Mountain Bikers Prefer to Attack Me, Rather than Discuss the Harm that Mountain Biking Does!

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,

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

"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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

while Michael J. Vandeman feeds his ego.

Interesting choice of words! He is a Chef!