On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:11:43 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Just as I thought: you can't refute a single line. All you can do is pretend that you read it, and then BLUFF. The score so far: Mountain Bikers ZERO, Vandeman 1000.



IMBA updated their references on the environmental impacts of mountain bikes in 2007.

The manuscript draft you pasted above is about 6 years out of date and you should revise it to keep up with current events. Clearly, it's an evolving field.

You should also not depend on IMBA to do you "favors" by simply duplicating their literature review. In fact, the title of this manuscript is deceptive, given that it's foundation is a response to an IMBA article, not an objective literature review, as the title implies. As a PhD and a self-professed "expert" you should be familiar enough with collecting peer-reviewed articles to do this yourself.

I also have a question about the following passage: "Bikes create V-shaped ruts in trails, throw dirt to the outside on turns, crush small plants and animals on and under the trail, facilitate increased levels of human access into wildlife habitat, and drive other trail users (many of whom are seeking the tranquility and primitiveness of natural surroundings) out of the parks."

When you use the word, "park," what specifically are you referring to? National Parks? State parks? Preserves? Or just things labeled as "parks" by the local interests? You don't make that at all clear. Because in another thread you said that only an "idiot" would call some of these things "parks."