Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder - Page 2 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

11-23-2006, 07:23 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> 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, 08:03 AM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. ..
>>> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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!
>>>
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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? 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 ? 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

(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.

> 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.

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. 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
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
> 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.

> 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.

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.

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 ?

> 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 ?

>
> 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
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
>
> 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!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-23-2006, 10:07 AM

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> 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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-23-2006, 10:21 AM

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:03:12 GMT, "Mike" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:06:27 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ...
>>>> On 21 Nov 2006 15:11:47 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>>>> > On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>S Curtiss wrote:
>>>>>> >>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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!
>>>>
>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>> 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
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
>> 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 ?

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].

>> 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
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-23-2006, 04:15 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>> 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!

What has that got to do with exercise? Given your logic, you'd have accept
the following: hikers get killed and seriously injured all the time.
Search and Rescue teams have to use a lot of time, resources, and often risk
their lives to rescue them. Hiking should be banned.

11-23-2006, 09:59 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> 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). 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.

11-24-2006, 10:43 AM

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:59:25 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:23:42 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> 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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-24-2006, 01:23 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:59:25 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>>>>>>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 said NOTHING but the same opinion you have stated before. You did what
you always do when confronted with information counter to your OPINION. You
simply proclaim it invalid and attempt to discredit it with your OPINION.
You have not performed a single field study yourself and rely on others to
do so. If it matches your opinion, you proclaim it is "proof". If it does
not support your opinion, you discount it.
I erased NOTHING because there was NOTHING to erase because you said NOTHING
of relevance.
>
> 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!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-24-2006, 05:55 PM

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:23:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:59:25 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>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 said NOTHING but the same opinion you have stated before. You did what
>you always do when confronted with information counter to your OPINION. You
>simply proclaim it invalid and attempt to discredit it with your OPINION.
>You have not performed a single field study yourself and rely on others to
>do so. If it matches your opinion, you proclaim it is "proof". If it does
>not support your opinion, you discount it.
>I erased NOTHING because there was NOTHING to erase because you said NOTHING
>of relevance.

How would you know, since you obviously didn't READ 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!
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-24-2006, 08:51 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:23:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>>>>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 said NOTHING but the same opinion you have stated before. You did what
>>you always do when confronted with information counter to your OPINION.
>>You
>>simply proclaim it invalid and attempt to discredit it with your OPINION.
>>You have not performed a single field study yourself and rely on others to
>>do so. If it matches your opinion, you proclaim it is "proof". If it does
>>not support your opinion, you discount it.
>>I erased NOTHING because there was NOTHING to erase because you said
>>NOTHING
>>of relevance.
>
> How would you know, since you obviously didn't READ it?

I've read it. But it was so infused with your unfounded opinions that it was
a joke to even refer to it as anything but a parody. You even referenced
yourself as a resource! Pathetic.
>
>>> 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.
No comment on the full context...? No comment on the direct reference to
your methods...? I, and anyone else with a valid interest in the issue,
would read that as confirmation of your lack of integrity in review of
others' work.