WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
 

http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Mountai...west-white.pdf


Key conclusion:

The findings from this study reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are compa- rable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails.

Note:

Data for the study were collected from 319 sample points gathered from 162.3 miles of mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwest United States.

WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
 

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 3:18:53 AM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Mountai...west-white.pdf





Key conclusion:



The findings from this study reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are compa- rable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails.



Note:



Data for the study were collected from 319 sample points gathered from 162.3 miles of mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwest United States.

Junk science. Not worth the paper it's printed on. Not that you would know the difference.

WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
 

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 2:40:12 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2013 3:18:53 AM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Mountai...west-white.pdf











Key conclusion:







The findings from this study reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are compa- rable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails.







Note:







Data for the study were collected from 319 sample points gathered from 162.3 miles of mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwest United States.



Junk science. Not worth the paper it's printed on. Not that you would know the difference.

Nor would you ... as a promulgator of non-peer-reviewed, non-factually-verified and opinion-based pieces. Talk about hypocrisy.

WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
 

Hahaha. Well said.

WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
 

Whatever Vandeman

WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
 

And your evidence for saying its junk science? Why don't you write an article in the journal in response? That's what real scientists do when they disagree with research.