A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 27th 06, 12:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Andy H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:22:43 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
"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.


As usual, if it doesn't agree
with you, it's not true.


I didn't say that; YOU did.

What
is your point?

BTW -- you can't reference a
non-published paper (such as
all of yours) as
'discrediting' something if
it's not peer-reviewed.


But it HAS been peer-reviewed, many times (of course, in this field, I
have no peers:


Do you think that might be because no one likes you mikey?

all other researchers have produced nothing but junk
science.


Still an egotistical ****** then I see.


But
you knew that.


No sorry we didn't, probably because we don't see things with your obviously
biased eyes.


===
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.)


And have managed to succesfully do.....**** all.!


Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!


You obviously found out the hard way then, eh?


http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande



Ads
  #12  
Old August 27th 06, 01:36 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:54:00 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Funny,

Their backgrounds seem a lot more related to the topic area at hand than
your math and psychology degrees.


Exactly: they are experts in exploiting natural resources -- NOT
conservation.

Michael Halliwell

===
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
  #13  
Old August 27th 06, 04:13 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:08:42 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:00:33 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:



Papouchis, Singer and Sloan: Hikers have greatest impact on bighorn Sheep

The authors observed 1,029 bighorn sheep/human interactions in two
areas, a high-use and a low-use, of Canyonlands National Park, Utah, in
1993 and 1994. They compared behavioral responses, distances moved, and
duration of responses to vehicles, mountain bikers, and humans on foot.
Hikers caused the most severe responses in desert bighorn sheep (animals
fled in 61% of encounters), followed by vehicles (17%) and mountain
bikers (6%)



Of course you conveniently omitted the fact that the "hikers" were
researchers, and were TOLD to approach the sheep, just as the mountain
bikers were told to keep riding and NOT approach the sheep. That makes
the entire study 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!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


===
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


On the other side of this point, Mike, please don't forget your own
assertions that "mountian bikers don't look at nature, they are too busy
trying not to crash" so they would just ride by....hikers, in my
observations, often try to get closer to wildlife in order to get
pictures or "have a better look."


1. Mountain bikers claim to be there to look at nature. They claim
that they are "just hikers on wheels". There's nothing to stop the
mountain bikers from getting off their bikes and approaching the
sheep.
2. It is the height of dishonesty to manipulate the experimental
conditions to "prove" what you want, instead of testing under real
conditions, with REAL hikers and REAL mountain bikers. This study,
like most of the studies comparing mountain biking with hiking, is
junk science.

Michael Halliwell

===
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
  #14  
Old August 27th 06, 05:00 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:51:02 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:


1. Mountain bikers claim to be there to look at nature. They claim
that they are "just hikers on wheels". There's nothing to stop the
mountain bikers from getting off their bikes and approaching the
sheep.
2. It is the height of dishonesty to manipulate the experimental
conditions to "prove" what you want, instead of testing under real
conditions, with REAL hikers and REAL mountain bikers. This study,
like most of the studies comparing mountain biking with hiking, is
junk science.


Mike,

With regards to point 1, you have always stated that you feel it is
impossible for the mountain bikers to look at nature while they ride.


True. But they CAN stop! This paper offered ZERO evidence that
mountain bikers never stop.

Under your assumptions, the that aspect of the test was valid. Are you
saying that, just perhaps, another mountain biker has stated the truth,
or are you just conveniently using it to justify your response to this
particular paper and experimental methodology?

For point 2: At what point is it manipulation of the conditions to
manufacture proof vs. reflecting actual conditions?


This paper offered ZERO evidence that hikers approach sheep (and that
mountain bikers DON'T). They created those conditions deliberately. If
you are going to measure hikers, then measure hikers -- don't
manipulate them by telling them what to do!

Where is your
proof that such a manipulation has occurred.


I can see that you never actually READ the paper, invalidating 100% of
your comments. They admitted it in the paper! DUH!

As these papers are peer
reviewed


I see no evidence that it was peer-reviewed. Not all articles are
peer-reviewed. If it was peer-reviewed, that process is not
infallible. People are very busy and could easily have missed that
important point, especially if they aren't aware how contentious this
issue is and how strong, therefore, is the motivation to cheat, as
they have done.
(vs. yours which are not), I would hope that the review process
would have caught such a flaw and rejected the experimental
methodology. As no such rejection has occurred, what makes you think
that your opinion is worth more than the peer review? Watch your
comments here, Mike, as it reflects directly on your "literature review"
/ opinion paper you constantly cite as your "proof".

Michael Halliwell

===
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
  #15  
Old August 27th 06, 05:01 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:38:09 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:54:00 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:



Funny,

Their backgrounds seem a lot more related to the topic area at hand than
your math and psychology degrees.



Exactly: they are experts in exploiting natural resources -- NOT
conservation.



And you have proof of their "exploiting" activities or are you pulling
facts out of the air?


Why do you think they are called "Resources"? You aren't really THAT
stupid, are you?

Michael Halliwell

===
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
  #16  
Old August 28th 06, 03:01 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:03:08 -0400, pmhilton wrote:

wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)


snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

R


He'll find some sleazy & intellectually dishonest way to discount this
report.


No, totally honest, so much so that my paper has been accepted for
presentation at 8 international environmental conferences:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7


Yes, it will be available from a self serve dispenser witin an arms reach
of every toilet.


  #17  
Old August 28th 06, 04:23 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:39:41 GMT, Michael Halliwell
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mike,

With regards to point 1, you have always stated that you feel it is
impossible for the mountain bikers to look at nature while they ride.



True. But they CAN stop! This paper offered ZERO evidence that
mountain bikers never stop.



