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

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:14:10 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
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.

Mike, you asked me to justify my "armchair speculation" so I did. Wisdom
et al shows a higher elk and deer response to the movement of a mountain
biker, which is larger and faster than a hiker and could be initially
identified by prey animals as a predator. The trend continued with ATVs,
which are larger and faster yet. As you have apparently accepted this,
then it follows that when the mountain bike is identified as a
non-predatory entity, the response (and hence effects on energy and
nutritional costs) will lessen.

You didn't read carefully. The OPPOSITE happened. You are ASSUMING
that elk will adapt to the presence of mountain bikers. Why should we
force them to do that, when all we have to do is ban bikes from the
trails?

Wisdom et al did a wonderful job of
identifying the initial reaction, but did not address normalization to
non-predators.


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.

Asked and answered, 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.

You haven't proven (given evidence for) bias. Your vagueness implies
that you don't know what you are talking about.

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. 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. Please also
provide your qualifications (other than a BA, MA and Ph.D. in
Psychology) which qualify you to comment on erosion or soil mechanics.

I didn't comment on it, except to say that Seney's methodology
obviously doesn't measure erosion. Any 10-year-old can figure that
out. It doesn't require an advanced degree (although I have that
also).

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....

Mike, I look for logical conclusions that follow the results and
comparable research. I try to identify generalization and bias and use
them to make my decision on the papers.

More vague generalities. It is a big waste of time to talk with you,
because you say NOTHING.

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.).


Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).

Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?

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.

Certainly. Lets talk fact that the studies done to date say that for a
fixed distance, a rider of a mountain bike has a similar effect as a
hiker (damage per person per distance).

That has never been demonstrated. Are you talking about erosion?
Impact on plants? Impact on animals? Your vagueness gives you away:
you are a fraud.

Let's agree that the average
hiker does not travel as far as the average mountain biker. However,
trying to extrapolate the data for an individual to an entire group
without taking into account the number of participants is an error.

No, it isn't! Each person is only responsible for his own behavior.
The correct variable is damage per person per day.

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.

Mike, that's like saying you can have as many cars as you want (billions
and billions at this point and growing) because the effects of an
individual tractor-trailer truck are worse than the effects of a single
car. The total effects from billions of automobiles are far worse than
the effects of millions of tractor-trailer units. Until you look at the
populations involved, you will not be able to identify which is having
the greater total effect.

Irrelevant.What we want to know is how to reduce impacts. Banning
bikes will obviously do that: it wpould reduce the NUMBER or
recreationists, as well as the impact per person.

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!

Mike, you are making an assumption that does not prove intent and does
not prove I lied.

It's not an assumption: you proved, by changing your story, that you
knew the teurh and CHOSE to LIE about it.

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.

Prove intent (you can't). Besides, by your own logic posted to this
newsgroup, you're a mountain biker too. Heck, you're going to far as to
claim you should be in the Mountain Biking Hall of Fame.

That doesn't prove I'm a mountain biker. I'm a mountain biking
researcher.

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.

Mike, try "doing your own homework" (or even looking a couple responses
up this thread). I provided my qualifications when originally asked in
this thread. Stating I did not provide them is not true...I refrain from
being repetitive with them, but to intentionally claim I didn't provide
them after I did is a lie.

You didn't provide them when asked. I had to ask more than once.

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.

So you have two examples. You are claiming statistical significance on
2two examples out of how big a population in the State? I'd love to see
your statistical analysis on that.

I'm not making a statistical claim, but an EXISTENCE claim: mountain
bikers DO kill animals. It only takes ONE example to prove that.

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!


Mike, an activity that occurs around the world may be global in scope
but not in significance. As a self-proclaimed "expert" on mountain
biking, please enlighten us as to how many acres are lost each year to
the development of new trails around the world (not including the
established and existing trail systems). Perhaps we can then put this
into a truly global context against the 78 million acres of rainforest
lost every year.

Even ONE trail constructed is significant. Every trail constructed
destroys habitat. Whether it's as bad as something else is irrelevant.
That's like saying that robbery is insignificant, because it's not as
bad as murder. You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag.

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 Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:17:49 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:04:55 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

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,

Including those that make mountain bikes and mountain bikers' SUVs and
trucks.

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 there are plenty of people working on those other issues.
MILLIONS.

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"

MILLIONS of mountain bikers shredding trails every week is not
"minor". Get real.


