|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM. You are qualified because you don't like bicycles. Some people do and they enjoy life doing this. You just can't take it away from them. Is not like the whole world is transformed to bicycle trails. It is just very, very tiny bit of it. Why don't you object highways for instance? Or maybe we should live in caves, because cites destroy natural habitat? You are obsessed man, |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:01:29 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: I see you either never read the study, or didn't understand it. It has nothing to do with "being uncomfortable". The mountain bikers caused the elk to flee, and to flee FARTHER than either hikers or equestrians. I also reviewed the studies on physical impacts (erosion & plant damage), where mountain biking also did more harm than hiking. Mike, I've also observed animal behavior...elk and deer tend to flee from *anything* that is larger and fast moving. The larger and more fast moving, the greater the response...it is a typical flight response that they use for protection from predators. Put a sumo suit on and run through the woods and you'll get a similar response. I'm not denying the response, but rather the true impact of it. If the elk and deer realize a bike is not a predator, it will not generate the same response in the future. Your armchair speculation is no substitute for RESEARCH. Neither is yours... but for what it is worth, the flight response I am discussing is the basis for the Wisdom et al measurements and the trends they note are as expected from larger and faster moving objects. The hypothetical situation I put forward above, based on the Wisdom et al information any my own observation, should provide the stated outcome based on typical responses. You *may* hazard a guess of what Bambi is thinking (if you believe that Bambi has higher reasoning skills) but that is as far as it goes...when it comes to the assessment of physical impacts (after all, erosion is one of your favorite topics) you are simply out of your area of expertise. It's not rocket science, you dunce. If you are a qualified expert, show us your OWN assessment of the research. And be SPECIFIC! I know you CAN'T! I see you are afraid to answer that question! As I predicted.... Mike, as I, like you, do not have all the raw data to run an assessment on, the best either of us can do is a literature review. You've pretended to do yours and managed an opinion paper full of bias. Why haven't YOU done one? Do you buy IMBA's propaganda? No, I don't accept anyone's papers at face value. I read through them, compare them to other works and judge for myself if the conclusions they present seem logical and, if using a model, their correlation seems reasonable to support their conclusions. You still haven't answered the question on how your degree in psychology qualifies you to comment on something out of your area of expertise. Yes, I did. Every science Ph.D. gives one research expertise. That's not what I'm asking..."learn to read." Your area of expertise is psychology...what qualifies you to talk engineering, agrology, wildlife biology or any of the other fields you seem to delve into? As you claim that the analytical methodologies are all biased, then apparently you have the answer to fixing them all....I anxiously await your publishing your findings and the correct methodologies. I did in my paper. Did you READ it? Sheesh. Generalizations and bias do not make proof... "Everyone knows...", "Obviously...", "I have informally collected...", "why do we need research to prove the obvious" and so on and so forth. You do suggest the methodologies may have flaws, but seldom do you provide suggestions for better methodologies. Mike, as you are the one saying all the research except Wisdom et al is incorrect, the burden of proof is on you. There is a lot of research out there already concluding that the physical effects of mountain biking is comparable to hiking. Your "literature review" / opinion paper does not qualify as "proof." If you actually READ those "studies", you would have to conclude that those conclusions are not justified from that data. Actually, Mike, I have read almost all the studies you cite in your opinion paper (with the exception of only one which I have note been able to get a copy of by this date). Although I do agree that there are limitations to all the research, many of the researchers identify those limitations and what they have done to isolate their impacts. That's pure vague BS. Without getting SPECIFIC, we know you are just blowing hot air. You really don't have a clue how to judge those papers (even the ones you read), do you?! You, on the other hand, keep bringing up relative distances traveled by these groups but ignoring participant populations, which would have a significant influence on damage caused. For a scientist, that seems pretty biased or ignorant. Nonsense. If we give someone a bike, we multiply their impact by several times. QED How many OTHER people are mountain biking or hiking is totally irrelevant to his impact. Bull...the effects of an activity on the environment of wildlife is directly tied to the type activity being performed, number of people carrying out the activity and amount of area being disturbed. By omitting the number of participants, you are artificially limiting the overall effects. and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists, biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters, agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels, but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.). What? Not