Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise,Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers

On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS
wrote:



OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.

"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"

Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.

There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.

The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.

Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common.

1. You obviously didn't read carefully.
2. Cessford's paper was a review paper, NOT research.

Maybe you could point out
the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
"debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.

What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.

E.P.
--
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 Sun, 18 May 2008 05:03:40 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Ed Pirrero wrote:
On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS
wrote:



OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.
There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.
The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
"debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.

What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.

E.P.

Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
biking impacts.

Very true. Thanks.

...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
newsgroup where he has stated this).

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

On Sun, 18 May 2008 00:56:33 -0700, SMS
wrote:

M. Halliwell wrote:

Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
newsgroup where he has stated this).

What's very telling is that after all these years of mountain biking
being in existence, there hasn't been a single study that has shown any
more impact from mountain bikes than from other trail users.

BS. See the Wisdom et al study cited in
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Yeah,
you'll sometimes hear hikers complain about mountain bikers, but it's
only because they don't like other trail users, and they also complain
about equestrians (I know I do!). The difference is that horses really
do tear up trails, while mountain bikes have similar or less impact than
hikers. You know that if anyone had any proof that mountain bikes were
more destructive than other trail users that they'd have published some
sort of peer-reviewed study, but this hasn't happened.

BS. See above.
--
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 Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:
On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS
wrote:

OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.
There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.
The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
"debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.

What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.

E.P.

Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
newsgroup where he has stated this).

Yeah, I've laughed at that before.

Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
environmentalist movement.

Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.

One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me.

And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.

E.P.
--
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 May 18, 9:14 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero



wrote:
On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

wrote:
On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS wrote:
OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.

"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"

Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.

There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.

The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.

Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
Duh.

Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.

Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.

E.P.

Obviously, you didn't read my paper...

Obviously I did, which is irrelevant. You didn't address *this*
article and its cited research. Most of which is not covered in your
"response".

E.P.

On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero



wrote:
On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:
On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS
wrote:

OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.
There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.
The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
"debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.

What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.

E.P.

Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
newsgroup where he has stated this).

Yeah, I've laughed at that before.

Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
environmentalist movement.

Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.

One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me.

And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.


Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
convey more information.

E.P.

On May 18, 9:15 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero



wrote:
On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS
wrote:

OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.

"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"

Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.

There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.

The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.

Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common.

1. You obviously didn't read carefully.

I just read it again - yes, as I said before, it seems only Cessford
is the common link. Maybe you're confused?

2. Cessford's paper was a review paper, NOT research.

According to you, reviews aren't worth as much as original research,
so thanks for supporting my argument.

E.P.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 18, 9:14 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero



wrote:
On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero

wrote:
On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS wrote:
OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.

"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"

Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.

There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.

The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.

Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
Duh.

Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.

Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.

E.P.

Obviously, you didn't read my paper...

Obviously I did, which is irrelevant. You didn't address *this*
article and its cited research. Most of which is not covered in your
"response".

Here is your lie again: "you didn't quote a single thing that they
lied about". Explain why you lied.

E.P.
--
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 Sun, 18 May 2008 20:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero



wrote:
On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:
On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS
wrote:

OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.
There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.
The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
"debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.

What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.

E.P.

Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
newsgroup where he has stated this).

Yeah, I've laughed at that before.

Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
environmentalist movement.

Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.

One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me.

And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.


Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
convey more information.

BS. You mean like rec.bicycles.off-road? It's DEAD, as well as
censored. ZERO information, even when something was posted.

E.P.
--
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 Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
wrote:

On May 18, 9:15 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero



wrote:
On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS
wrote:

OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.

"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"

Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.

There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.

The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.

Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common.

1. You obviously didn't read carefully.

I just read it again - yes, as I said before, it seems only Cessford
is the common link. Maybe you're confused?

Nope. For example, you missed:

A 2001 study performed by botanist Richard Reader of the University of
Guelph (Canada) noted that "We've found that hikers have the same
effect as bikers do, regardless of the number of trips along the path.
In reality, both are equally damaging to the environment, but there is
increased trail wear because twice the number of people are now using
the trails." (Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and
Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest - Eden Thurston
and Richard Reader).

as well as:

Perhaps the most widely accepted research on trail impacts of
different users is the Seney/Wilson Study as it compared all the user
groups together in one study (hikers, motorcycles, mountain bikes, and
horses). Some of the findings from the Seney/Wilson Study include:

"The sediment yields reported in part B of Table 4 indicates that
horse plots produced significantly more sediment yield than the
bicycle, control, or hiker plots." "Hiker and bicycle plots were not
significantly different from each other or the control plots." "
Indeed, hikers produced the second largest increase in sediment yield
following the horse treatments, and overall the horse and hiker plots
suggest that hooves and feet make more sediment available for removal
than wheels on pre-wetted soils. The results in Part D of Table 4
indicate horse traffic produced significantly more sediment than other
users on dry plots as well". (Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses,
Motorcycles, and Off Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana- John
Wilson and Joseph Seney - Mountain Research and Development 1994)

It's obvious that you don't know how to read.

2. Cessford's paper was a review paper, NOT research.

According to you, reviews aren't worth as much as original research,
so thanks for supporting my argument.

Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
truth, as I did.

E.P.
--
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