A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 29th 08, 02:23 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
Last Updated October 4, 2008

1. Why do people mountain bike?
a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in
the same amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain
constant pressure on land managers, to open more and more trails to
bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already open to them, if
they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that closing trails to
bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could only be true if they
were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk. There's nothing
inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace
automobile use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token,
replacing hiking with mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see,
rather than the quality of their experience. While riding a bike,
especially over terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be constantly
paying attention to not crashing. That makes it almost impossible to
notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop instantly, if
he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation.
A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the same
stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several
times as far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal
box.)
c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail,
especially a trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not
familiar with, is very challenging. (But if mountain biking is the
high point of your week, as it seems to be for many mountain bikers,
you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of the bike!)
d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills and
competing with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives
people to spend more money on their bike, and ride it harder and more
often. Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a lot of
mountain biking. Of course, it is also extremely harmful to the parks
and natural areas that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting, that is as
harmful as mountain biking.
e. They want to get to their destination faster (not considering
that the process of getting there is a major part of the enjoyment).
Once, when much younger, I was hiking along a very boring trail. The
thought came to me that if I had a bike, I could get past the boring
section of the trail, and to the interesting part much faster. But
about 2 seconds later I realized that if I could do that, so could
everyone else, and the place would be full of people and ruined. That
was the end of my (2-second) mountain biking career.

2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the
attraction for participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain
bikes and mountain biking accessories, as well as "adventure" travel
guides, make a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even some
auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and sponsor mountain biking,
and try to use its popularity to sell more cars. The tourism industry
also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.

3. What harm does mountain biking do?
a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip
into the soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They
also create V-shaped grooves that make walking difficult or even
dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the gears and ball
bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several times as fast as a
hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
(shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops,
starts, and turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and
opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other
bikes, so that they could withstand the greater forces they were
subject to on rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are being
applied to the trails! To give a definite number, the winner of a
20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed
limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small
animals and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost
impossible to avoid killing countless animals and plants on and under
the trail. They have to pay attention to controlling the bike, and
can't afford to look carefully at what is on the trail, especially
when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see, for example, a
snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by
crossing on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other
hand, simply ride right through the creek bed, crushing any animals or
plants that happen to be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
photos of mountain bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through
creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants as they ride
across streams, they ride through streams stirring up sediment. The
sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
sediment in water.
c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a
hiker. This translates into several times the impacts, both on the
trail and on the wildlife (to say nothing of the other trail users).
Existing parklands are already inadequate to protect the wildlife that
live there. When they are crisscrossed by mountain bikers and legal or
illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more. Have you
ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes
in a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives
wildlife further from the resources that they need to survive,
including water, food, and mates.
d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each
other on narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain
biking also result in more habitat destruction, as trails are widened
by bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of their way).
e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and
consequently exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to
place, resulting in the spread of exotic invasive species, such as
weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the
trails and hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and
equestrians fear for their safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails
with bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they are simply being
selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually they have no problem
sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that are a
problem!)
g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere,
teach children and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment
of nature is acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect on
people's treatment of nature.
h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have
been resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a
plastic matrix or other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in
Pleasanton Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's
hard to imagine that this will have a beneficial effect on the park
and its wildlife….
i. Allowing mountain bikes in a park greatly increases the damage
to the trails, damage from "bootleg" (illegally created) trails, and
the problems of conflicts between trail users, and hence the cost of
maintaining the park. Considering how tight park budgets are, we can't
afford the extra costs of policing, and repairing the damage from,
mountain biking.
j. For the science on mountain biking and its impacts on wildlife
and people, see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
impact than hiking. Is that true?
a. If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that they
don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, but
only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the
studies are correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it
would still follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per
person, since mountain bikers typically travel so much farther than
hikers. Besides overlooking distances travelled, those "studies"
almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't study mountain
biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed. Actually,
the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of
the two is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning
hiking. We are only considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the
only relevant question is, "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course,
it is!) There is only one truly scientific study that I know of that
compares the impacts of hiking and mountain biking. It found that
mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than hiking (Wisdom, M.
J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of
Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69, 2004,
pp.531-550.) See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
b. On its web site, IMBA mentions recent research on mountain
biking by Dave White et al and Jeff Marion, both of whom claim that
mountain biking and hiking have "similar" impacts. Is that true?
First, "similar" is not a scientific term and really has no clear
meaning. That term is being used only to obfuscate. Second, these are
survey studies, not experimental studies. By its very nature, a survey
study cannot be used to compare the impacts from two activities,
because it doesn't control all the variables. For example, we don't
know if the differences in erosion between two trails are due to the
mountain biking vs. hiking use, or due to differences in the weather,
terrain, steepness, soil type, management practices, amount of use,
hikers on the "mountain biking trail", mountain bikers on the "hiking
trail", etc. White et al only measured their trails once, and didn't
even collect any data on hiking impacts! See
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/white and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/marion.
c. Why would a researcher risk his/her reputation by doing
such shoddy work? For money! And to ensure the continuance of their
sport. If land managers think that mountain biking is more harmful
than hiking, they will be more likely to close trails to bikes. Bike
parts manufacturer Shimano paid Professor White to do his study.
Research funds are difficult to obtain. A researcher who can be relied
upon to produce research favorable to mountain biking will be able to
obtain funding from the mountain biking industry. A researcher who
tells the truth about mountain biking won't be able to obtain research
funds and will risk stunting his/her career.

