Cycling Forums - View Single Post - Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

11-23-2006, 08:23 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3fiam2t1b2thp1m0t04sdi27llfvbs0ctf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>

>>>>And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
>>>>that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
>>>>footprint in nature than hikers.
>>>
>>> That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there
>>> isn't any!
>>Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion does
>>not
>>make the statement in any way a "lie".
>>
>>"A study published in the summer 2006 Journal of Park and Recreation
>>Administration (Volume 24, Number 12) takes a close look at the
>>environmental impacts of mountain biking. Researchers measured trail
>>erosion
>>and other impacts on 31 trails used for mountain biking in the
>>southwestern
>>U.S. The study concludes that, "certain impacts to mountain bike trails,
>>especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use
>>trails,
>>and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle
>>trails."
>>Recreational ecologists Dave White from Arizona State University and Pam
>>Foti from Northern Arizona University led the three-year research project
>>titled "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
>>Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." The researchers used
>>"Common Ecological Regions" (CERs) to provide consistency in comparing the
>>ecological effects of mountain biking with those of other recreational
>>activities."
>>
>>Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk of
>>the
>>lies being presented.
>>
>>
>
> Re: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
> Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)
>
> 1. Are the authors mountain bikers? They seem to be promoting mountain
> biking -- trying to make it seem environmentally acceptable.

Yawn.... Did you say something?
Your credibility has been rendered suspect (by your own actions) to the
point that your questions of this paper and your opinions of the research
contained are unimportant. You do nothing to counter the information but
ridicule the findings.

11-23-2006, 08:23 AM	#11 (permalink)
S Curtiss Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:3fiam2t1b2thp1m0t04sdi27llfvbs0ctf@4ax.com... > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> > wrote: > >>>>And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are >>>>that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger >>>>footprint in nature than hikers. >>> >>> That's a LIE. That's why you didn't cite any such "research": there >>> isn't any! >>Your choice to be ignorant of information contrary to your opinion does >>not >>make the statement in any way a "lie". >> >>"A study published in the summer 2006 Journal of Park and Recreation >>Administration (Volume 24, Number 12) takes a close look at the >>environmental impacts of mountain biking. Researchers measured trail >>erosion >>and other impacts on 31 trails used for mountain biking in the >>southwestern >>U.S. The study concludes that, "certain impacts to mountain bike trails, >>especially width, are comparable or less than hiking or multiple-use >>trails, >>and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle >>trails." >>Recreational ecologists Dave White from Arizona State University and Pam >>Foti from Northern Arizona University led the three-year research project >>titled "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five >>Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." The researchers used >>"Common Ecological Regions" (CERs) to provide consistency in comparing the >>ecological effects of mountain biking with those of other recreational >>activities." >> >>Even the most recent research shows your opinions constitute the bulk of >>the >>lies being presented. >> >> > > Re: "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five > Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006) > > 1. Are the authors mountain bikers? They seem to be promoting mountain > biking -- trying to make it seem environmentally acceptable. Yawn.... Did you say something? Your credibility has been rendered suspect (by your own actions) to the point that your questions of this paper and your opinions of the research contained are unimportant. You do nothing to counter the information but ridicule the findings.