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

11-23-2006, 11:21 AM

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:03:12 GMT, "Mike" <mik@localnet.com> 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:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>news:viu8m2lvihvh8s9ooen19n6d2o9msd92rh@4ax.com ...
>>>> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:73b6m2dr0s476i9qo7r1q2j7ttmqlul1ou@4ax.com...
>>>>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes
>>>>>> >>> > off of
>>>>>> >>> > pavement.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>Ding! We have a winner.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
>>>>>> >>able to.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
>>>>>> > allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why
>>>>>> > someone
>>>>>> > else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
>>>>>> > YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
>>>>>> > do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
>>>>>> > marijuana on public lands.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable
>>>>>> options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And since the reality is that nobody
>>>>>is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have
>>>>>access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth -
>>>>>more access to more places. Including National Parks!
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if it
>>>>>were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So his
>>>>>opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of these
>>>>>things is essentially singular, and of no importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>E.P.
>>>> ===
>>>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>> 2. Why does the abstract and paper make comparisons between hiking and
>> mountain biking impacts? They apparently didn't collect any data that
>> would allow them to make such a comparison. In fact, the only way to
>> make such a comparison is with an experimental design, not a survey,
>> as they have done.
>
>It is logically impossible to draw any useful
>> conclusions from a design that includes measurements taken at only a
>> single point in time. The data (trail width and depth) provide no way
>> to distinguish between mountain biking impacts and the effects of
>> trail construction, trail maintenance, wind, rain, hiking, animals, or
>> any other factors.
>
>
> But if mountain bikes caused as much damage as you claim wouldn't it be
>obvious?

That's not science. Science requires specific measurements. White et
al didn't even measure a single hiking trail! Their comparison was
nothing but rhetoric, not science.

You state "The data (trail width and depth) provide no way
> to distinguish between mountain biking impacts and the effects of
> trail construction, trail maintenance, wind, rain, hiking, animals, or
> any other factors." So you are finally admitting that it is impossible to
>tell, from trail conditions, who is damaging the trail ?

That's not what I said. I said that the researchers didn't
scientifically distinguish those different factors, so can't make any
claims about them. Learn to READ.

So your method of
>dertermining that mountain bikers cause all the damage could br classified
>as science fiction.
>
>
>
>> 3. The comparison of mountain biking vs. hiking impacts seems to rest
>> on three bits of information: Wilson and Seney (1994), Thurston and
>> Reader (2001), and a vague, non-statistical judgment about their
>> measurements being "similar" to those of hiking trails.
>
> Maybe that's because it is similar between the two.

That's not a scientific term.

> The Wilson and
>> Seney study was discredited by Vandeman (2004), because they didn't
>> measure erosion accurately: they dripped water on the trail and
>> collected and weighed the solids carried into the collecting pan. This
>> only takes into account very fine particles able to be transported by
>> such "artificial rain"; it ignores all of the larger particles
>> dislodged by feet or tires.
>
> That would also leave out erossion cuased by heavy rains. In areas with
>heavy rains the erossion would cause more damage than hiking and biking
>combined.

It wasn't measured, so it can't be scientifically distinguished.

> The Wilson and Seney study thus provides
>> no useful comparison between hiking and mountain biking impacts.
>
> No. The information is useful, not just useful to you.

WHAT information? They provided no valid information. Of course, you
would have to actually READ their study, as I did, to make a
meaningful comment.

>> 4. They also misrepresented Thurston and Reader's results. Actually,
>> Thurston and Reader found that after 500 passes, mountain biking had
>> greater impacts on plants than hiking. It doesn't take long to
>> accumulate 500 passes. Some trails will receive that amount of traffic
>> (250 visitors) in a day or two.
>
> Some trails, not all trails. Some trails may not see 500 passes in six
>months. But it's no different for hiking trails. Some hiking trails in,
>popular areas, may see 500 people a day.
>
>
> So this study actually provides no
>> support for White et al's claim that hiking and mountain biking
>> impacts are "comparable"
>
> Sure it does, see above.

WHERE?

>(whatever that means).
>> 5. The authors provide no other quantitative, statistical comparison
>> between hiking and mountain biking impacts. The only way to do that
>> would be to do an experimental study, where all factors except hiking
>> vs. mountain biking are controlled (in other words, apply equal
>> amounts of hiking and mountain biking to identical trails and measure
>> the impacts using before-and-after measurements).
>
>
> Wouldn't that be next to impossible ? That would mean the trails to be
>compared would have to be identicle in every respect, such as same type of
>soil, same slope, same amount of rainfall, etc..... Now it's easy to see
>where "comparable" fits in.