But that has been your assertation...that mountain bikers have to be so
focused on their ride that they wouldn't see the sheep and therefore
wouldn't stop...your historic arguement makes your disagreement with
this part of the paper invalid...or are you changing your point of view?


You are (deliberately?) misisng the point: the authors have to do
science, not just try to make the conclusion come out the way they
want it to.

For point 2: At what point is it manipulation of the conditions to
manufacture proof vs. reflecting actual conditions?



This paper offered ZERO evidence that hikers approach sheep (and that
mountain bikers DON'T). They created those conditions deliberately. If
you are going to measure hikers, then measure hikers -- don't
manipulate them by telling them what to do!


Yet, from my personal observation, this reflects actual conditions where
I live...hikers, who generally don't get out into nature much, are so
enthralled by seeing wildlife that they approach to get a better look
and photos to show off at work or send to family. Those who bike see
the sheep and keep on going.


Your personal observation is not science, and is quitely probably
biased. If you saw hikers ignore sheep, ot a biker approach them, I
doubt that you would notice or remember it.

Where is your


proof that such a manipulation has occurred.



I can see that you never actually READ the paper, invalidating 100% of
your comments. They admitted it in the paper! DUH!



Once again, at which point is it a manipulation to unrealistic
conditions vs. a reflection of actual happenings?


Only science will tell, not your opinion.

Not having the
assistants approach (like I've seen hikers do on a regular basis) could
also be viewed as a manipulation of the experimental conditions....shy
of hiding in the bushes and hoping you have a representative popluations
and adequate sample size, some experimental design will be required.


It must be normal conditions. No one has ever TOLD me on a hike to
approach wildlife, so that's not normal.

As these papers are peer


reviewed



I see no evidence that it was peer-reviewed. Not all articles are
peer-reviewed. If it was peer-reviewed, that process is not
infallible. People are very busy and could easily have missed that
important point, especially if they aren't aware how contentious this
issue is and how strong, therefore, is the motivation to cheat, as
they have done.


And so, how then would you defend your work against the same accusation?
Can you prove that you don't have a motivation to cheat as this is a
contentious issue? (Especially with your stated goals and views on your
website leading to a strong potential bias.) Where are the independent
peer reviews (though not infallable) on your work that are intended to
provide a third-party check and (hopefully) help weed out the errors,
bias and misleading statements that can interfere with the truth?


I don't need to prove anything, because anyone reading the articles I
reviewed can see the same things I saw. And, if they are honest (which
you are NOT), report them.

Mike, as passionate as I understand you are on this subject, you are
going to have continued resistance.

Those of use who have so much as a basic understanding of the scientific
methodology see bias in what you have presented


Show me where that is. You are just mouthing the words.

and no direct research
on your part...we basically see you as someone not willing to test their
hypotheses but will claim those that are attempting to gather actual
data are doing it wrong, incorrectly interpreting it or just outright
manipulating the data to provide a false conclusion. I would suggest
that you obtain funding and do your own research to disprove their
results


All you have to do is read their stuff, to see that what I say is
true. But you also have to be HONEST, which you are NOT.

(and possibly prove your hypotheses) and have the final report
peer reviewed and published in an appropriate journal for the subject.

For those who don't understand scientific methodology, your
presentations come across poorly (I have veiwed some of them almost as
tantrums...plus there is the avoidance of some replies, ignorant
comments to others, and name calling in yet more) and will generate
negative emotions towards you and your subject matter (or don't you
understand that with your psych degree?).

Not to get personal, but when you grow up in your posts or you step up
and actually do research (not just what you call "literature reviews")
you may have a chance at gaining back some credibility. Until such takes
place, you are wasting your efforts as your audience has discounted your
message.


Only mountain bikers. Others agree with me, because they aren't
biased.

Michael Halliwell


===
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
  #18  
Old August 28th 06, 05:56 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Andy H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."


"Mike" wrote in message
...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:03:08 -0400, pmhilton wrote:

wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)


snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

R


He'll find some sleazy & intellectually dishonest way to discount this
report.


No, totally honest, so much so that my paper has been accepted for
presentation at 8 international environmental conferences:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7


Yes, it will be available from a self serve dispenser witin an arms reach
of every toilet.

:O)


  #19  
Old August 28th 06, 06:02 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
cc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in FiveCommon Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

Mike wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:03:08 -0400, pmhilton wrote:


wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:


"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)


snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

R


He'll find some sleazy & intellectually dishonest way to discount this
report.


No, totally honest, so much so that my paper has been accepted for
presentation at 8 international environmental conferences:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7



Yes, it will be available from a self serve dispenser witin an arms reach
of every toilet.


My asshole has higher standards.
  #20  
Old August 28th 06, 07:05 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default "A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in FiveCommon Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S."

wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
"A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five
Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S." (White et al 2006)


snip

http://www.imba.com/resources/scienc...t_summary.html

Mountain bikes have been around for 25 years or so, and in that time
there has not been a single study that has shown greater impact on
trails from bicycles than from hikers or horses. All users have impact
on the wilderness, but in reality, the impact from mountain bikes is
less than impact from horses, and about the same as impact from hikers.

The opposition to mountain bikes is not based on trail impact or
wilderness impact, it's based on the problem of incompatible users
trying to use the same trails.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Psychology of Mountain Biking Mike Vandeman Social Issues 22 August 12th 06 03:15 AM
The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- WhyOff-Road Bicycling Should be Prohibited Pablo Ricardo Mountain Biking 69 July 23rd 04 10:40 AM
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking BB Mountain Biking 31 July 4th 04 02:35 AM
Why Do You Ride Mountain A Bike On Streets? James Lynx Mountain Biking 53 June 3rd 04 12:39 PM
Mike Vandeman qa2 Mountain Biking 26 November 18th 03 01:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.