The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Honest Review of the Literature

On Aug 12, 11:23*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:25:01 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Aug 12, 9:23*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:34:40 GMT, "M. Halliwell"

templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
(Snip of Mike going off on a tangent again)

Nonsense. What I left out was IRRELEVANT to the basic question of
which form of recreation causes more erosion..

Irrelevant? Hmmm... So let me get this right. If you take a quote out of
context

No, I didn't. I quoted the relevant part. And it wasn't my major
point, anyway, which was that they didn't measure erosion.

*and use it to formulate an argument against a report, yet you

still consider it a good argument? Your "lit review" claims the Wilson
and Seney quote you gave as a reason to question the results...but if
you include the full quote, your argument isn't justified. ("E" for
effort in trying to redirect the discussion away from your deception.)

Yes, it is. The fact that you refuse to include any details is proof
that you are LYING.

Geee...sounds like your quote from Wisdom about flight speeds...you know
the one. It's where you conveniently snip out the fact that the evening
mean movement rate of elk for mountain bike events was the same as
hiking events. The dot-dot-dot thing is a convenient way of glossing
over that text you don't want others to see, ain't it?

You are cherry-picking irrelevancies.

Oh...and don't forget that Wisdom et al suggest things contrary to
you...like the fact that participant populations needs to be included
and addressed (Does recreationist equivalent ring a bell?).

Irrelevant.

And one more thing....have you figured out the difference between speed
and distance yet? You keep posting your "lit review" where you talk
about speed as proof about relative distances traveled. (You
know...number of teams to cover a set distance over a set time...it's in
you comments about Wisdom et al). I know certain vehicles with 100 mph
average speeds (dragsters), but a hiker will go a lot further in typical
distance covered.

You are just trying to avoid admitting that I'm right: a mountain
biker has a much greater impact on wildlife & the environment than a
hiker.

Wrong. More opinion, not fact from Michael J. Vandeman.

Hikers are more likely to spend the night in wildlife habitat, cook
meals in wildlife habitat, go off-trail in wildlife habitat, litter in
wildlife habitat, defecate in wildlife habitat, light fires in
wildlife habitat.

You fabricated all of that misinformation. E.g. most mountain biking
is in parks near cities, where camping isn't allowed.

Wrong. Michael J. Vandeman is once again defeated by the FACTS.



An animal may be bothered for a few seconds by a mountain-biker
passing through, but it will be disrupted for hours, even days when
someone sets up camp, starts cooking meals, urinates/defecates, builds
a fire, sleeps and more in an animals living space.

Ditto. Liar.

Accept your defeat like the neutered man that you are, Michael J.
Vandeman

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:51:42 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Aug 12, 11:26*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:59:04 -0700, "Brian"
wrote:

snip

Hikers are more likely to spend the night in wildlife habitat, cook
meals in wildlife habitat, go off-trail in wildlife habitat, litter in
wildlife habitat, defecate in wildlife habitat, light fires in
wildlife habitat.

An animal may be bothered for a few seconds by a mountain-biker
passing through, but it will be disrupted for hours, even days when
someone sets up camp, starts cooking meals, urinates/defecates, builds
a fire, sleeps and more in an animals living space.

Sounds like he's got ya there, Mikey.

BS. Where mountain biking is allowed, camping is usually not allowed.
If it is allowed. mountain bikers are also camping.

Please provide proof of this ridiculous statement, otherwise you are
LYING.

It's obvious. QED
--
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 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:54:19 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Aug 12, 11:23*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:25:01 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Aug 12, 9:23*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:34:40 GMT, "M. Halliwell"

templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
(Snip of Mike going off on a tangent again)

Nonsense. What I left out was IRRELEVANT to the basic question of
which form of recreation causes more erosion..

Irrelevant? Hmmm... So let me get this right. If you take a quote out of
context

No, I didn't. I quoted the relevant part. And it wasn't my major
point, anyway, which was that they didn't measure erosion.

*and use it to formulate an argument against a report, yet you

still consider it a good argument? Your "lit review" claims the Wilson
and Seney quote you gave as a reason to question the results...but if
you include the full quote, your argument isn't justified. ("E" for
effort in trying to redirect the discussion away from your deception.)

Yes, it is. The fact that you refuse to include any details is proof
that you are LYING.

Geee...sounds like your quote from Wisdom about flight speeds...you know
the one. It's where you conveniently snip out the fact that the evening
mean movement rate of elk for mountain bike events was the same as
hiking events. The dot-dot-dot thing is a convenient way of glossing
over that text you don't want others to see, ain't it?

You are cherry-picking irrelevancies.

Oh...and don't forget that Wisdom et al suggest things contrary to
you...like the fact that participant populations needs to be included
and addressed (Does recreationist equivalent ring a bell?).

Irrelevant.