5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for
wildlife protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal
Utility District (in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California).
They both restrict bicycles to paved roads, where they can't do much
harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed to enjoy their sport for over a
hundred years, without riding off-road.

6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked
open. Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out
of the ground by mountain bikers.

7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails,
but not mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, apparently
because they think it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that
mountain bikers have exactly the same access to trails that everyone
else has! It is only their bikes that are banned. If mountain bikers
were really being discriminated against, they could easily go to court
to gain access. However … they already have access to every trail in
the world!

8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a
taxpayer! The public has the right, through its elected
representatives, to restrict how land is used. A federal court has
already ruled that there is no right to mountain bike. It is a
privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason (such as
safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails
(see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10).

9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction
and trail maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat
both directly (by killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by
reducing the size of the intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover,
mountain bikers favor trails that are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and
full of obstacles that provide thrills for mountain bikers. Such
designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the trail) and
make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be
necessary, if bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the
main reason why trail maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by
hikers require hardly any maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles
to a park greatly increases its cost of maintenance. Nothing is really
"free", including trail construction and maintenance. (How does the
saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)

10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to
quickly summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust
in a cell phone, than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural
areas are already one of the safest places you can be. In over 50
years of hiking and backpacking, I have never witnessed any situation
requiring emergency aid. Most people go to natural areas partly for
solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces of
machinery, we would stay in the city!

11. Can't mountain biking help get our overweight kids off the couch?
Hiking can already do that, without causing extra harm to wildlife and
people. Mountain biking downhill provides zero exercise benefit.
Mountain biking on level ground provides minimal exercise benefit,
much less than walking. Since it's impossible to pay any attention to
your surroundings while mountain biking (or you will crash), there's
no reason to promote mountain biking. It benefits only those who stand
to make money off of it, such as bike manufacturers, retailers, and
tour companies. Mountain biking is also inappropriate for young people
because it's very expensive!

"Fri, Aug 10 2007:
Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
From: Ride-A-Lot
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007
Subject: need suggestions on mountain bike, thanks a lot
Any bike you buy from a big box store (i.e. Target, Wal-Mart, Dicks,
Sports Authority, etc.) is going to be JUNK. If you ware going to do
any actual mountain biking, you will very very disappointed with the
performance. For a new mountain bike, the low-end entry level bike
Specialized Rockhopper is one) will cost around $500."

(Mountain bikes are built tough because street bikes can't take the
pounding that they would get on trails. They would fall apart.)

12. But isn't mountain biking healthful exercise? No! Mountain biking
is inherently dangerous, and cannot be made safe. Hiking trails are
not designed for bicycling. They are unpredictable. There is a reason
why departments of transportation have standards for bicycle trails
that require a smooth surface, not too steep a grade, a no-skid
surface, a minimum width, a long sight distance (no blind turns), etc.
Mountain bikers regularly fall off their bikes, resulting in
paraplegia, quadriplegia, or even death. This obviously cancels out
any possible health benefit. See
http:/home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb_death.

13. Doesn't mountain biking get people out of their cars? So do
walking, road cycling, and transit use, without harm to the natural
environment. Since very few mountain biking opportunities are within
easy bicycling distance, the vast majority of mountain bike trips
require transporting the bike in a truck, SUV, or car. If mountain
bikers cared about the environment, they would bicycle to the park,
lock their bike at the trailhead, and hike. Or simply bicycle on paved
roads, as bicyclists have for the past century.

14. Doesn't the threat from mountain biking pale, in comparison to
other sources of environmental damage, such as logging? Maybe, and
maybe not. Mountain biking teaches people that the rough treatment of
nature is acceptable, so it may lead to many other abuses. In parks,
where most mountain biking is done, it is probably the most harmful
activity allowed. But even if mountain biking is less damaging than
another activity, such as logging, it is still additional damage. If
an area is already messed up (e.g. by logging), how does that make it
okay to do additional damage? It doesn't!