But Mike, you have stated that the population is not important! You're
contradicting yourself.

No, I didn't, LIAR. I said it's not relevant in comparing the impacts
of mountain biking with those of hiking.

A comparison of the effects of aspirin and Tylenol doesn't require a
count of the number of pills in the world. DUH!

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

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Asked and answered, 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.

You haven't proven (given evidence for) bias. Your vagueness implies
that you don't know what you are talking about.


Mike, you'd be surprised by what bias and generalities I've found in
your "literature review." It is no wonder that you have to post it here
repeatedly to "publish" it.



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....
Mike, I look for logical conclusions that follow the results and
comparable research. I try to identify generalization and bias and use
them to make my decision on the papers.

More vague generalities. It is a big waste of time to talk with you,
because you say NOTHING.


Starting to get personal, are we?

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.).

Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).

Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?

Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.


Let's agree that the average
hiker does not travel as far as the average mountain biker. However,
trying to extrapolate the data for an individual to an entire group
without taking into account the number of participants is an error.

No, it isn't! Each person is only responsible for his own behavior.
The correct variable is damage per person per day.

But then you have no way of quantifying what each individual's impacts
are as they will be different for each person. *Total* impacts require a
population reference.

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.
Mike, that's like saying you can have as many cars as you want (billions
and billions at this point and growing) because the effects of an
individual tractor-trailer truck are worse than the effects of a single
car. The total effects from billions of automobiles are far worse than
the effects of millions of tractor-trailer units. Until you look at the
populations involved, you will not be able to identify which is having
the greater total effect.

Irrelevant.What we want to know is how to reduce impacts. Banning
bikes will obviously do that: it wpould reduce the NUMBER or
recreationists, as well as the impact per person.

And you accuse me of assumption! By your own posted items, the number of
recreationists could very well increase due to all the hikers that
mountain bikers have "scared away."

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!
Mike, you are making an assumption that does not prove intent and does
not prove I lied.

It's not an assumption: you proved, by changing your story, that you
knew the teurh and CHOSE to LIE about it.


No, as I stated above and below (thanks to your cut) you seem to have
been thrown out (of leadership and representing the Sierra Club).

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.



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.
Mike, try "doing your own homework" (or even looking a couple responses
up this thread). I provided my qualifications when originally asked in
this thread. Stating I did not provide them is not true...I refrain from
being repetitive with them, but to intentionally claim I didn't provide
them after I did is a lie.

You didn't provide them when asked. I had to ask more than once.

Mike, I've provided them more than once on this newsgroup and will not
be overly repetitive. By your own admission, I did provide them so
saying I didn't is not correct. Saying I don't provide them every time
you ask (which seems ever couple of posts) would be correct, but your
wording presented a false statement.

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.
So you have two examples. You are claiming statistical significance on
2two examples out of how big a population in the State? I'd love to see
your statistical analysis on that.

I'm not making a statistical claim, but an EXISTENCE claim: mountain
bikers DO kill animals. It only takes ONE example to prove that.

If your claim is only an existence claim, them perhaps you should
clarify that in many of your other posts, where it is implied to be a
significant factor. Having a computer indirectly kills animals, Mike, so
computer users kill animals too...just because I can provide an instance
from my own experience to make that existence claim doesn't make it any
more significant than your claim about mountain bikers.

Mike, an activity that occurs around the world may be global in scope
but not in significance. As a self-proclaimed "expert" on mountain
biking, please enlighten us as to how many acres are lost each year to
the development of new trails around the world (not including the
established and existing trail systems). Perhaps we can then put this
into a truly global context against the 78 million acres of rainforest
lost every year.

Even ONE trail constructed is significant. Every trail constructed
destroys habitat. Whether it's as bad as something else is irrelevant.
That's like saying that robbery is insignificant, because it's not as
bad as murder. You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag.

I see you've degenerated to insults...which means you'll be resorting to
"Did you say something" next and rational discussion is at an end.

Michael Halliwell

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:17:49 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
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"
MILLIONS of mountain bikers shredding trails every week is not
"minor". Get real.

But Mike, you have stated that the population is not important! You're
contradicting yourself.

No, I didn't, LIAR. I said it's not relevant in comparing the impacts
of mountain biking with those of hiking.

A comparison of the effects of aspirin and Tylenol doesn't require a
count of the number of pills in the world. DUH!