going to take issue with this too? Other than getting thrown out of the Sierra Club, LIAR. My apologies, I didn't state that right. Exactly: you LIED. BS...prove I lied. Anyone can see you lied. Just look up a few lines. Prove intent, Mike...that is what makes a lie. I didn't state it correctly..banning you from leadership and telling you not to present yourself as one of their representatives (after you have held such responsibility and represented them) can be looked at as getting thrown out (at least from the executive ranks)so you can't do any more harm, which was my intent. They threw you out of leadership in the organization and don't want you claiming that you represent them (which obviously you have done to mislead others if they needed to take that step). That makes you a LIAR....oh but wait...according to your your logic, you are mountain biker and mountain bikers always lie...so I guess I should have expected that. ..they didn't throw you out per se, rather they banned you from holding leadership positions (ouch...from being a major player to nothing!) and representing them in any way shape or form...seems they like your money, just not you. It's not surprizing that an organization like the Sierra Club doesn't like people who rock the boat. I'm in good company: David Brower also got fed up with the Sierra Club. Fed up and banned are two different things. Learn to read! Duh! I just don't recall if he was banned or left voluntarily. Oh, so now you admit you're commenting on things you "don't recall" the information on. where is your field expertise in making Environmental Impact Assessments? What about Environmental Screening Reports? Or Environmental Site Assessments? When is the last time you took part in a vegetation assessment, animal count or did surface or groundwater flow modeling? I have no experience doing biased assessment, as you obviously DO. Biased? So, because you have admitted you have no experience in some of the relevant methodologies, you claim they are biased? That hardly supports your claim to be "the expert" on mountain biking impacts. I'm the expert because I'm the only one who reports the science HONESTLY. You can't even give us your own qualifications! Your bias is clearly evident in your "literature review" / opinion paper. To claim honesty under such bias seems an intentional attempt to mislead...you're not LYING again, are you Mike? I never lie. I don't need to, because the truth is on my side! The "truth" you choose to accept...just not the other parts that go against what you think. Just because you read books (comic books don't count, btw) and claiming "personal experience" and anecdotal evidence from your trail walks does not prove anything. Just because you can see an example of something, doesn't make it statistically significant....you, with your research degree, should know that better than most. Of course. But when you have enough data, it DOES. And I DO. And observations don't lie. Such as the snake I found that was killed by a mountain biker. I'd love to see your data set....please provide it and the statistical analysis. I will assume that your failure to do so means that either you don't have any, haven't done it or are simply lying. So your failure to provide your qualifications means you don't have any? I've provided my qualifications...you seem to have a very, very short memory. Perhaps this is indicative of a medical condition and you should see you doctor. Telling me to "do my own homework" is not a valid response as our geographical areas are different and you cannot be certain that my data will be the same as yours and support your observations. Also, you did the postmortem on the snake? What does that mean? I see the mountain bike track across its back. DUH! Please provide your documentation. I'm assuming that your observation was that the snake was run over, but how did you prove that it was not run over after it died? You are AMAZINGLY stupid. Snakes don't just die in the trail. Why can't you admit that I'm right? Mike, for all I know, the snake was beaten to death by a hiker and a mountain bike ran over it after the fact. By your response, I am forced to conclude that you did not carry out a postmortem and, as a result, you are making an assumption that the snake was killed by a cyclist. With your research degree, Mike, I would have thought you knew better to make such assumptions. My opinion, based on a review of the works you present on your webpage and our discussions, Mike, is that you appear to have a pre-conceived notion of what the "truth" is. From our exchanges, you also seem unwilling to be open-minded and dismiss other factors and points of view out of hand. It would appear that no one will be able to change your mind about mountain biking, but it is equally evident that a lot of the audience you are trying to convince is of the same opinion as I am and won't be changing their views based on your information either. Perhaps it is time to take a break on the mountain biking front and channel your energies to a truly global issue, such as the deforestation and habitat loss in South America, that has a more significant impact on the planet. Michael Halliwell |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
"jazu" wrote You are qualified because you don't like bicycles. He likes bicycles. He just doesn't like to see bicycle tires damaging the wilderness. I don't blame him. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