15. What's wrong with night riding? Humans have been destroying
wildlife habitat for centuries, so that very little remains. Our
presence in parks prevents wildlife from using a large part of their
habitat, at least during the daytime. Now that night riding is
becoming popular, wildlife and being denied that habitat even at
night, or incur an increased risk getting run over, if they attempt to
use it. There is very little law enforcement even during the day in
these days of tight budgets. There is no patrolling of parks at night!
This gives mountain bikers free rein to do whatever they want,
including riding trails that are closed to bikes or even building
their own illegal trails. No wonder night riding is so popular! And,
of course, night riding makes an activity that is already very
dangerous, much more dangerous.

16. Don't the vast majority of mountain bikers ride responsibly?
Actually, just the opposite is true. In a scientific study that IMBA
had on their website for a while, then quietly removed, 83.1% of
mountain bikers broke the law (see
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb76).

17. Aren't the problems with mountain biking just caused by "a few bad
apples"? There aren't just a few! There are enough to put some in just
about every park in the world. The same problems appear everywhe
riding off-trail, riding where prohibited, illegal trail construction,
excessive speed, accelerating erosion, killing plants and animals on
and next to the trail, driving other trail users off the trails, etc.

18. Isn't mountain biking good for the economy? Nearly all mountain
bicycles are made by foreign companies. The profit from bicycle sales
goes abroad! The small shops and bike mechanics find it hard to make
a living. So, IMBA isn't supporting much USA business; IMBA is
supporting foreign companies and their renegade sport. Mountain biking
destroys wildlife habitat and drives non-mountain bikers off of the
trails, so there is a net loss in recreation. This can't be good for
the economy. As David Brower used to say, "There's no economy on a
dead planet".

19. Why is mountain biking so addicting? It seems that once someone
starts mountain biking, they feel a need to do it as often as possible
- at least weekly. And they become impervious to information about the
harm that mountain biking does. (That's why it is extremely
unfortunate when land managers or their staff start mountain biking.)
Apparently, some people have an especially strong desire or "need" for
danger and thrills, and it seems to be accompanied by an unusually low
concern for the welfare of wildlife, the environment, non-bikers, or
anything else that gets in the way of their thrill-seeking. A
phenomenon that may be related is the existence of psychopaths --
people who seem to be genetically devoid of moral feeling. See
_Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among
Us_, by the brilliant scientist Dr. Robert Hare. I highly recommend
his book. As far as I know, in Hare's terminology, mountain bikers are
sociopaths, not psychopaths.

20. How can I see first-hand the harm that mountain biking does? Easy!
Just watch their own videos: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbvideo.

Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for a decade. During the same period, I
studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts of mountain
biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of Mountain
Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature":
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
--
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
Ads
  #2  
Old November 29th 08, 04:13 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
bluezfolk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 180
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

On Nov 28, 8:23*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
Last Updated October 4, 2008

1. Why do people mountain bike?
a. * * *They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in
the same amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain
constant pressure on land managers, to open more and more trails to
bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already open to them, if
they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that closing trails to
bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could only be true if they
were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk. There's nothing
inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace
automobile use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token,
replacing hiking with mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
b. * * *They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see,
rather than the quality of their experience. While riding a bike,
especially over terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be constantly
paying attention to not crashing. That makes it almost impossible to
notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop instantly, if
he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation.
A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the same
stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several
times as far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal
box.)
c. * * *They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail,
especially a trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not
familiar with, is very challenging. (But if mountain biking is the
high point of your week, as it seems to be for many mountain bikers,
you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of the bike!)
d. * * *They are interested in building mountain biking skills and
competing with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives
people to spend more money on their bike, and ride it harder and more
often. Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a lot of
mountain biking. Of course, it is also extremely harmful to the parks
and natural areas that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting, that is as
harmful as mountain biking.
e. * * *They want to get to their destination faster (not considering
that the process of getting there is a major part of the enjoyment).
Once, when much younger, I was hiking along a very boring trail. The
thought came to me that if I had a bike, I could get past the boring
section of the trail, and to the interesting part much faster. But
about 2 seconds later I realized that if I could do that, so could
everyone else, and the place would be full of people and ruined. That
was the end of my (2-second) mountain biking career.

2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the
attraction for participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain
bikes and mountain biking accessories, as well as "adventure" travel
guides, make a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even some
auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and sponsor mountain biking,
and try to use its popularity to sell more cars. The tourism industry
also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.