It's the scientist's responsibiity to do that, as best they can. White
et al didn't even TRY.

>> 6. Their estimate of the number of mountain bikers ("21% of the
>> American public") seems grossly exaggerated. I think they need to find
>> a more reliable source for that information.
>> 7. They make claims about the benefits of mountain biking. This seems
>> out of place in a scientific paper, especially since they provide no
>> evidence for any such (net) benefits.
>
> It really doesn't take much smarts to figure that one out, does it? They
>are outdoors getting physical exercise. I have never heard were exercise
>wasn't good for you.

You are LYING. Mountain bikers get killed or seriously injured all the
time!

> Such claims are usually biased
>> by tallying alleged positive benefits without subtracting the harm
>> caused by mountain biking (e.g. accidents, environmental damage,
>> wildlife impacts, and driving other trail users off of the trails).
>
>
> That only happens when idiots like you do the studies.
>
>
>> 8. They claim "management actions that limit access can be
>> controversial and raise issues of equity", but provide no evidence.
>> I'm not aware of any limited access or issues of equity.
>
>
> Sure you are. You are always complaining about mountain bikers not having
>any rights to use the trails.

You are LYING. I have NEVER said that. In fact, I have often said the
OPPOSITE: mountain bikers have the right to use ALL trails (as long as
they don't bring their bikes).

How would you feel if the mountain bikers had
>exclusive use of the trails and you could no longer use them. How would that
>fit in to your "issuses of equity".
>
>
>
> Since only
>> bicycles, not people, have ever been restricted, I don't see how they
>> can make such a claim. In fact, it is very unlikely that there are any
>> equity issues, since it was already determined by a federal court that
>> bikes may be banned from trails (see
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10).
>> 9. I'm glad they mention "questionable studies". There are, indeed, a
>> lot of them!
>
> There sure are. You should read some of the crap that is written by a guy
>named Vandeman.
>
>
> But I wonder why they included some of them in their
>> references, such as Wilson and Seney, and presented them without
>> comment, as if they were sound science (see Vandeman 2004).
>
> You can't use the terms "sound science" and "Vandeman" in the same
>sentence as it is a contradiction of terms.
>
>
> They also
>> misrepresented Thurston and Reader's results, as I explained above.
>> 10. On p.24 they mention "visitor-related factors", but omitted
>> impacts on other trail users. I think that that is one of the major
>> impacts of mountain biking. I'm aware of many parks where mountain
>> bikers have driven other trail users off the trails and out of the
>> parks.
>
> Now we get down to the real reason for your hatred of mountain bikers. You
>don't want them on YOUR trails.

More lies. I don't mind mountain bikers on my trails. I only object to
BIKES on the trails.

>> 11. On p.26 they claim that "the magnitude of ecological impacts
>> attributed to mountain biking appear to be comparable to those of
>> hiking". "Comparable" is vague or meaningless as a scientific term.
>
> It means that both activities have the same impact on the environment.

BS. It's not scientific.