V for Vendicar wrote:
"jazu" wrote You are qualified because you don't like bicycles. He likes bicycles. He just doesn't like to see bicycle tires damaging the wilderness. I don't blame him. Why are giant, easily panicked and dangerous beasts that leave large and deep depressions with their wrought iron shod feet and use the trail to deposit copious quantities of fecal matter acceptable? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:18:29 GMT, "jazu"
wrote: Yes, I am. Any science Ph.D. certifies expertise in the scientific method. You aren't even qualified to judge who is qualified. I AM. You are qualified because you don't like bicycles. Some people do and they enjoy life doing this. You just can't take it away from them. Is not like the whole world is transformed to bicycle trails. It is just very, very tiny bit of it. Trails have an effect way out of proportion to their physical size. Animals can smell and hear humans from a mile or more away, and have to restrict their activities accordingly. Learn some conservation biology, before making a fool of yourself in front of the entire world! Why don't you object highways for instance? I DO! Haven't you ever read my web page, or even my signature? -- 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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:52:29 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:01:29 GMT, "M. Halliwell" templetagteam@shawdotca wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: I see you either never read the study, or didn't understand it. It has nothing to do with "being uncomfortable". The mountain bikers caused the elk to flee, and to flee FARTHER than either hikers or equestrians. I also reviewed the studies on physical impacts (erosion & plant damage), where mountain biking also did more harm than hiking. Mike, I've also observed animal behavior...elk and deer tend to flee from *anything* that is larger and fast moving. The larger and more fast moving, the greater the response...it is a typical flight response that they use for protection from predators. Put a sumo suit on and run through the woods and you'll get a similar response. I'm not denying the response, but rather the true impact of it. If the elk and deer realize a bike is not a predator, it will not generate the same response in the future. Your armchair speculation is no substitute for RESEARCH. Neither is yours... but for what it is worth, the flight response I am discussing is the basis for the Wisdom et al measurements and the trends they note are as expected from larger and faster moving objects. The hypothetical situation I put forward above, based on the Wisdom et al information any my own observation, should provide the stated outcome based on typical responses. So what?!!!! That has no bearing on their results, which still stand: mountain bikers have more negative effect on elk than either hikers or equestrians. They extract an energy and nutritional cost! That can be critical to survival, especially in a place where resources are scarce, as in the desert. You *may* hazard a guess of what Bambi is thinking (if you believe that Bambi has higher reasoning skills) but that is as far as it goes...when it comes to the assessment of physical impacts (after all, erosion is one of your favorite topics) you are simply out of your area of expertise. It's not rocket science, you dunce. If you are a qualified expert, show us your OWN assessment of the research. And be SPECIFIC! I know you CAN'T! I see you are afraid to answer that question! As I predicted.... Still waiting. Mike, as I, like you, do not have all the raw data to run an assessment on, the best either of us can do is a literature review. You've pretended to do yours and managed an opinion paper full of bias. Why haven't YOU done one? Do you buy IMBA's propaganda? No, I don't accept anyone's papers at face value. I read through them, compare them to other works and judge for myself if the conclusions they present seem logical and, if using a model, their correlation seems reasonable to support their conclusions. And what if the LIE about their results? I guess you overlooked that.... You still haven't answered the question on how your degree in psychology qualifies you to comment on something out of your area of expertise. Yes, I did. Every science Ph.D. gives one research expertise. That's not what I'm asking..."learn to read." Your area of expertise is psychology...what qualifies you to talk engineering, agrology, wildlife biology or any of the other fields you seem to delve into? Study. the same thing that got me the Ph.D. (and M.A. and B.A.). As you claim that the analytical methodologies are all biased, then apparently you have the answer to fixing them all....I anxiously await your publishing your findings and the correct methodologies. I did in my paper. Did you READ it? Sheesh. Generalizations and bias do not make proof... "Everyone knows...", "Obviously...", "I have informally collected...", "why do we need research to prove the obvious" and so on and so forth. You do suggest the methodologies may have flaws, but seldom do you provide suggestions for better methodologies. Let's talk FACT. Where's your information on the erosional impact of mountain biking? Be specific, not your usual vague generalities that attempt to hide your utter ignorance. Mike, as you are the one saying all the research except Wisdom et al is incorrect, the burden of proof is on you. There is a lot of research out there already concluding that the physical