3. What harm does mountain biking do?
a. * * *Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip
into the soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They
also create V-shaped grooves that make walking difficult or even
dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the gears and ball
bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several times as fast as a
hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
(shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops,
starts, and turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and
opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other
bikes, so that they could withstand the greater forces they were
subject to on rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are being
applied to the trails! To give a definite number, the winner of a
20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed
limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
b. * * *A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small
animals and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost
impossible to avoid killing countless animals and plants on and under
the trail. They have to pay attention to controlling the bike, and
can't afford to look carefully at what is on the trail, especially
when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see, for example, a
snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by
crossing on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other
hand, simply ride right through the creek bed, crushing any animals or
plants that happen to be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
photos of mountain bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through
creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants as they ride
across streams, they ride through streams stirring up sediment. The
sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
sediment in water.
c. * * *Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a
hiker. This translates into several times the impacts, both on the
trail and on the wildlife (to say nothing of the other trail users).
Existing parklands are already inadequate to protect the wildlife that
live there. When they are crisscrossed by mountain bikers and legal or
illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more. Have you
ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes
in a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives
wildlife further from the resources that they need to survive,
including water, food, and mates.
d. * * *Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each
other on narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain
biking also result in more habitat destruction, as trails are widened
by bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of their way).
e. * * *Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and
consequently exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to
place, resulting in the spread of exotic invasive species, such as
weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
f. * * *Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the
trails and hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and
equestrians fear for their safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails
with bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they are simply being
selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually they have no problem
sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that are a
problem!)
g. * * *Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere,
teach children and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment
of nature is acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect on
people's treatment of nature.
h. * * *In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have
been resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a
plastic matrix or other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in
Pleasanton Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's
hard to imagine that this will have a beneficial effect on the park
and its wildlife….
i. * * *Allowing mountain bikes in a park greatly increases the damage
to the trails, damage from "bootleg" (illegally created) trails, and
the problems of conflicts between trail users, and hence the cost of
maintaining the park. Considering how tight park budgets are, we can't
afford the extra costs of policing, and repairing the damage from,
mountain biking.
j. * * *For the science on mountain biking and its impacts on wildlife
and people, seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
impact than hiking. Is that true?
a. If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that they
don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, but
only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the
studies are correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it
would still follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per
person, since mountain bikers typically travel so much farther than
hikers. Besides overlooking distances travelled, those "studies"
almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't study mountain
biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed. Actually,
the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of
the two is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning
hiking. We are only considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the
only relevant question is, "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course,
it is!) There is only one truly scientific study that I know of *that
compares the impacts of hiking and mountain biking. It found that
mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than hiking (Wisdom, M.
J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of
Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69, 2004,
pp.531-550.) Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
* * * * b. On its web site, IMBA mentions recent research on mountain
biking by Dave White et al and Jeff Marion, both of whom claim that
mountain biking and hiking have "similar" impacts. Is that true?
First, "similar" is not a scientific term and really has no clear
meaning. That term is being used only to obfuscate. Second, these are
survey studies, not experimental studies. By its very nature, a survey
study cannot be used to compare the impacts from two activities,
because it doesn't control all the variables. For example, we don't
know if the differences in erosion between two trails are due to the
mountain biking vs. hiking use, or due to differences in the weather,
terrain, steepness, soil type, management practices, amount of use,
hikers on the "mountain biking trail", mountain bikers on the "hiking
trail", etc. White et al only measured their trails once, and didn't
even collect any data on hiking impacts! Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/whiteandhttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/marion.
* * * * c. Why would a researcher risk his/her reputation by doing
such shoddy work? For money! And to ensure the continuance of their
sport. If land managers think that mountain biking is more harmful
than hiking, they will be more likely to close trails to bikes. Bike
parts manufacturer Shimano paid Professor White to do his study.
Research funds are difficult to obtain. A researcher who can be relied
upon to produce research favorable to mountain biking will be able to
obtain funding from the mountain biking industry. A researcher who
tells the truth about mountain biking won't be able to obtain research
funds and will risk stunting his/her career.

5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for
wildlife protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal
Utility District (in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California).
They both restrict bicycles to paved roads, where they can't do much
harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed to enjoy their sport for over a
hundred years, without riding off-road.

6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked
open. Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out
of the ground by mountain bikers.

7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails,
but not mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, apparently
because they think it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that
mountain bikers have exactly the same access to trails that everyone
else has! It is only their bikes that are banned. If mountain bikers
were really being discriminated against, they could easily go to court
to gain access. However … they already have access to every trail in
the world!

8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a
taxpayer! The public has the right, through its elected
representatives, to restrict how land is used. A federal court has
already ruled that there is no right to mountain bike. It is a
privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason (such as
safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails
(seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10).

