On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:45:13 -0800, cc wrote:

Michael Halliwell wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.

Neither do hiking shoes.

Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.

No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails

Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.


That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.

Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)

Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.

(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)

It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.

Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one
exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut
up.

Wilson and Seney is published
in MRD, which is
peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS.
Don't you read the **** you
write, Mike?


"Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading
interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words,
it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal.

Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is:

This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that
mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a
number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors
used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment
yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of
each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say
what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good
measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the
very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it
into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected.
In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the
kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third
that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the
measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between
water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail
roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant".

If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no
correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with
slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common
sense.


Don't YOU read the reports you claim are "junk science"? Or maybe you are
intentionally leaving out the full quote of Wilson and Seney:

“The initial regression results were not very encouraging in that none of the
relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil
moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant.



The switch to multiple regression and the inclusion of soil texture as a series
of indicator variables improved the model performance.”

and later when discussing the multiple regression model:

“…ten independent variables and cross-products combined to explain 70% of the
variability in sediment yield. Treating the cumulative contributions of the
different variables to the final result as a rough guide to their contributions
confirmed that soil texture (37%), slope (35%) and user treatment (35%) had the
most impact. Water run-off (9%) was one of three variables that made smaller
contributions.”


Or did the fact that it was the initial model that had the poor fit and didn't
account for slope, etc. which was corrected by using a different model escape you?

Woah there, Michael. That is a
LOT of big words for MV to
absorb. Especially at once !

You know, considering MV
claims he is an "expert" in
statistics, such an
"oversight" might lead one to
believe he's biased. No . . . .

If water run-off had only a 9% correlation with the measure of
erosion, it was obviously NOT a valid measure of erosion. QED
===
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