effects of mountain biking is comparable to hiking. Your "literature review" / opinion paper does not qualify as "proof." If you actually READ those "studies", you would have to conclude that those conclusions are not justified from that data. Actually, Mike, I have read almost all the studies you cite in your opinion paper (with the exception of only one which I have note been able to get a copy of by this date). Although I do agree that there are limitations to all the research, many of the researchers identify those limitations and what they have done to isolate their impacts. That's pure vague BS. Without getting SPECIFIC, we know you are just blowing hot air. You really don't have a clue how to judge those papers (even the ones you read), do you?! You, on the other hand, keep bringing up relative distances traveled by these groups but ignoring participant populations, which would have a significant influence on damage caused. For a scientist, that seems pretty biased or ignorant. Nonsense. If we give someone a bike, we multiply their impact by several times. QED How many OTHER people are mountain biking or hiking is totally irrelevant to his impact. Bull...the effects of an activity on the environment of wildlife is directly tied to the type activity being performed, number of people carrying out the activity and amount of area being disturbed. By omitting the number of participants, you are artificially limiting the overall effects. BS. I proved that permitting mountain biking INCEASES the impacts or recreation. That's all we need to know. and a lot of years of experience in the assessment of both natural and developed areas for human impacts and environmental health. I also work as part of a multi-disciplinary team that includes ecologists, biologist, engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, foresters, agrologists, chemists and environmental scientists (at varying levels, but generally from M.Sc. to Ph.D.). What? Not going to take issue with this too? Other than getting thrown out of the Sierra Club, LIAR. My apologies, I didn't state that right. Exactly: you LIED. BS...prove I lied. Anyone can see you lied. Just look up a few lines. Prove intent, Mike...that is what makes a lie. No one can prove intent. But since you knew that fact, and still chose to state it incorrectly, proves that you are a LIAR. You wanted to deceive people. Tell the truth! I didn't state it correctly..banning you from leadership and telling you not to present yourself as one of their representatives (after you have held such responsibility and represented them) can be looked at as getting thrown out (at least from the executive ranks)so you can't do any more harm, which was my intent. BS. You deliberately LIED. ALL mountain bikers (whom I have met) do that. They threw you out of leadership in the organization and don't want you claiming that you represent them (which obviously you have done to mislead others if they needed to take that step). That makes you a LIAR....oh but wait...according to your your logic, you are mountain biker and mountain bikers always lie...so I guess I should have expected that. ..they didn't throw you out per se, rather they banned you from holding leadership positions (ouch...from being a major player to nothing!) and representing them in any way shape or form...seems they like your money, just not you. It's not surprizing that an organization like the Sierra Club doesn't like people who rock the boat. I'm in good company: David Brower also got fed up with the Sierra Club. Fed up and banned are two different things. Learn to read! Duh! I just don't recall if he was banned or left voluntarily. Oh, so now you admit you're commenting on things you "don't recall" the information on. where is your field expertise in making Environmental Impact Assessments? What about Environmental Screening Reports? Or Environmental Site Assessments? When is the last time you took part in a vegetation assessment, animal count or did surface or groundwater flow modeling? I have no experience doing biased assessment, as you obviously DO. Biased? So, because you have admitted you have no experience in some of the relevant methodologies, you claim they are biased? That hardly supports your claim to be "the expert" on mountain biking impacts. I'm the expert because I'm the only one who reports the science HONESTLY. You can't even give us your own qualifications! Your bias is clearly evident in your "literature review" / opinion paper. To claim honesty under such bias seems an intentional attempt to mislead...you're not LYING again, are you Mike? I never lie. I don't need to, because the truth is on my side! The "truth" you choose to accept...just not the other parts that go against what you think. Just because you read books (comic books don't count, btw) and claiming "personal experience" and anecdotal evidence from your trail walks does not prove anything. Just because you can see an example of something, doesn't make it statistically significant....you, with your research degree, should know that better than most. Of course. But when you have enough data, it DOES. And I DO. And observations don't lie. Such as the snake I found that was killed by a mountain biker. I'd love to see your data set....please provide it and the statistical analysis. I will assume that your failure to do so means that either you don't have any, haven't done it or are simply lying. So your failure to provide your qualifications means you don't have any? I've provided my qualifications...you seem to have a very, very