11-24-2006, 11:43 AM
|
#17 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:59:25 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:hasbm2tn4js7id2ke517qfd2r9mse2o5b9@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"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.
>
>You haven't presented one good reason to accept your opinions are more valid
>than the findings presented by the actual researchers who performed the
>actual study (or studies).
I just did, and you erased it. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
You have not created a single bit of information.
>You have simply pointed to research you agree with and proclaim it "valid"
>and pointed to research counter to your opinion and proclaimed it "junk".
>"Because you say so" is not good enough. That is proven as your opinions
>have been presented time and again and discounted by the people whose job it
>is to assess information in the creation of rules of access and trail
>useage.
>You are merely a child making a huff for not getting his way. It is sad. It
>is pathetic. It is hysterical.
>
===
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
|
|
|  |