Mike Vandeman wrote:

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

You have no research (including of your own) to prove this assertation.  Please cite your source.  Don't quote your "literature review" as your arguement there was on the initial model not being able to correlate slope, not on the multiple regression model only indicating run-off having a 10% correlation (vs higher values for slope, soil texture and user treatment). Also, don't forget that user treatment (hiking vs mt. biking) has been your soap box for 12 years.



=== 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