Mike, on July 25 you wrote:

"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."

Yet now you say that 'millions of mountain bikers shredding the trails
is not "minor." Get real.'"

So what is it? Is "their" impact more or less than "his?" Is "he"
representative of "mountain biking" and how can you prove this? (Your
crusade seems centered around the sport, rather than an individual
mountain biker...just look at the title of your 'literature review':
"The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"). Your campaign
against "mountain biking" seems to be against the sport (implying the
entire population)...after all, if the issue was one mountain biker's
impacts, they would be insignificant in the grand scheme of things and
wouldn't account for all the destruction you attribute to "mountain biking".

Michael Halliwell

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:07:06 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Asked and answered, 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.

You haven't proven (given evidence for) bias. Your vagueness implies
that you don't know what you are talking about.


Mike, you'd be surprised by what bias and generalities I've found in
your "literature review." It is no wonder that you have to post it here
repeatedly to "publish" it.

I guess we'll never know, because you absolutely refuse to give any
specifics -- proof that you are all wet. How about doing your OWN
survey of the literature! That should be good for a laugh....

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....
Mike, I look for logical conclusions that follow the results and
comparable research. I try to identify generalization and bias and use
them to make my decision on the papers.

More vague generalities. It is a big waste of time to talk with you,
because you say NOTHING.


Starting to get personal, are we?

I just tell the truth. Mountain bikers can't stand 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.).

Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).

Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?

Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.

BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.

Let's agree that the average
hiker does not travel as far as the average mountain biker. However,
trying to extrapolate the data for an individual to an entire group
without taking into account the number of participants is an error.

No, it isn't! Each person is only responsible for his own behavior.
The correct variable is damage per person per day.

But then you have no way of quantifying what each individual's impacts
are as they will be different for each person. *Total* impacts require a
population reference.

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.
Mike, that's like saying you can have as many cars as you want (billions
and billions at this point and growing) because the effects of an
individual tractor-trailer truck are worse than the effects of a single
car. The total effects from billions of automobiles are far worse than
the effects of millions of tractor-trailer units. Until you look at the
populations involved, you will not be able to identify which is having
the greater total effect.

Irrelevant.What we want to know is how to reduce impacts. Banning
bikes will obviously do that: it wpould reduce the NUMBER or
recreationists, as well as the impact per person.

And you accuse me of assumption! By your own posted items, the number of
recreationists could very well increase due to all the hikers that
mountain bikers have "scared away."

So what? That has nothing to do with comparing the impacts of the 2
forms of recreation.

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!
Mike, you are making an assumption that does not prove intent and does
not prove I lied.

It's not an assumption: you proved, by changing your story, that you
knew the teurh and CHOSE to LIE about it.


No, as I stated above and below (thanks to your cut) you seem to have
been thrown out (of leadership and representing the Sierra Club).

BS. I never represented the Sierra Club.

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.



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.
Mike, try "doing your own homework" (or even looking a couple responses
up this thread). I provided my qualifications when originally asked in
this thread. Stating I did not provide them is not true...I refrain from
being repetitive with them, but to intentionally claim I didn't provide
them after I did is a lie.

You didn't provide them when asked. I had to ask more than once.

Mike, I've provided them more than once on this newsgroup and will not
be overly repetitive. By your own admission, I did provide them so
saying I didn't is not correct. Saying I don't provide them every time
you ask (which seems ever couple of posts) would be correct, but your
wording presented a false statement.

QED

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.
So you have two examples. You are claiming statistical significance on
2two examples out of how big a population in the State? I'd love to see
your statistical analysis on that.

I'm not making a statistical claim, but an EXISTENCE claim: mountain
bikers DO kill animals. It only takes ONE example to prove that.

If your claim is only an existence claim, them perhaps you should
clarify that in many of your other posts, where it is implied to be a
significant factor. Having a computer indirectly kills animals, Mike, so
computer users kill animals too...just because I can provide an instance
from my own experience to make that existence claim doesn't make it any
more significant than your claim about mountain bikers.

Mike, an activity that occurs around the world may be global in scope
but not in significance. As a self-proclaimed "expert" on mountain
biking, please enlighten us as to how many acres are lost each year to
the development of new trails around the world (not including the
established and existing trail systems). Perhaps we can then put this
into a truly global context against the 78 million acres of rainforest
lost every year.

