|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in FiveCommon Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Psychology of Mountain Biking | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 22 | August 12th 06 03:15 AM |
The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- WhyOff-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited | Pablo Ricardo | Mountain Biking | 69 | July 23rd 04 10:40 AM |
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking | BB | Mountain Biking | 31 | July 4th 04 02:35 AM |
Why Do You Ride Mountain A Bike On Streets? | James Lynx | Mountain Biking | 53 | June 3rd 04 12:39 PM |
Mike Vandeman | qa2 | Mountain Biking | 26 | November 18th 03 12:16 PM |