> Main Entry: sim·i·lar
>Pronunciation: 'si-m&-l&r, 'sim-l&r
>Function: adjective
>Etymology: French similaire, from Latin similis like, similar -- more at
>SAME
>1 : having characteristics in common : strictly comparable
>2 : alike in substance or essentials : CORRESPONDING <no two animal habitats
>are exactly similar -- W. H. Dowdeswell>
>3 : not differing in shape but only in size or position <similar triangles>
><similar polygons>
>
>
>> The Earth is comparable to the Sun (they can be compared).
>
> Sure, if you are saying both are round objects.
>
>
> I think
>> that they also misrepresent the implications of those studies
>
> Your opinion only.
>
>
>(see
>> Vandeman 2004).
>
> I don't read science fiction.
>
>
>> 12. On p.29 they mention "user-created" trails.
>
> Are you saying that the trails are not "user-created" ?
>
>
> Why use a euphemism,
>> in a scientific paper? Those trails were built illegally. The authors
>> only add to the impression that their paper is deliberately slanted.
>> 13. They make a good point on p.36 about trail users having to leave
>> the trail to allow mountain bikers to pass. This is a good reason to
>> ban bikes from trails: they lead inevitably to trail widening. But the
>> authors don't suggest banning bikes as an option, even though it is a
>> very common management tool. This adds to the impression of bias.
>> 14. On p.37 they claim that "the width and depth" of their trails is
>> "similar" (not a scientific term, since it is so vague) to that of
>> Marion & Leung, although their trails averaged 32" wide (median 26")
>> and his median trail width was 17", so theirs was 50% greater. Why be
>> scientifically precise in some contexts, but totally vague when they
>> want to advocate for mountain biking?
>
>It is scientifically meaningless
>> to compare trails in different areas, since the differences or
>> similarities could be caused by many irrelevant factors, such as
>> differences in soil type, kind and amount of use, management policies,
>> etc.
>
> Exactly, now you should be able to see why they use the term "similar" so
>often.
>
>
>> 15. Also on p.37 they claim that "The findings from our study thus
>> reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to
>> mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than
>> hiking ... trails". On the contrary, they presented zero data on the
>> width of hiking trails. In fact, they gave evidence (see # 13 above)
>> that mountain biking tends to widen hiking trails, by forcing hikers
>> and equestrians off the trail.
>> 16. They also say "average width in our study was similar to lower use
>> mountain bike trails in Australia ... which [were] from 17 in. to 26
>> in." "Similar" is not a scientific term. It would appear, on the
>> contrary, that their trails were much wider than those ones. But as I
>> mentioned earlier, it is meaningless to compare trails in different
>> areas. There is no way to determine the cause of any differences or
>> lack of differences.
>> 17. They claim on p.37 that "mountain biking is likely a sustainable
>> activity on properly managed trails". What does that mean?
>
> Comprehension of the english language is not one of your strong points, I
>see.

Then define it.

>They have
>> just documented erosion and trail widening. Those effects are not
>> "sustainable"; they constitute environmental damage, in addition to
>> that of other trail users.
>
> It's the hikers using mountain bike trails that cause the widening of the
>trails, maybe all hikers should be banned.
>
>
> They go on to mention several other
>> negative effects of mountain biking (wildlife impacts and spread of
>> exotic species) that also contradict the idea that mountain biking is
>> "sustainable". It would appear that they are bending over backwards to
>> conclude that mountain biking is acceptable.
>
> Wouldn't those negative effects apply to hiking as well ?

Hiking impacts are much less than mountain biking impacts, according
to the science.

>> 18. I fail to see the value of "the introduction of CERs" (Common
>> Ecological Regions). It seems to have no relevance to policy or
>> management, unless we are going to prohibit mountain biking in desert
>> areas where trails can't be clearly delimited. But we already know
>> that trail widening is harmful: it represents habitat destruction.
>
>
> Sure, adding another six inches to the width of the trail would just clear
>the wildlife right out of the forrest, wouldn't it ?
>
>>
>> In summary, I was bothered most by the authors' unquestioning
>> acceptance at face value of (or even misrepresenting) some rather
>> questionable studies, and their drawing conclusions not warranted by
>> their data. If they really want to do science, and not just promote
>> mountain biking, I think they should adhere better to what the data
>> tell us.
>
> Maybe you should take that advice and use it in your own "studies".
>
>
>>
>> Actually, it's much easier than trying to slant results. Permit me to
>> tell a little story. I was in graduate school at UCLA, was trying to
>> write a literature-review paper, and was having a terrible time
>> writing it -- until I realized that I was trying to make the results
>> come out the way I wanted them to. When I decided to "just tell it
>> like it was" and let the cards fall as they might, the paper almost
>> wrote itself. It became easy.
>
> So what happened between then and now ?
>
>>
>> Mountain biking is such a contentious issue that there is a great
>> temptation to slant the results to support one's preferred management
>> policy. The result is a lot of questionable studies that don't really
>> further science and don't really help provide scientific management of
>> our precious remaining wildlife habitat.
>
>
> I would agree to that as your "studies" read like science fiction.
>
>
> I suggest that they first
>> find out what kind of answers are needed (especially by land
>> managers), and then design research specifically to answer those
>> questions.
>
> I hope I am reading that wrong but it seems that's how studies are done
>now. They figure out the answer they want for the question and then find the
>research that gives the desired answer.
>
> How about a study that is done without bias that actually and thruthfully
>answers the questions at hand ?

