'us hikers'. As a biker, hiker and park
ranger, I would have to say respect for your fellow trail user is the
way forward. At least MV and the other guys here are attempting an
arguement, based on reason (most/ some of the time). Diving in with a
cheap shot about one group of trail users you don't like, and
proclaiming to speak on behalf of another group, dosen't add much to
the debate.

Spoken like a true anthropocentrist. Such people actually think that
they are making sense when they claim that we should all just "get
along". The problem isn't the presence of people; it's the BIKES, and
their impact on people and wildlife. Human compromises always end up
harming wildlife, who aren't given a voice. Without their bikes,
mountain bikers are indistinguishable from other people. Once on a
bike, they start feeling that everyone else should get out of their
way and let them rip up nature. It's like when people get behind the
wheel of a car: they turn into a different person. And it's not a
pretty picture. You forgot about the part of your job that requires
you to protect wildlife and the natural environment. Shame on you.

Ta
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:55:41 +1000, stevemtbsteve
wrote:
[color=blue]

Once on a
bike, they start feeling that everyone else should get out of their
way and let them rip up nature

aah, if only nonsense were truth, did i say u were arguing on reason?!

Now i am sure u could find me numerous example of biker’s bad
behaviour, and I have seen some, but I have also seen much of the
opposite - it's my daily business. The sad thing is mike u need to
maintain conflict to keep on trolling!

I am also intrigued over ur comment on my supposed anthropocentrism; I
assume u either don't know what this word means or simply misunderstood
my post.

Really? There's NO possibility that YOU aren't understanding?
Conveniently, you removed your previous post, so no one can see what I
was replying to.

I make no reference to the environmental impact of cycling in
my post, a merely state that one individual speaking as a self
appointed voice of a part of a community usually adds little to a
debate. Whether we get on or not will have no effect on the
environmental effects of any of our actions.

You obviously think that people getting along is the only or main
issue. As I said, you are anthropocentric. My statement went right
over your head.

This is similar, but not
identical, to the practice of relating all that happens in the universe
to the human experience.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande