|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote: Bill wrote in .com: SMS wrote: Bill wrote: YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU? The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and mountain biking is about the same. Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do? I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association). They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the rule makers actually ride. If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there isn't. Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it exactly once each way, except that the bike and gear adds about 50 pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH and try to never skid and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be without the teenage antics? Add to that some of the places I go a hiker or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a fire but that is a whole new issue. Bill (careful with nature) Baka Hey Bill, I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please." He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach. I think you did the same thing. === 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 |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:47:19 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:59:52 GMT, Bill wrote: SMS wrote: Bill wrote: YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU? The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and mountain biking is about the same. Do ANY of them ride or just tell others what to do? I have the same problem with the AMA (motorcycle association). They tell you that you simply MUST down shift through all the gears coming to a stop and some other really bad advice. I don't think the rule makers actually ride. If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there isn't. Agreed. Whether I hike a trail or ride it I am taking my weight over it exactly once each way, Tell the truth! Mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers. You still ignore "time". You IGNORE the FACT that cyclists are in and away from any spot or area quickly while hikers remain in a vicinity (causing more distrurbance by the mere human presence [your words - not mine]. Pure speculation. The research still shows that mountain bikers have a greater impact on wildlife. You have yet to prove the disturbance or trail impact of the cyclist is greater. "Distance" is merely a variable you apply to your OPINION. "Distance" X 0 = 0 except that the bike and gear adds about 50 pounds and the downhills are faster. I keep it under 20 MPH I tru never to hike over 2 MPH. Quite a difference.... How long (time) are you hiking...? How long are you in a vicinity causing human disturbance while the cyclist has come, gone by and possibly finished the ride and left...? and try to never skid IMPOSSIBLE. Wherever trails are steep or the soil is loose, you will skid. As the hiker will slip also... and put ruts in the road. How much difference can there be without the teenage antics? Hikers can easily step over animals on the trail. Bikers cannot. They will crush them every time. Generality. No basis in FACT for the statement. Anecdotal. OPINION. Add to that some of the places I go a hiker or teenager would not have the endurance to get to and I am thinking minimum impact. A smoker might raise all kinds of hell by starting a fire but that is a whole new issue. Bill (careful with nature) Baka === === 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 |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster wrote: Hey Bill, I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please." He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach. I think you did the same thing. I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence. I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of human made noise at all, and I have better hearing than most 18 year olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out? Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me. Bill Baka http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:42:27 GMT, Bill
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster wrote: Hey Bill, I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please." He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach. I think you did the same thing. I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence. I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of human made noise at all, Can't you WALK? If you want to get away from the city, why do you bring it with you?! You guys make no sense whatsoever. and I have better hearing than most 18 year olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out? Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me. Bill Baka 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.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:42:27 GMT, Bill wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On 10 Jul 2006 14:27:14 GMT, Chris Foster wrote: Hey Bill, I thought you want to "Let Vandeman fade out please." He's a mountain biker, isn't he? They don't practice what they preach. I think you did the same thing. I am a mountain biker only in the sense that I am a traffic and people avoider, not a teenage hooligan out to destroy everything in sight. I stop to move snakes off the road or trail, whichever, although rattlesnakes have much worse attitudes about my benevolence. I could not gather a bunch of same age (57) year old riders to go out and help me tear up the trail if I tried so who you kidding? I go way the hell out up in the mountains so that I can not hear any sign of human made noise at all, Can't you WALK? If you want to get away from the city, why do you bring it with you?! You guys make no sense whatsoever. Yes I can walk, but not 30 miles just to get to the hiking site. Once I get there, where the cars can't continue, I still don't want to just leave my bike unattended. There are a few unscrupulous individuals that may steal the bike, but more red neck hunters that might just use it for target practice. Every time I get too trusting of my fellow man, I get screwed somehow. Personal encounters usually (not always) go well, but there seems to be something about leaving something of value with nobody watching it that brings out the worst in people. The hike to the waterfall is about 2, maybe 3 miles of serious uphill so not many people make it. I can ride about half to maybe 2/3 of that and have to drag or better yet carry the bike when I go there. I will leave the bike