Even ONE trail constructed is significant. Every trail constructed
destroys habitat. Whether it's as bad as something else is irrelevant.
That's like saying that robbery is insignificant, because it's not as
bad as murder. You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag.

I see you've degenerated to insults...which means you'll be resorting to
"Did you say something" next and rational discussion is at an end.

Once again, you said NOTHING. Why post here, if you aren't going to
say anything?

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 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:32:30 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:17:49 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
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"
MILLIONS of mountain bikers shredding trails every week is not
"minor". Get real.

But Mike, you have stated that the population is not important! You're
contradicting yourself.

No, I didn't, LIAR. I said it's not relevant in comparing the impacts
of mountain biking with those of hiking.

A comparison of the effects of aspirin and Tylenol doesn't require a
count of the number of pills in the world. DUH!


Mike, on July 25 you wrote:

"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."

Yet now you say that 'millions of mountain bikers shredding the trails
is not "minor." Get real.'"

So what is it?

You really ARE dense, aren't you? Mountain biking increases one's
impacts. In total, mountain bikers have a very significant impact.
There's no conflict there. DUH!

Is "their" impact more or less than "his?" Is "he"
representative of "mountain biking" and how can you prove this? (Your
crusade seems centered around the sport, rather than an individual
mountain biker...just look at the title of your 'literature review':
"The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"). Your campaign
against "mountain biking" seems to be against the sport (implying the
entire population)...after all, if the issue was one mountain biker's
impacts, they would be insignificant in the grand scheme of things and
wouldn't account for all the destruction you attribute to "mountain biking".

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

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have "studied" that you are an
engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and so forth. I'm sure the
regulating bodies in California would love to hear that (don't proclaim
it too loudly, Mike).
Yes. Assessing mountain biking impacts doesn't require any
credentials. What are your qualifications in conservation biology?

Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body.

BS. Show me where I claimed to be an engineer.


First thing I said Mike: "Oh, so now you are claiming, because you have
"studied" that you are an engineer, agrologist, forester, biologist and
so forth."...your first answer: "Yes."

Perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your use of the english
language?

Michael Halliwell

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:32:30 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:17:49 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
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"
MILLIONS of mountain bikers shredding trails every week is not
"minor". Get real.

But Mike, you have stated that the population is not important! You're
contradicting yourself.
No, I didn't, LIAR. I said it's not relevant in comparing the impacts
of mountain biking with those of hiking.

A comparison of the effects of aspirin and Tylenol doesn't require a
count of the number of pills in the world. DUH!

Mike, on July 25 you wrote:

"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."

Yet now you say that 'millions of mountain bikers shredding the trails
is not "minor." Get real.'"

So what is it?

You really ARE dense, aren't you? Mountain biking increases one's
impacts. In total, mountain bikers have a very significant impact.
There's no conflict there. DUH!

A mountain bike may increase one's impacts (though there is room to
debate depending on what you are comparing it to and to use "increase"
means there is some form of comparison going on), but you are
extrapolating that to the entire population of "mountain bikers" while
trying to say the number of bikers is irrelevant. If "mountain bikers"
as a group have a significant impact, then the number of participants
must be relevant.


Is "their" impact more or less than "his?" Is "he"
representative of "mountain biking" and how can you prove this? (Your
crusade seems centered around the sport, rather than an individual
mountain biker...just look at the title of your 'literature review':
"The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"). Your campaign
against "mountain biking" seems to be against the sport (implying the
entire population)...after all, if the issue was one mountain biker's
impacts, they would be insignificant in the grand scheme of things and
wouldn't account for all the destruction you attribute to "mountain biking".

Michael Halliwell

M. Halliwell wrote:
...
Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body....

That would not be an issue, unless one is providing engineering services
for a fee without a license. In my state, one can even legally own a
P.E. stamp with one's name on it without a license, as long as it is
never used to seal deliverables.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman wrote:
M. Halliwell wrote:
...
Your claim of being an engineer is noted. Please be advised that
engineering is a regulated field and claiming such without adequate
qualifications and certification can open you to censure by the state
regulating body....

That would not be an issue, unless one is providing engineering services
for a fee without a license. In my state, one can even legally own a
P.E. stamp with one's name on it without a license, as long as it is
never used to seal deliverables.

It varies from location to location...here, holding yourself out as an
engineer can be sufficient for censure...there was an interesting battle
with Microsoft over their "Microsoft Certified System Engineer" title.