#101
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 21, 12:17*am, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:20 am, AMuzi wrote: meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too: Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference. In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers, were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity, someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a storm. Neither were killed due to doing something stupid, as mountain bikers are. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY stupid and predictably dangerous. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 21, 12:34*am, "Ronsonic" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Jul 15, 10:03 am, "Ronsonic" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .... On Jul 14, 1:02 pm, Peter Cole wrote: Can't you read? "horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have the right to go wherever they want to". Did you flunk grade school English, as well? I read what you wrote. Horses were extinct in North America until introduced some 500 years ago. Now if you want to argue that they were re-introduced, you could, but you'd have to explain the differences between the fossil record and the horses that are out there now. Why? We just returned something that should never have been killed in the first place. Shall we release some wolves into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there. Yes, of course. I agree with you on a philosophic basis, bikes are indeed inanimate and if I ever see one out on a trail on its own, I'll order it off the trail. There is no right to bring a bike onto a trail. Why ever do you say such a silly thing. I have every right to ride the trails. BS. There is no "right" to mountain bike. That was settled by a federal court in 1994: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
Peter Cole writes:
On 7/21/2011 3:34 AM, Ronsonic wrote: Shall we release some wolves into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there. That's being done in the US. And beavers have been reintroduced in Scotland, after being gone hundreds of years. -- |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/21/2011 12:17 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:20 am, wrote: meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too: Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference. In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers, were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity, someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a storm. There are tragic accidents for both hikers and cyclists, as well as non-accidents caused by doing something stupid. Look what happened at Yosemite a couple of days ago to two hikers. Tragic, but it should not reflect on all hikers. If you're just looking at the impact of various activities upon habitat, all the studies and evidence have proven that there is basically no difference between cyclists and hikers, but that horses have a far greater negative impact. For disturbing wildlife, cyclists have the least impact of the three activities. It's immaterial as to a) when horses came to North America, or b) when mountain bikes were invented. This is not a debate on who was here first, it's a debate on who is creating the most negative impact on habitat and who is damaging trails the most. In that respect, our favorite troll has absolutely no scientific evidence to back his position. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
-snip snip-
Ronsonic wrote: Shall we release some wolves into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there. You may have meant that as hyperbole. Assholes did exactly that to us in Wisconsin. Really. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly "scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and dishonest. I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or dishonest: IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both activities, and similar recovery times. EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and Development, 1994. Yes, these are all peer-reviewed and published papers so you have at least some assurance that they are based on fact. It speaks volumes that there are zero papers that have ever concluded that mountain bikes cause any more damage to trails or wildlife habitat than hikers. After all this time you can be sure that if there were any evidence that mountain bikes caused more damage than hikers that a reputable and qualified person would have written a peer- reviewed and published paper on the subject, but no one has. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/21/2011 10:55 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
-snip snip- Ronsonic wrote: Shall we release some wolves into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there. You may have meant that as hyperbole. Assholes did exactly that to us in Wisconsin. Really. People from Chicago released wolves in Wisconsin? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/21/2011 7:22 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:17 am, wrote: On Jul 20, 11:20 am, wrote: meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too: Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference. In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers, were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity, someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a storm. Neither were killed due to doing something stupid, as mountain bikers are. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY stupid and predictably dangerous. Yes, a person could get attacked by a HANDSAW wielding wacko nut while mountain biking. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/21/2011 7:20 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:00 am, wrote: On Jul 20, 4:49 pm, Michael wrote: Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have the right to go wherever they want to. Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s. Both are true statements. Well it's complicated isn't it. The 'horses' that evolved in 'N. America' evolved in a very different climate -- wasn't so-called N. America down near the equator tens of millions of years ago? And then didn't those horses become extinct in an evolutionary process as time went on and 'N. America' changed? So arguably the timeline of horse development in 'n. america' proves even further that Mother Nature doesnt actually want them here. They are introduced species. That is, unless the early horses were hunted to extinction by early man, then all bets are off. Anyway Vandemort's point is a non-starter. Horses almost never get to 'go wherever they want to go.' I love horses and that would be fine with me, but the reality is they are fenced into pens and parcels then directed along a very narrow path by their riders, thus destroying the surface of that path. But since they have the right to go wherever they want to, that's not a problem. Bikes, on the other hand, have NO rights. I understand that hiking on the UC Berkeley trail system is a privilege and not a right. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
habitat
On 7/21/2011 1:54 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:54 pm, wrote: On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike wrote: BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly "scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and dishonest. I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or dishonest: Then you know NOTHING about science. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm for the details. IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both activities, and similar recovery times. EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and Development, 1994. If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy unnatural gash through the wilderness. (This also confirmed by scientific research.) Worrying so much about trail damage is kind of fundamentally bogus as an environmentalist cause. Yes, of course. The mouyntain bikers think "conservation" means "preserving trails". If you really care about wildlife, destroy the trail entirely, then keep your animal-terrorizing self at home and out of the wilderness.. I agree, I have been saying that for 15 years. Where have you been? Cutting down trees with a HANDSAW to build a tree fort, perhaps? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BIKE HABITAT | kolldata | Techniques | 2 | March 6th 11 11:52 PM |
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 7 | August 31st 08 05:15 AM |
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 17 | July 31st 08 02:15 AM |
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 17 | July 31st 08 02:15 AM |