9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction
and trail maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat
both directly (by killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by
reducing the size of the intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover,
mountain bikers favor trails that are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and
full of obstacles that provide thrills for mountain bikers. Such
designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the trail) and
make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be
necessary, if bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the
main reason why trail maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by
hikers require hardly any maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles
to a park greatly increases its cost of maintenance. Nothing is really
"free", including trail construction and maintenance. (How does the
saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)

10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to
quickly summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust
in a cell phone, than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural
areas are already one of the safest places you can be. In over 50
years of hiking and backpacking, I have never witnessed any situation
requiring emergency aid. Most people go to natural areas partly for
solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces of
machinery, we would stay in the city!

11. Can't mountain biking help get our overweight kids off the couch?
Hiking can already do that, without causing extra harm to wildlife and
people. Mountain biking downhill provides zero exercise benefit.
Mountain biking on level ground provides minimal exercise benefit,
much less than walking. Since it's impossible to pay any attention to
your surroundings while mountain biking (or you will crash), there's
no reason to promote mountain biking. It benefits only those who stand
to make money off of it, such as bike manufacturers, retailers, and
tour companies. Mountain biking is also inappropriate for young people
because it's very expensive!

"Fri, Aug 10 2007:
Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
From: Ride-A-Lot
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007
Subject: need suggestions on mountain bike, thanks a lot
Any bike you buy from a big box store (i.e. Target, Wal-Mart, Dicks,
Sports Authority, etc.) is going to be JUNK. *If you ware going to do
any actual mountain biking, you will very very disappointed with the
performance. For a new mountain bike, the low-end entry level bike
Specialized Rockhopper is one) will cost around $500."

(Mountain bikes are built tough because street bikes can't take the
pounding that they would get on trails. They would fall apart.)

12. But isn't mountain biking healthful exercise? No! Mountain biking
is inherently dangerous, and cannot be made safe. Hiking trails are
not designed for bicycling. They are unpredictable. There is a reason
why departments of transportation have standards for bicycle trails
that require a smooth surface, not too steep a grade, a no-skid
surface, a minimum width, a long sight distance (no blind turns), etc.
Mountain bikers regularly fall off their bikes, resulting in
paraplegia, quadriplegia, or even death. This obviously cancels out
any possible health benefit. See
http:/home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb_death.

13. Doesn't mountain biking get people out of their cars? So do
walking, road cycling, and transit use, without harm to the natural
environment. Since very few mountain biking opportunities are within
easy bicycling distance, the vast majority of mountain bike trips
require transporting the bike in a truck, SUV, or car. If mountain
bikers cared about the environment, they would bicycle to the park,
lock their bike at the trailhead, and hike. Or simply bicycle on paved
roads, as bicyclists have for the past century.

14. Doesn't the threat from mountain biking pale, in comparison to
other sources of environmental damage, such as logging? Maybe, and
maybe not. Mountain biking teaches people that the rough treatment of
nature is acceptable, so it may lead to many other abuses. In parks,
where most mountain biking is done, it is probably the most harmful
activity allowed. But even if mountain biking is less damaging than
another activity, such as logging, it is still additional damage. If
an area is already messed up (e.g. by logging), how does that make it
okay to do additional damage? It doesn't!

15. What's wrong with night riding? Humans have been destroying
wildlife habitat for centuries, so that very little remains. Our
presence in parks prevents wildlife from using a large part of their
habitat, at least during the daytime. Now that night riding is
becoming popular, wildlife and being denied that habitat even at
night, or incur an increased risk getting run over, if they attempt to
use it. There is very little law enforcement even during the day in
these days of tight budgets. There is no patrolling of parks at night!
This gives mountain bikers free rein to do whatever they want,
including riding trails that are closed to bikes or even building
their own illegal trails. No wonder night riding is so popular! And,
of course, night riding makes an activity that is already very
dangerous, much more dangerous.

16. Don't the vast majority of mountain bikers ride responsibly?
Actually, just the opposite is true. In a scientific study that IMBA
had on their website for a while, then quietly removed, 83.1% of
mountain bikers broke the law (seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb76).

17. Aren't the problems with mountain biking just caused by "a few bad
apples"? There aren't just a few! There are enough to put some in just
about every park in the world. The same problems appear everywhe
riding off-trail, riding where prohibited, illegal trail construction,
excessive speed, accelerating erosion, killing plants and animals on
and next to the trail, driving other trail users off the trails, etc.

18. Isn't mountain biking good for the economy? Nearly all mountain
bicycles are made by foreign companies. *The profit from bicycle sales
goes abroad! *The small shops and bike mechanics find it hard to make
a living. So, IMBA isn't supporting much USA business; IMBA is
supporting foreign companies and their renegade sport. Mountain biking
destroys wildlife habitat and drives non-mountain bikers off of the
trails, so there is a net loss in recreation. This can't be good for
the economy. As David Brower used to say, "There's no economy on a
dead planet".

