Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet

Mikey,
What tires do you suggest for muddy conditions?

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:56:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

.On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:08:26 GMT, Mike Vandeman
.wrote:
.
..Up to a point, Lord Copper. Actually it had a greater impact on one
..of the species, another was entirely indifferent. And the supposed
..impact may have been of no importance,
.
.Chasing wildlife away from the resources it needs is "not important"?! Thanks
.for demonstrating exactly the problem: mountain bikers DON'T CARE about
.wildlife. Why else would you call negative impacts "unimportant"? You are just
.digging yourself in deeper....
.
.Nope, I am pointing out one of the things which is clear in the paper:
.that the impact is not proven to be negative. Any supposed negative
.impact depends on the elk being driven permanently from their forage.

BS. Forcing them away from the resources they need, for however long, is
negative, not positive. You are just LYING.

.If they run away but return a few minutes later, the actual impact is
.likely to be unmeasurably small.

They didn't "return a few minutes later", LIAR. In fact, they left until the
next day, even when no one returned.

.And actually the paper says this is only likely to be an issue at
.certain times of year, coincidentally a time when mountain bikers are
.much less likely to be out. They call for more research. You appear
.to be prejudging the outcome of that research in a way the authors of
.the paper did not.
.
..the idea that it might have
..been significant was based on conjecture. And it turns out that there
..was evidence of that species showing acclimatisation anyway, making
..the hypothesis moot.
.
.No, there wasn't. They are already acclimatised to that climate. Idiot. You are
.LYING. That word was not used in the article! You FABRICATED it.
.
.Logical fallacy: equivocation. They used the word "habituated", which
.is synonymous. From the context it is abundantly clear that this was
.my meaning.
.
..Meanwhile, there is no consideration of other impacts. For example, I
..know from personal experience that owls and bats are not perturbed by
..bicycle traffic (they sometimes pace me on evening rides) but they
..take flight at the approach of a human on foot.
.
.That's not scientific evidence. You PRETEND to care abput science, until it
.doesn't go your way.... Hypocrite.
.
.Logical fallacy: straw man. I never said it was scientific evidence.
.It was clearly anecdotal. The point was that your so-called proof
.exhibits a fallacy of definition, being too narrow in scope.
.
..So you either have to take an absolute approach - no human
..recreational activity is permissible - or you have to review the issue
..in the round. What you are doing is cherry-picking, using carefully
..selected subsets of the impact of human activity to assert that
..mountain biking is worse than the activities you enjoy or with which
..you take common cause, and then asserting the absolute (all human
..activity has an impact) when your hypocrisy is pointed out. You are
..just another bigot.
.
.You are just trying to deflect attention from the FACT that mountain biking has
.beed SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to have greater impacts on wildlife.
.
.Er, not it hasn't. The report demonstrates that one species, elk, are
.more likely to run from mountain bikers than from hikers; it
.hypothesises a couple of ways in which that /might/ adversely affect
.the elk, but it also notes that the observed effect apparently reduces
.with exposure, so even in the incredibly limited terms of that one
.paper (one of two species assessed, the other showing no such effect)
.there is no actual proof of any significant inherent impact.
.
.Of course, having failed to prove significance you could fall back on
.the absolute, as ever, but here we find that the absolute also applies
.to hiking. This study offers no logically consistent justification to
.oppose mountain biking and still take part in hiking, or take common
.cause with horse riding, and especially to do so without spending at
.least as much effort campaigning against ATV use.
.
..How do you know that the brief flight was not a net benefit
..to survival? There is no proof of that. The animals ran, as they are
..programmed to do. That this amounts to a disbenefit to the animals is
..pure conjecture on the part of the authors, and their discussion makes
..this abundantly clear.
.
.It's obvious to any dimwit. If the animals wanted to run away from their food
.source, they would have done so already. You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that it
.is beneficial to drive them away, and it is obvious to anyone that it's NOT
.beneficial. You are just digging yourself deeper and deeper with your LIES.
.
.You are having trouble with the English language again, Mike. I
.didn't say it was beneficial, I said that the study provided no
.evidence that it was not. In other words, the study notes an effect,
.but fails to quantify that effect either in magnitude or in sign. Is
.the effect small? Large? Positive? Negative? Does it simply vanish
.over time as the animals become acclimatised (habituated if you
.prefer)? The report does not say.
.
.So, even within the context of the incredibly limited scope of this
.report, there is actually no genuine evidence to support your case.
.
.And it seems that this is the best you can provide! No wonder nobody
.else considers it a significant problem.
.
...Hmmm. Focusing on a single off-road activity without consideration of
...all off-road uses and the cumulative effects from all activities.
...What could they possibly mean?
.
..That we should eliminate the high-impact uses, such as ATVs and mountain biking.
.
..Logical fallacy: begging the question. Your assertion is unproven, so