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

>> References:
>>
>> Thurston, E. and R. J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied
>> mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous
>> forest. Environmental Management 27:397-409.
>>
>> Vandeman, M. J. 2004. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and
>> People -- A Review of the Literature. Available at
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> White, D. D., M. T. Waskey, G. P. Brodehl, and P. E. Foti. 2006. A
>> Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common
>> Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S. Journal of Park and
>> Recreation Administration, 24:2, 21-41.
>>
>> Wilson, J. P. and J. Seney. 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, horses,
>> motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana.
>> Mountain Research and Development. 14:77-88.
>> ===
>> 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
>
===
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, 11:21 AM	#14 (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 17:03:12 GMT, "Mike" <mik@localnet.com> 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: >> >>> >>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>news:viu8m2lvihvh8s9ooen19n6d2o9msd92rh@4ax.com ... >>>> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>S Curtiss wrote: >>>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:73b6m2dr0s476i9qo7r1q2j7ttmqlul1ou@4ax.com... >>>>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>S Curtiss wrote: >>>>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes >>>>>> >>> > off of >>>>>> >>> > pavement. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>Ding! We have a winner. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am >>>>>> >>able to. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for >>>>>> > allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why >>>>>> > someone >>>>>> > else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because >>>>>> > YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to >>>>>> > do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow >>>>>> > marijuana on public lands. >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long >>>>>> as >>>>>> you >>>>>> continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable >>>>>> options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand. >>>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> And since the reality is that nobody >>>>>is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have >>>>>access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth - >>>>>more access to more places. Including National Parks! >>>>> >>>>>I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if it >>>>>were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So his >>>>>opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of these >>>>>things is essentially singular, and of no importance. >>>>> >>>>>E.P. >>>> === >>>> 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 >> >> 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. >> 2. Why does the abstract and paper make comparisons between hiking and >> mountain biking impacts? They apparently didn't collect any data that >> would allow them to make such a comparison. In fact, the only way to >> make such a comparison is with an experimental design, not a survey, >> as they have done. > >It is logically impossible to draw any useful >> conclusions from a design that includes measurements taken at only a >> single point in time. The data (trail width and depth) provide no way >> to distinguish between mountain biking impacts and the effects of >> trail construction, trail maintenance, wind, rain, hiking, animals, or >> any other factors. > > > But if mountain bikes caused as much damage as you claim wouldn't it be >obvious? That's not science. Science requires specific measurements. White et al didn't even measure a single hiking trail! Their comparison was nothing but rhetoric, not science. You state "The data (trail width and depth) provide no way > to distinguish between mountain biking impacts and the effects of > trail construction, trail maintenance, wind, rain, hiking, animals, or > any other factors." So you are finally admitting that it is impossible to >tell, from trail conditions, who is damaging the trail ? That's not what I said. I said that the researchers didn't scientifically distinguish those different factors, so can't make any claims about them. Learn to READ. So your method of >dertermining that mountain bikers cause all the damage could br classified >as science fiction. > > > >> 3. The comparison of mountain biking vs. hiking impacts seems to rest >> on three bits of information: Wilson and Seney (1994), Thurston and >> Reader (2001), and a vague, non-statistical judgment about their >> measurements being "similar" to those of hiking trails. > > Maybe that's because it is similar between the two. That's not a scientific term. > The Wilson and >> Seney study was discredited by Vandeman (2004), because they didn't >> measure erosion accurately: they dripped water on the trail and >> collected and weighed the solids carried into the collecting pan. This >> only takes into account very fine particles able to be transported by >> such "artificial rain"; it ignores all of the larger particles >> dislodged by feet or tires. > > That would also leave out erossion cuased by heavy rains. In areas with >heavy rains the erossion would cause more damage than hiking and biking >combined. It wasn't measured, so it can't be scientifically distinguished. > The Wilson and Seney study thus provides >> no useful comparison between hiking and mountain biking impacts. > > No. The information is useful, not just useful to you. WHAT information? They provided no valid information. Of course, you would have to actually READ their study, as I did, to make a meaningful comment. >> 4. They also misrepresented Thurston and Reader's