19. Why is mountain biking so addicting? It seems that once someone
starts mountain biking, they feel a need to do it as often as possible
- at least weekly. And they become impervious to information about the
harm that mountain biking does. (That's why it is extremely
unfortunate when land managers or their staff start mountain biking.)
Apparently, some people have an especially strong desire or "need" for
danger and thrills, and it seems to be accompanied by an unusually low
concern for the welfare of wildlife, the environment, non-bikers, or
anything else that gets in the way of their thrill-seeking. A
phenomenon that may be related is the existence of psychopaths --
people who seem to be genetically devoid of moral feeling. See
_Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among
Us_, by the brilliant scientist Dr. Robert Hare. I highly recommend
his book. As far as I know, in Hare's terminology, mountain bikers are
sociopaths, not psychopaths.

20. How can I see first-hand the harm that mountain biking does? Easy!
Just watch their own videos:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbvideo.

Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for a decade. During the same period, I
studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts of mountain
biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of Mountain
Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature":http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
--
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


Frequently asked question about Mike Vandeman: Do you have a life, or
do you just spend endless hours on the internet bitching about MTBers?
  #3  
Old November 29th 08, 05:18 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Bill Sornson[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 254
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

bluezfolk wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:23 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:


{SNIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!}

Frequently asked question about Mike Vandeman: Do you have a life, or
do you just spend endless hours on the internet bitching about MTBers?



You left *23 kbs* of Vandeblather just to add that pithy rejoinder.

Wake up, man.

BS


  #4  
Old November 29th 08, 06:19 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.



http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-logic/

Defensive Logic
By Henry Delgado

Thursday, May 24, 2007

While I have no doubt that Mike Vandeman, PhD, is a well-educated and
reasonable man, I submit that the information he has gleaned from his
associates regarding firearms is woefully inadequate [ "Close
Reading," May 10]. Dr. Vandeman starts out by labeling it
“preposterous” to say that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times
a year. I respectfully refer Dr. Vandeman to a 1993 national survey
report by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminology professor.
Using a survey sample of 4,977 respondents (the usual survey sample is
in the 600 to 1,600 range), Professor Kleck determined that guns are
used an average of 2.5 million times a year to prevent or defend
against a crime. In 1994, Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice
sponsored a survey titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms." They used a smaller sample size than
Kleck, and estimated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms annually.

It is unfortunate Dr. Vandeman doesn’t know any gun owners. Contrary
to his assertion that a “tiny minority of the population own guns,”
here are the facts for his perusal: There are approximately
300,000,000 people in the U.S. There are approximately 65,000,000 gun
owners in the U.S. That’s about 22 percent of the population. There
are 200 million firearms (65 million-70 million handguns). Firearms
are used for protection by 11 percent of firearms owners (13 percent
of handgun owners). Criminal yearly misuse of firearms is less than
0.2 percent (and less than 0.4 percent for handguns).

I’m confident that Dr. Vandeman will be enlightened by these figures.
I have personally been a participant in defusing a possible crime
because we were armed—but that’s another story.—Henry Delgado
  #5  
Old November 29th 08, 06:20 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

On Nov 29, 12:19*pm, Siskuwihane wrote:
http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-logic/

Defensive Logic
By Henry Delgado

Thursday, May 24, 2007

While I have no doubt that Mike Vandeman, PhD, is a well-educated and
reasonable man, I submit that the information he has gleaned from his
associates regarding firearms is woefully inadequate [ "Close
Reading," May 10]. Dr. Vandeman starts out by labeling it
“preposterous” to say that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times
a year. I respectfully refer Dr. Vandeman to a 1993 national survey
report by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminology professor.
Using a survey sample of 4,977 respondents (the usual survey sample is
in the 600 to 1,600 range), Professor Kleck determined that guns are
used an average of 2.5 million times a year to prevent or defend
against a crime. In 1994, Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice
sponsored a survey titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms." They used a smaller sample size than
Kleck, and estimated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms annually.

It is unfortunate Dr. Vandeman doesn’t know any gun owners. Contrary
to his assertion that a “tiny minority of the population own guns,”
here are the facts for his perusal: There are approximately
300,000,000 people in the U.S. There are approximately 65,000,000 gun
owners in the U.S. That’s about 22 percent of the population. There
are 200 million firearms (65 million-70 million handguns). Firearms
are used for protection by 11 percent of firearms owners (13 percent
of handgun owners). Criminal yearly misuse of firearms is less than
0.2 percent (and less than 0.4 percent for handguns).

