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

11-23-2006, 11:07 AM

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>"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.

And I give specific scientific REASONS why they are WORTHLESS.
===
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

11-23-2006, 11:07 AM	#13 (permalink)
Mike Vandeman Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> wrote: > >"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. And I give specific scientific REASONS why they are WORTHLESS. === 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