results. Actually, >> Thurston and Reader found that after 500 passes, mountain biking had >> greater impacts on plants than hiking. It doesn't take long to >> accumulate 500 passes. Some trails will receive that amount of traffic >> (250 visitors) in a day or two. > > Some trails, not all trails. Some trails may not see 500 passes in six >months. But it's no different for hiking trails. Some hiking trails in, >popular areas, may see 500 people a day. > > > So this study actually provides no >> support for White et al's claim that hiking and mountain biking >> impacts are "comparable" > > Sure it does, see above. WHERE? >(whatever that means). >> 5. The authors provide no other quantitative, statistical comparison >> between hiking and mountain biking impacts. The only way to do that >> would be to do an experimental study, where all factors except hiking >> vs. mountain biking are controlled (in other words, apply equal >> amounts of hiking and mountain biking to identical trails and measure >> the impacts using before-and-after measurements). > > > Wouldn't that be next to impossible ? That would mean the trails to be >compared would have to be identicle in every respect, such as same type of >soil, same slope, same amount of rainfall, etc..... Now it's easy to see >where "comparable" fits in. It's the scientist's responsibiity to do that, as best they can. White et al didn't even TRY. >> 6. Their estimate of the number of mountain bikers ("21% of the >> American public") seems grossly exaggerated. I think they need to find >> a more reliable source for that information. >> 7. They make claims about the benefits of mountain biking. This seems >> out of place in a scientific paper, especially since they provide no >> evidence for any such (net) benefits. > > It really doesn't take much smarts to figure that one out, does it? They >are outdoors getting physical exercise. I have never heard were exercise >wasn't good for you. You are LYING. Mountain bikers get killed or seriously injured all the time! > Such claims are usually biased >> by tallying alleged positive benefits without subtracting the harm >> caused by mountain biking (e.g. accidents, environmental damage, >> wildlife impacts, and driving other trail users off of the trails). > > > That only happens when idiots like you do the studies. > > >> 8. They claim "management actions that limit access can be >> controversial and raise issues of equity", but provide no evidence. >> I'm not aware of any limited access or issues of equity. > > > Sure you are. You are always complaining about mountain bikers not having >any rights to use the trails. You are LYING. I have NEVER said that. In fact, I have often said the OPPOSITE: mountain bikers have the right to use ALL trails (as long as they don't bring their bikes). How would you feel if the mountain bikers had >exclusive use of the trails and you could no longer use them. How would that >fit in to your "issuses of equity". > > > > Since only >> bicycles, not people, have ever been restricted, I don't see how they >> can make such a claim. In fact, it is very unlikely that there are any >> equity issues, since it was already determined by a federal court that >> bikes may be banned from trails (see >> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10). >> 9. I'm glad they mention "questionable studies". There are, indeed, a >> lot of them! > > There sure are. You should read some of the crap that is written by a guy >named Vandeman. > > > But I wonder why they included some of them in their >> references, such as Wilson and Seney, and presented them without >> comment, as if they were sound science (see Vandeman 2004). > > You can't use the terms "sound science" and "Vandeman" in the same >sentence as it is a contradiction of terms. > > > They also >> misrepresented Thurston and Reader's results, as I explained above. >> 10. On p.24 they mention "visitor-related factors", but omitted >> impacts on other trail users. I think that that is one of the major >> impacts of mountain biking. I'm aware of many parks where mountain >> bikers have driven other trail users off the trails and out of the >> parks. > > Now we get down to the real reason for your hatred of mountain bikers. You >don't want them on YOUR trails. More lies. I don't mind mountain bikers on my trails. I only object to BIKES on the trails. >> 11. On p.26 they claim that "the magnitude of ecological impacts >> attributed to mountain biking appear to be comparable to those of >> hiking". "Comparable" is vague or meaningless as a scientific term. > > It means that both activities have the same impact on the environment. BS. It's not scientific. > Main Entry: sim·i·lar >Pronunciation: 'si-m&-l&r, 'sim-l&r >Function: adjective >Etymology: French similaire, from Latin similis like, similar -- more at >SAME >1 : having characteristics in common : strictly comparable >2 : alike in substance or essentials : CORRESPONDING <no two animal habitats >are exactly similar -- W. H. Dowdeswell> >3 : not differing in shape but only in size or position <similar triangles> ><similar polygons> > > >> The Earth is comparable to the Sun (they can be compared). > > Sure, if you are saying both are round objects. > > > I think >> that they also misrepresent the implications of those studies > > Your opinion only. > > >(see >> Vandeman 2004). > > I don't read science fiction. > > >> 12. On p.29 they mention "user-created" trails. > > Are you saying that the trails are not "user-created" ? > > > Why use a euphemism, >> in a scientific paper? Those trails were built illegally. The authors >> only add to the impression that their paper is deliberately slanted. >> 13. They make a good point on p.36 about trail users having to leave >> the trail to allow mountain bikers to pass. This is a good reason to >> ban bikes from trails: they lead inevitably to trail widening. But the >> authors don't suggest banning bikes as an option, even though it is a >> very common management tool. This adds