I’m confident that Dr. Vandeman will be enlightened by these figures.
I have personally been a participant in defusing a possible crime
because we were armed—but that’s another story.—Henry Delgado


http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-logic/


And what I'd like to know is why Vandeman has to attach his title of
doctor to his letter?

It's one thing if a professor of linguistics mentions that they are a
doctor when debating language, but in this case, I don't see where his
being a PhD matters since it doesn't apply to this argument, and he
didn't even specify his field of study in his original letter.

billclausen
May 25, 2007 at 7:52 p.m.
  #6  
Old November 29th 08, 08:12 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:19:06 -0800 (PST), Siskuwihane
wrote:



http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-logic/

Defensive Logic
By Henry Delgado

Thursday, May 24, 2007

While I have no doubt that Mike Vandeman, PhD, is a well-educated and
reasonable man, I submit that the information he has gleaned from his
associates regarding firearms is woefully inadequate [ "Close
Reading," May 10]. Dr. Vandeman starts out by labeling it
“preposterous” to say that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times
a year. I respectfully refer Dr. Vandeman to a 1993 national survey
report by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminology professor.
Using a survey sample of 4,977 respondents (the usual survey sample is
in the 600 to 1,600 range), Professor Kleck determined that guns are
used an average of 2.5 million times a year to prevent or defend
against a crime. In 1994, Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice
sponsored a survey titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms." They used a smaller sample size than
Kleck, and estimated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms annually.

It is unfortunate Dr. Vandeman doesn’t know any gun owners. Contrary
to his assertion that a “tiny minority of the population own guns,”
here are the facts for his perusal: There are approximately
300,000,000 people in the U.S. There are approximately 65,000,000 gun
owners in the U.S. That’s about 22 percent of the population.


That only proves that 22% of the population are idiots.

There
are 200 million firearms (65 million-70 million handguns). Firearms
are used for protection by 11 percent of firearms owners (13 percent
of handgun owners). Criminal yearly misuse of firearms is less than
0.2 percent (and less than 0.4 percent for handguns).

I’m confident that Dr. Vandeman will be enlightened by these figures.
I have personally been a participant in defusing a possible crime
because we were armed—but that’s another story.—Henry Delgado

--
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
  #7  
Old November 29th 08, 09:20 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Jeff Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 613
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

When is he gonna get a life?

That's the _only_ question I have about Mike.
  #8  
Old November 30th 08, 01:15 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:12:58 -0800, Mike Vandeman
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:19:06 -0800 (PST), Siskuwihane
wrote:



http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-logic/

Defensive Logic
By Henry Delgado

Thursday, May 24, 2007

While I have no doubt that Mike Vandeman, PhD, is a well-educated and
reasonable man, I submit that the information he has gleaned from his
associates regarding firearms is woefully inadequate [ "Close
Reading," May 10]. Dr. Vandeman starts out by labeling it
“preposterous” to say that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times
a year. I respectfully refer Dr. Vandeman to a 1993 national survey
report by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminology professor.
Using a survey sample of 4,977 respondents (the usual survey sample is
in the 600 to 1,600 range), Professor Kleck determined that guns are
used an average of 2.5 million times a year to prevent or defend
against a crime. In 1994, Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice
sponsored a survey titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms." They used a smaller sample size than
Kleck, and estimated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms annually.

It is unfortunate Dr. Vandeman doesn’t know any gun owners. Contrary
to his assertion that a “tiny minority of the population own guns,”
here are the facts for his perusal: There are approximately
300,000,000 people in the U.S. There are approximately 65,000,000 gun
owners in the U.S. That’s about 22 percent of the population.


That only proves that 22% of the population are idiots.

There
are 200 million firearms (65 million-70 million handguns). Firearms
are used for protection by 11 percent of firearms owners (13 percent
of handgun owners). Criminal yearly misuse of firearms is less than
0.2 percent (and less than 0.4 percent for handguns).

I’m confident that Dr. Vandeman will be enlightened by these figures.
I have personally been a participant in defusing a possible crime
because we were armed—but that’s another story.—Henry Delgado


Mike, I agree with so much you advocate including restrictions on ATV
and biking where damage is a problem. Same for "human free" wildlife
areas. But the comments on guns
are way off. How about joining in the work to stabilize population via
strict immigration controls?

ted
  #9  
Old November 30th 08, 03:18 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Siskuwihane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

On Nov 29, 7:15*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:12:58 -0800, Mike Vandeman





wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:19:06 -0800 (PST), Siskuwihane
wrote:


http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-logic/


Defensive Logic
By Henry Delgado


Thursday, May 24, 2007


While I have no doubt that Mike Vandeman, PhD, is a well-educated and
reasonable man, I submit that the information he has gleaned from his
associates regarding firearms is woefully inadequate [ "Close
Reading," May 10]. Dr. Vandeman starts out by labeling it
“preposterous” to say that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times
a year. I respectfully refer Dr. Vandeman to a 1993 national survey
report by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminology professor.
Using a survey sample of 4,977 respondents (the usual survey sample is
in the 600 to 1,600 range), Professor Kleck determined that guns are
used an average of 2.5 million times a year to prevent or defend
against a crime. In 1994, Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice
sponsored a survey titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms." They used a smaller sample size than
Kleck, and estimated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms annually.