on the deer path just beyond the waterfall because most people are too fried to follow that one, which has a 45 degree angle on the hill side I am walking on (read, slip and nasty fall down to the water over rocks). I have hiked that all the way out of the preserve and into the next county, stopping only at a very serious looking cable across the creek with big "No trespassing" signs very prolifically placed. Nice long hike with minimal bike to get there. I know I am hiking on the deer trail and it is not a people trail but it is the farthest back into nature I can get starting from home with a bike and not a car. Bill Baka and I have better hearing than most 18 year olds, not a brag because I avoided discos when they were in so I didn't damage my hearing. Being in the woods and only hearing the rustle of the leaves and the creek nearby with no sirens or kids yelling is a major reason I go up there. Since I am about 20 miles out of cell phone range at that point and probably at least 5 miles from any random human presence why would I risk breaking a leg that far out? Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve after 5 minutes with me. Bill Baka 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.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote in
: On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:26:09 GMT, Bill wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:04:30 GMT, Bill wrote: Let Vandeman fade out please. I don't have a Ph.D. in bicycling but I know that if I ride conservatively and don't tear up the trail like some sugar hyped teenager I am actually doing 'LESS' damage than a hiker dragging his feet. Hikers don't drag their feet. DUH! I have done a lot of hiking and have seen families with over active kids kicking up everything in sight or throwing it. That is more the point of what I meant. I'm sule mountain bikers' kids are no different. But we are talking about adults. The SCIENCE proves that mountain biking does far more damage than hiking. So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact: 1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to trails than other users. 2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels. 3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear. 4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage. 5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates. 6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals, though in some cases hikers have more impact. 7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles. 8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers, are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!). Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly. Do you want 'adults only' trails? Even with adults I have seen them start out with a six pack of beer for 'hydration' and return with no cans packed out. It seems like you are selectively "Choosing your poison.". Bill Baka FWIW, high I.Q. and no Ph.D. trumps Ph.D. and Forrest Gump I.Q., period. Bill Baka, not impressed by a piece of paper. P.S. I did go to college, but in a different field. === 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 -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote in
: On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:25:31 -0700, SMS wrote: Bill wrote: YOU ***NEVER*** WILL GET IT WILL YOU? The important thing to remember is that all the experts, and all the evidence agrees that trail impact and wildlife impact of hiking and mountain biking is about the same. If someone presents evidence to the contrary then of course it deserves a look, but so far, no one has been able to present any. You'd think that after all these years of mountain biking, someone would have come up with some evidence if there were any. But they haven't and there isn't. I have. And most people don't care, because to them it's OBVIOUS that mountain biking is more harmful than hiking. So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact: 1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to trails than other users. 2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels. 3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear. 4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage. 5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates. 6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals, though in some cases hikers have more impact. 7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles. 8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers, are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!). Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly. === 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 -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Edward Dolan" wrote in
news:CrSdnTkI17JgGy3ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@prairiewave. com: "Bill" wrote in message . com... Bill Sornson wrote: Great story. I remember MANY years ago, Prodigy had these bulletin board things, and there was one character who always signed his name ____ so & so, PhD. It wasn't a pre-typed sig FILE; he just added it to every single post he made. He also referred often to it in his comments, even though he wasn't a computer sciences expert by any means. ("As a DOCTOR..." "you're not a DOCTOR", etc.) It was pathetically humorous, or humorously pathetic; not sure which. Sorni Good for you. Anything that stomps these guys ego is worth the bother. Many get the Ph.D. just by showing up for school 8 years in a row after college. Could it be that the parents are glad to pay tuition to get the dip**** out of the house? Actually, by the time you get a Ph.D. you are most likely one of the humblest persons in the world because you truly know what you don't know. That is something that Bill Baka need never concern himself with. An ignoramus like him always think he knows all there is to know and what he doesn't know is not worth knowing. Thanks Ed! Bill Baka is a very dark and mysterious person indeed. I think he may be an Australian aborigine who has somehow landed in California. Anyone on the newsgroup have a picture of him? I know he is ugly, but just how ugly - yea, that is the question! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 18 | July 16th 04 04:28 AM |
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking | BB | Mountain Biking | 31 | July 4th 04 02:35 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 1 | May 5th 04 03:40 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | BB | Mountain Biking | 1 | April 27th 04 07:05 AM |