to the impression of bias. >> 14. On p.37 they claim that "the width and depth" of their trails is >> "similar" (not a scientific term, since it is so vague) to that of >> Marion & Leung, although their trails averaged 32" wide (median 26") >> and his median trail width was 17", so theirs was 50% greater. Why be >> scientifically precise in some contexts, but totally vague when they >> want to advocate for mountain biking? > >It is scientifically meaningless >> to compare trails in different areas, since the differences or >> similarities could be caused by many irrelevant factors, such as >> differences in soil type, kind and amount of use, management policies, >> etc. > > Exactly, now you should be able to see why they use the term "similar" so >often. > > >> 15. Also on p.37 they claim that "The findings from our study thus >> reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to >> mountain bike trails, especially width, are comparable or less than >> hiking ... trails". On the contrary, they presented zero data on the >> width of hiking trails. In fact, they gave evidence (see # 13 above) >> that mountain biking tends to widen hiking trails, by forcing hikers >> and equestrians off the trail. >> 16. They also say "average width in our study was similar to lower use >> mountain bike trails in Australia ... which [were] from 17 in. to 26 >> in." "Similar" is not a scientific term. It would appear, on the >> contrary, that their trails were much wider than those ones. But as I >> mentioned earlier, it is meaningless to compare trails in different >> areas. There is no way to determine the cause of any differences or >> lack of differences. >> 17. They claim on p.37 that "mountain biking is likely a sustainable >> activity on properly managed trails". What does that mean? > > Comprehension of the english language is not one of your strong points, I >see. Then define it. >They have >> just documented erosion and trail widening. Those effects are not >> "sustainable"; they constitute environmental damage, in addition to >> that of other trail users. > > It's the hikers using mountain bike trails that cause the widening of the >trails, maybe all hikers should be banned. > > > They go on to mention several other >> negative effects of mountain biking (wildlife impacts and spread of >> exotic species) that also contradict the idea that mountain biking is >> "sustainable". It would appear that they are bending over backwards to >> conclude that mountain biking is acceptable. > > Wouldn't those negative effects apply to hiking as well ? Hiking impacts are much less than mountain biking impacts, according to the science. >> 18. I fail to see the value of "the introduction of CERs" (Common >> Ecological Regions). It seems to have no relevance to policy or >> management, unless we are going to prohibit mountain biking in desert >> areas where trails can't be clearly delimited. But we already know >> that trail widening is harmful: it represents habitat destruction. > > > Sure, adding another six inches to the width of the trail would just clear >the wildlife right out of the forrest, wouldn't it ? > >> >> In summary, I was bothered most by the authors' unquestioning >> acceptance at face value of (or even misrepresenting) some rather >> questionable studies, and their drawing conclusions not warranted by >> their data. If they really want to do science, and not just promote >> mountain biking, I think they should adhere better to what the data >> tell us. > > Maybe you should take that advice and use it in your own "studies". > > >> >> Actually, it's much easier than trying to slant results. Permit me to >> tell a little story. I was in graduate school at UCLA, was trying to >> write a literature-review paper, and was having a terrible time >> writing it -- until I realized that I was trying to make the results >> come out the way I wanted them to. When I decided to "just tell it >> like it was" and let the cards fall as they might, the paper almost >> wrote itself. It became easy. > > So what happened between then and now ? > >> >> Mountain biking is such a contentious issue that there is a great >> temptation to slant the results to support one's preferred management >> policy. The result is a lot of questionable studies that don't really >> further science and don't really help provide scientific management of >> our precious remaining wildlife habitat. > > > I would agree to that as your "studies" read like science fiction. > > > I suggest that they first >> find out what kind of answers are needed (especially by land >> managers), and then design research specifically to answer those >> questions. > > I hope I am reading that wrong but it seems that's how studies are done >now. They figure out the answer they want for the question and then find the >research that gives the desired answer. > > How about a study that is done without bias that actually and thruthfully >answers the questions at hand ? http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. >> References: >> >> Thurston, E. and R. J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied >> mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous >> forest. Environmental Management 27:397-409. >> >> Vandeman, M. J. 2004. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and >> People -- A Review of the Literature. Available at >> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. >> >> White, D. D., M. T. Waskey, G. P. Brodehl, and P. E. Foti. 2006. A >> Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common >> Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S. Journal of Park and >> Recreation Administration, 24:2, 21-41. >> >> Wilson, J. P. and J. Seney. 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, horses, >> motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. >> Mountain Research and Development. 14:77-88. >> === >> 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 > === 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