It is unfortunate Dr. Vandeman doesn’t know any gun owners. Contrary
to his assertion that a “tiny minority of the population own guns,”
here are the facts for his perusal: There are approximately
300,000,000 people in the U.S. There are approximately 65,000,000 gun
owners in the U.S. That’s about 22 percent of the population.


That only proves that 22% of the population are idiots.


There
are 200 million firearms (65 million-70 million handguns). Firearms
are used for protection by 11 percent of firearms owners (13 percent
of handgun owners). Criminal yearly misuse of firearms is less than
0.2 percent (and less than 0.4 percent for handguns).


I’m confident that Dr. Vandeman will be enlightened by these figures.
I have personally been a participant in defusing a possible crime
because we were armed—but that’s another story.—Henry Delgado


Mike, I agree with so much you advocate including restrictions on ATV
and biking where damage is a problem. Same for "human free" wildlife
areas. But the comments on guns
are way off. How about joining in the work to stabilize population via
strict immigration controls?



They are way off because Michael is way off on most subjects.

He advocates restrictions on bikes but he himself is a mountain-
biker.

He wants human free habitat for wildlife, but he admitted to cutting
down trees, one of which contain a colony of bees.

He he advocated boycotting petroleum back in 1989 and yet he uses
commercial airlines. He knows they directly pollute the upper
atmosphere and contribute to global warming and our dependence on
fossil fuels.

He let his cat run wild, killing birds and other small mammals until
it was killed because Mike didn't keep it indoors.

Keep in mind this is the same Michael J. Vandeman who said,

"When I was living in Synanon..."



  #10  
Old December 1st 08, 09:11 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Crash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Frequently Asked Questions about Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.


Mike Vandeman said about:
Frequently Asked Questions about Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.


On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:19:06 -0800 (PST), Siskuwihane
wrote:



http://www.independent.com/news/2007...fensive-logic/

Defensive Logic
By Henry Delgado

Thursday, May 24, 2007

While I have no doubt that Mike Vandeman, PhD, is a well-educated and
reasonable man, I submit that the information he has gleaned from his
associates regarding firearms is woefully inadequate [ "Close
Reading," May 10]. Dr. Vandeman starts out by labeling it
“preposterous” to say that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times
a year. I respectfully refer Dr. Vandeman to a 1993 national survey
report by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminology professor.
Using a survey sample of 4,977 respondents (the usual survey sample is
in the 600 to 1,600 range), Professor Kleck determined that guns are
used an average of 2.5 million times a year to prevent or defend
against a crime. In 1994, Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice
sponsored a survey titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms." They used a smaller sample size than
Kleck, and estimated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms annually.

It is unfortunate Dr. Vandeman doesn’t know any gun owners. Contrary
to his assertion that a “tiny minority of the population own guns,”
here are the facts for his perusal: There are approximately
300,000,000 people in the U.S. There are approximately 65,000,000 gun
owners in the U.S. That’s about 22 percent of the population.


That only proves that 22% of the population are idiots.



OK, you can grunt like a dittohead parrot. So?


There
are 200 million firearms (65 million-70 million handguns). Firearms
are used for protection by 11 percent of firearms owners (13 percent
of handgun owners). Criminal yearly misuse of firearms is less than
0.2 percent (and less than 0.4 percent for handguns).

I’m confident that Dr. Vandeman will be enlightened by these figures.
I have personally been a participant in defusing a possible crime
because we were armed—but that’s another story.—Henry Delgado

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat").


No you are not.

Since when is dysfunctional mental masturbation
in front of a keyboard, "working on" something?


(I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)


No you didn't.

Since when is dysfunctional mental masturbation
in front of a keyboard, "fighting" something?


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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


--

When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.


"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 1 August 18th 08 03:28 AM
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Mike Vandeman Social Issues 5 July 20th 08 12:12 PM
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 4 March 1st 08 02:25 AM
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Mike Vandeman Social Issues 4 March 1st 08 02:25 AM
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 64 April 12th 07 04:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.