short memory. Perhaps this is indicative of a medical condition and you should see you doctor. I don't care to waste brain cells remembering useless information. Your failure to provide them when asked proves that you don't have anything significant. Telling me to "do my own homework" is not a valid response as our geographical areas are different and you cannot be certain that my data will be the same as yours and support your observations. Also, you did the postmortem on the snake? What does that mean? I see the mountain bike track across its back. DUH! Please provide your documentation. I'm assuming that your observation was that the snake was run over, but how did you prove that it was not run over after it died? You are AMAZINGLY stupid. Snakes don't just die in the trail. Why can't you admit that I'm right? Mike, for all I know, the snake was beaten to death by a hiker and a mountain bike ran over it after the fact. The shape of the injury (crushed by a mountain biking tire-shaped object) proves it was killed by a mountain biker. the biologists who examined it confirmed that. The same is true for another snake that was discovered by someone else. The biologist was the TOP herpetologist in California. By your response, I am forced to conclude that you did not carry out a postmortem and, as a result, you are making an assumption that the snake was killed by a cyclist. With your research degree, Mike, I would have thought you knew better to make such assumptions. This isn't rocket science, you know. Any child would have come to the same conclusion. My opinion, based on a review of the works you present on your webpage and our discussions, Mike, is that you appear to have a pre-conceived notion of what the "truth" is. From our exchanges, you also seem unwilling to be open-minded and dismiss other factors and points of view out of hand. It would appear that no one will be able to change your mind about mountain biking, but it is equally evident that a lot of the audience you are trying to convince is of the same opinion as I am and won't be changing their views based on your information either. Perhaps it is time to take a break on the mountain biking front and channel your energies to a truly global issue, such as the deforestation and habitat loss in South America, that has a more significant impact on the planet. Mountain biking IS a truly global issue, and DOES destroy habitat in South America and everywhere else. Your desire to shut me up only proves that I'm on the right track. You are worried that other people will agree with me. You are right about that! 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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:16:30 -0400, "V for Vendicar"
m wrote: "jazu" wrote You are qualified because you don't like bicycles. He likes bicycles. He just doesn't like to see bicycle tires damaging the wilderness. I don't blame him. Thanks. I couldn't have said it better! -- 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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
Thanks. I couldn't have said it better! Only point is Mike....you didn't say it, nor have ever said anything better! lol. Learn some conservation biology, before making a fool of yourself in front of the entire world! Hell Mike, you've making assumptions based on no scientific knowledge for years...don't attack someone else for doing what you've been doing for thousands of posts! Making an ass out of himself has become Mike Vandeman's PHD. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
On Jul 26, 2:16*pm, "V for Vendicar"
m wrote: "jazu" wrote You are qualified because you don't like bicycles. * He likes bicycles. * He just doesn't like to see bicycle tires damaging the wilderness. * I don't blame him. Yes, while industries spew massive amounts of pollutants into the air and water, while coal burning power plants poison the planet with tons of mercury, while oil spills and fossil fuel development ravage our waterways and groundwater, while urban sprawl consumes and destroys vast amounts of wildlife habitat, Mike cries about mountain-bike tires. Why? Because the other problems would take much more effort than just being a keyboard scientist. He choses to spend his time on a very minor "problem" because there is not much work in "reviewing the data" that someone else actually collected. It's the easy way to sleep at night, thinking you've accomplished something. In the mean time, the entire planet is going down the toilet while Michael J. Vandeman feeds his ego. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Pseudo-enviromentalist Not Qualified To Make Any Conclusions.
while Michael J. Vandeman feeds his ego.
Interesting choice of words! He is a Chef! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mountain Bikers Rat Pack & Threaten Woman for Telling the Truth about Mountain Biking! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 2 | April 2nd 08 05:12 PM |
Mountain Bikers Rat Pack & Threaten Woman for Telling the Truth about Mountain Biking! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 2 | April 2nd 08 05:12 PM |
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 8 | March 18th 07 06:24 AM |
Three (More) Mountain Bikers Arrested for Illegally Mountain Biking in Grand Canyon National Park | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 6 | March 16th 07 03:35 AM |
STILL Unrefuted, after15 Months of Mountain Bikers Fuming!: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | di | Mountain Biking | 1 | October 23rd 05 10:09 PM |