|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/21/2011 10:55 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
-snip snip- Ronsonic wrote: Shall we release some wolves into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there. You may have meant that as hyperbole. Assholes did exactly that to us in Wisconsin. Really. People from Chicago released wolves in Wisconsin? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/21/2011 7:22 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:17 am, wrote: On Jul 20, 11:20 am, 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. Neither were killed due to doing something stupid, as mountain bikers are. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY stupid and predictably dangerous. Yes, a person could get attacked by a HANDSAW wielding wacko nut while mountain biking. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/21/2011 7:20 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:00 am, wrote: On Jul 20, 4:49 pm, Michael 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. But since they have the right to go wherever they want to, that's not a problem. Bikes, on the other hand, have NO rights. I understand that hiking on the UC Berkeley trail system is a privilege and not a right. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 21, 8:34*am, "Ronsonic" wrote:
Shall we release some wolves into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there. Of course we should. It could be pretty entertaining. Quite how gruesomely entertaining, you can read in my short story "The Survivor". Don't get it from Amazon; you have to pay on Amazon. Get it from Smashwords free of charge http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/72627 Come to think of it, another free short, in "Two Shorts" http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/73667 has a hi-fi connection... Andre Jute Visit Jute on Bicycles at http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 21, 7:42*am, SMS wrote:
On 7/21/2011 12:17 AM, RobertH wrote: On Jul 20, 11:20 am, *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. There are tragic accidents for both hikers and cyclists, as well as non-accidents caused by doing something stupid. Look what happened at Yosemite a couple of days ago to two hikers. Tragic, but it should not reflect on all hikers. If you're just looking at the impact of various activities upon habitat, all the studies and evidence have proven that there is basically no difference between cyclists and hikers, but that horses have a far greater negative impact. For disturbing wildlife, cyclists have the least impact of the three activities. It's immaterial as to a) when horses came to North America, or b) when mountain bikes were invented. This is not a debate on who was here first, it's a debate on who is creating the most negative impact on habitat and who is damaging trails the most. In that respect, our favorite troll has absolutely no scientific evidence to back his position.. Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong. For the above statement to be true, [anyone] must be equal to [Mike Vandeman]. That's some kind of inflexible technical definition of insanity, I think. For your own benefit, I urge you to 1) seek help and treatment for your illness, and 2) stop pestering sane people. Chalo |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/22/2011 1:33 AM, Chalo wrote:
snip 2) stop pestering sane people. Most people here have had him filtered out for years. Usenet is an emotional outlet for him. It's better that our favorite troll spend his time posting this nonsense than committing more crimes against trail users. He may be banned from the trails where the previous crimes occurred, but there are lots of other trails around where he could re-offend. Another positive is that by posting so much fact-free nonsense he is actually helping to promote mountain biking, which not only aids in creating a bigger constituency for habitat protection, but helps the economy in terms of equipment sales. Perhaps that's been his goal all along, to publicize the positive aspects of mountain biking. This has been a good thread since it included many links to definitive research that proves that mountain biking is no more destructive on habitat than hiking. It's always good to discredit trolls with irrefutable facts. A lot of people that have done no research instinctively consider mountain biking to be higher impact to habitat than hiking or horseback riding, when in fact all the research ever performed shows the opposite to be the case. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist Bashed | Craig Strong | Australia | 21 | January 31st 07 03:58 AM |
Bush bashed by bike | Grazza | Australia | 0 | February 28th 06 01:43 AM |
McEwen bashed by thugs at Indy | Shabby | Australia | 14 | October 26th 05 12:23 AM |