And one more thing....have you figured out the difference between speed
and distance yet? You keep posting your "lit review" where you talk
about speed as proof about relative distances traveled. (You
know...number of teams to cover a set distance over a set time...it's in
you comments about Wisdom et al). I know certain vehicles with 100 mph
average speeds (dragsters), but a hiker will go a lot further in typical
distance covered.

You are just trying to avoid admitting that I'm right: a mountain
biker has a much greater impact on wildlife & the environment than a
hiker.

Wrong. More opinion, not fact from Michael J. Vandeman.

Hikers are more likely to spend the night in wildlife habitat, cook
meals in wildlife habitat, go off-trail in wildlife habitat, litter in
wildlife habitat, defecate in wildlife habitat, light fires in
wildlife habitat.

You fabricated all of that misinformation. E.g. most mountain biking
is in parks near cities, where camping isn't allowed.

Wrong. Michael J. Vandeman is once again defeated by the FACTS.



An animal may be bothered for a few seconds by a mountain-biker
passing through, but it will be disrupted for hours, even days when
someone sets up camp, starts cooking meals, urinates/defecates, builds
a fire, sleeps and more in an animals living space.

Ditto. Liar.

Accept your defeat like the neutered man that you are, Michael J.
Vandeman

Liar.
--
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 Aug 13, 11:54*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:51:42 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Aug 12, 11:26*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:59:04 -0700, "Brian"
wrote:

snip

Hikers are more likely to spend the night in wildlife habitat, cook
meals in wildlife habitat, go off-trail in wildlife habitat, litter in
wildlife habitat, defecate in wildlife habitat, light fires in
wildlife habitat.

An animal may be bothered for a few seconds by a mountain-biker
passing through, but it will be disrupted for hours, even days when
someone sets up camp, starts cooking meals, urinates/defecates, builds
a fire, sleeps and more in an animals living space.

Sounds like he's got ya there, Mikey.

BS. Where mountain biking is allowed, camping is usually not allowed.
If it is allowed. mountain bikers are also camping.

Please provide proof of this ridiculous statement, otherwise you are
LYING.

It's obvious. QED

Yes, it's obvious that you were lying. Thanks for clearing that up.

On Aug 13, 11:54*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:54:19 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Aug 12, 11:23*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:25:01 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Aug 12, 9:23*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:34:40 GMT, "M. Halliwell"

templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
(Snip of Mike going off on a tangent again)

Nonsense. What I left out was IRRELEVANT to the basic question of
which form of recreation causes more erosion..

Irrelevant? Hmmm... So let me get this right. If you take a quote out of
context

No, I didn't. I quoted the relevant part. And it wasn't my major
point, anyway, which was that they didn't measure erosion.

*and use it to formulate an argument against a report, yet you

still consider it a good argument? Your "lit review" claims the Wilson
and Seney quote you gave as a reason to question the results...but if
you include the full quote, your argument isn't justified. ("E" for
effort in trying to redirect the discussion away from your deception.)

Yes, it is. The fact that you refuse to include any details is proof
that you are LYING.

Geee...sounds like your quote from Wisdom about flight speeds...you know
the one. It's where you conveniently snip out the fact that the evening
mean movement rate of elk for mountain bike events was the same as
hiking events. The dot-dot-dot thing is a convenient way of glossing
over that text you don't want others to see, ain't it?

You are cherry-picking irrelevancies.

Oh...and don't forget that Wisdom et al suggest things contrary to
you...like the fact that participant populations needs to be included
and addressed (Does recreationist equivalent ring a bell?).

Irrelevant.

And one more thing....have you figured out the difference between speed
and distance yet? You keep posting your "lit review" where you talk
about speed as proof about relative distances traveled. (You
know...number of teams to cover a set distance over a set time...it's in
you comments about Wisdom et al). I know certain vehicles with 100 mph
average speeds (dragsters), but a hiker will go a lot further in typical
distance covered.

You are just trying to avoid admitting that I'm right: a mountain
biker has a much greater impact on wildlife & the environment than a
hiker.

Wrong. More opinion, not fact from Michael J. Vandeman.

Hikers are more likely to spend the night in wildlife habitat, cook
meals in wildlife habitat, go off-trail in wildlife habitat, litter in
wildlife habitat, defecate in wildlife habitat, light fires in
wildlife habitat.

You fabricated all of that misinformation. E.g. most mountain biking
is in parks near cities, where camping isn't allowed.

Wrong. Michael J. Vandeman is once again defeated by the FACTS.

An animal may be bothered for a few seconds by a mountain-biker
passing through, but it will be disrupted for hours, even days when
someone sets up camp, starts cooking meals, urinates/defecates, builds
a fire, sleeps and more in an animals living space.

Ditto. Liar.

Accept your defeat like the neutered man that you are, Michael J.
Vandeman

Liar.

I will take that as your acceptance of defeat in this particular
debate.

At least we now agree that hikers are more disruptive to wildlife and
their habitat than mountain bikers.
You're finally learning.