..the argument falls.
.
.That study proved it.
.
.No, that is syllogism. That study proved that elk run away. It did
.not show whether they come back if they don't find alternate forage
.where they land up after their brief flight, it didn't measure any
.disbenefit to the elk. The flight response is normal, after all. It
.suggested that they might become habituated. And above all, because
.the scope of the report is so narrow, it completely fails to establish
.that the overall impact of mountain biking is more or less than that
.of any other activity, or by how much.
.
.It offers insufficient evidence to support your case, so your argument
.falls.
.
.The report does, however, identify one of the reasons why you are
.wrong: it suggests that focusing on a single activity is a flawed
.approach.
.
..It is also the case that your comment ignores the point being made,
..that what should be considered is the balance of all activities, not
..one activity in isolation (or have you started trolling the hiking,
..horse riding and ATV groups yet?)
.
.What good is "balance". By your logic, we should allow a "balance" of activities
.in the city, including crime. Only a moron would advocate that.
.
.Two logical fallacies in one! Well done. First, to be valid your
.comparison above should be between different classes of crime, not
.crime versus non-criminal activity; second, the basis of the evidence
.is too narrow to be generally applicable, a syllogistic error based on
.a fallacy of definition.
.
.Here we have a number of activities, both beneficial and enjoyable to
.their participants. You say one should be banned or at least heavily
.restricted on the basis that one animal runs away from mountain bikers
.(unless it has seen them enough times), although there is no hard
.evidence that this causes them any actual harm. What of all the other
.animals? Are some more scared of hikers? No evidence is presented.
.Evidence is presented that the elk's response is not shared by some
.other animals; what if the elk is unique in this response, but many
.other animals display the opposite? Insufficient data. As the report
.rightly suggests, a holistic approach is essential.
.
.According to you, if elk are less likely to run away from a vehicle
.powered by owl eggs than from a mountain bike, the environmental
.impact of the owl-egg powered vehicle is less. Only by considering
.the overall impact in a holistic sense can a valid judgment be
.reached.
.
.Sadly you are too much of a bigot ever to do so.
.
....But when you look at the major wilderness protection agencies, they do
....not mention mountain biking as a specific concern over and above any
....other recreational use.
...Obviously because they aren't up on the latest research.
...That would require it to be published. I note that neither yours nor
...the paper you cite is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
..So what? It's still good science. You are deliberately missing the point.
..So you say. But answer me this: if the problem is so pressing, how
..come the coverage in the learned journals is so limited as to have
..permitted them to miss it for all these years?
.
.Because the harm from mountain biking is so OBVIOUS that most prople don't think
.it's even worth researching. You only need research when the answer is in doubt.
.That's why only mountain bikers do this kind ot research, because they have a
.need to justify their selfish, destructive sport.
.
.Logical fallacy. You say the damage is "obvious", but the fact of
.damage is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your characterisation
.of mountain biking as an issue of pre-eminent concern. Contrast it
.with issues like wild fires and ATV use, where there is widespread
.concern which reflected in many sources. The damage these do is no
.less obvious, the key difference is that there is hard scientific
.evidence to support the idea that these activities are especially
.damaging.
.
.And even then most of the wilderness agencies are not campaigning
.against wild camping or ATV use, just working for people to be more
.responsible.
.
.So your position is not only illogical, it is extremist.
.
..They proved there's a relevant difference. That is not affected by any
..suppositions.
..
..Relevant? I don't think so. There is no proof in that study that any
..harm came to the elk who ran away, and some evidence that if any harm
..did exist the elk might well become acclimatised anyway.
.
.The harm is obvious. DUH!
.
.Is it? Then why did the authors feel the need to show it was
.speculative? It is abundantly clear from the paper, both in what it
.says and in the further work it suggests, that the authors are well
.aware that this falls short of proof of any significant harm. Of
.course, you could fall back on the absolute, but that is logically
.inconsistent with your own hiking and taking common cause with horse
.riders.
.
.You have built your house of cards upside down, Mike, and that's why
.it keeps falling down.
.
.BS. Their statistics proved that the impact was significant.
.
.Actually no they didn't. They proved that elk run away, and
.hypothesised a couple of ways in which that might result in an adverse
.impact. They didn't show whether the impact was positive or negative
.in practice, and they didn't measure the magnitude of that impact, and
.they didn't address the overall impact.
.
..Once again you miss the point: *in order to inform that debate* it
..needs to be peer-reviewed and published. The way you get opinions in
..front of those who need to know is through the medium of peer-reviewed
..journals.
.
.BS. You are just trying to cover up the fact that you LOST, hands down
.
.LOL! You are the Black Knight and I claim my five pounds!
.
.http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-04.htm
.
.Guy

Yawn.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande