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

On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and
posts
it.

The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is
inaccurate
or does not apply to his agenda.

The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to
back up your BS.

I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway.

Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route
was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and
restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the
environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity.


That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock
of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor
problem while real habitat crumbles around him.

At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people
and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and
comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no
one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to
hurt his cause than help it, all agreed.

A real problem that is being taken care of...

http://www.centredaily.com/423/story/765635.html

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:38:25 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:52:56 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
templetagteam@shawdotca wrote:

Hey Mike,

With regards to Wilson and Seney, where you quote them as saying "none
of the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope,
antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was
statistically significant." Why not give us the full quote rather than
taking them out of context...you know, the full quote where they explain
that the above, trimmed to suit your purposes quote, is valid for their
initial model for the results and that when they tried a different
model, that it correlated quite well and that texture, slope and so on
were significant?

Michael Halliwell

You are beating a dead horse. Their method of measuring erosion is
bogus on the face of it. Why don't you tell the truth?????

Certainly, Mike, the Wilson and Seney methodology can be improved on,

Why do you have such a hard time admitting the truth: Their "research"
proved NOTHING.

but that is not the point I made. You seemed to miss the one where I've
shown that you claimed "Another reason to suspect that the measurements
aren't valid" is the quote you gave. Dead horse or not, your text takes
Wilson and Seney out of context to fit your needs, rather than telling
the truth about what they said.

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

(Do I detect some deceit there? You
wouldn't be trying to lie to folks about Wilson and Seney's results,
would you, Mike?)

Actually, I UNDERSTATED how bad the study was. They admitted that the
mountain biking trail was significantly different from the hiking
trail. So they compared apples & oranges. I just added that to my
paper:

Another problem with the study is that the hikers and mountain
bikers used trails that were significantly different, prior to the
experiment!: "The results from Part A of Table 4 suggest that the
trails used for the five treatment types were not similar in terms of
their sediment yield behavior prior to the treatments. Trail plots
used for hikers were statistically different from one of the other
groups (off-road bicycles) at the .05 level" (p.84). This makes it
even less likely that the hiker-mountain biker comparison is valid.

By the way Mike, the "excellent critical literature review" you like so
much (Lathrop) also had praise for Wilson and Seney for their scientific
method and said their type of study should be done more and in other
locations.

I didn't say it was perfect. Wisdom et al also made a mistake
(UNDERESTIMATED the difference between mountain biking and hiking,
since they ignored distance travelled), but still found that mountain
biking had greater impact on elk than hiking.

Michael Halliwell

You are obviously grasping at straws, and are STILL afraid to tell the
truth about these studies. But what can we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?!
--
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, 10 Aug 2008 21:14:31 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and
posts
it.

Liar. I reviewed EVERY experimental study, 7 of 8 of which CLAIMED
(dishonestly) that mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking.


There is ample evidence that you are dishonest. We all agree that you are
devoted to your cause, and that relative to your cause you mean well. But,
you lie and cheat and misstate irrelevent facts so often that you are seen
as utterly dishonest.

You haven't found a single lie yet, LIAR.

The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is
inaccurate
or does not apply to his agenda.

You didn't really READ it, did you? IDIOT.
--

Not only did I read it, we debated it several years ago. I provided no less
than one example of real world experience to challenge eash the blanket
assertions.

You obviously didn't understand it, IF you read it. "Real world
experience" is shorthand for "in my (unscientific) opinion".
--
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, 10 Aug 2008 21:19:16 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and
posts
it.

The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is
inaccurate
or does not apply to his agenda.

The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to
back up your BS.

I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway.

Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route
was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and
restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the
environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity.

You STILL don't get it! The impact of the presence of humans is much
greater than would be expected from the area of the trail, since
animals can smell and hear people from over a mile away. You continue
to ignore that FACT pointed out by Ed Grumbine in _Ghost Bears_ (I
know, you haven't read that, either).

When you find a cause that will save 4%, post a note. I might be able to
raise some funding to help.
--
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 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and
posts
it.

The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is
inaccurate
or does not apply to his agenda.

The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to
back up your BS.

I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway.

Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route
was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and
restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the
environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity.


That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock
of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor
problem while real habitat crumbles around him.

At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people
and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and
comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no
one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to
hurt his cause than help it, all agreed.

Mountain bikers, no doubt -- a notoriously unreliable source of
information.

A real problem that is being taken care of...

http://www.centredaily.com/423/story/765635.html
--
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 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and
posts
it.

The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is
inaccurate
or does not apply to his agenda.

The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to
back up your BS.

I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway.

Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route
was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and
restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the
environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity.


That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock
of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor
problem while real habitat crumbles around him.

At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people
and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and
comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no
one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to
hurt his cause than help it, all agreed.

Your OBSESSION with me is touching. Too bad you can't get a REAL life.
--
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 writes:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:19:16 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:
snip

You STILL don't get it! The impact of the presence of humans is much
greater than would be expected from the area of the trail, since
animals can smell and hear people from over a mile away. You continue
to ignore that FACT pointed out by Ed Grumbine in _Ghost Bears_ (I
know, you haven't read that, either).

Are you by any chance aware that humans are animals, mammals in
particular?

Also, look at http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html. It
seems that the frequency range that a few species are sensitive to
is less than ours. :-) Couldn't find a table for intensity, though.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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 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.)

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?

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?).

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.

Michael Halliwell

On Aug 11, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Aug 11, 12:19*am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

. ..

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike picks and chooses the literature that fits his selfish agenda and
posts
it.

The really sad thing is, most of his self selected literature is
inaccurate
or does not apply to his agenda.

The tipoff that you are lying is that you NEVER give any specifics to
back up your BS.

I'm exhausted of citing specifics. You ignore them anyway.

Here's a specific for you, if you were 100% correct AND 100% of every route
was an environmental wasteland that demanded complete intervention and
restoration, we would have to step up to save 0.004% (rounded up) of the
environment that was laid to waste because of bicycle activity.

That's just one reason why Michael J. Vandeman is the laughing stock
of the environmental movement, he chooses to fight a very minor
problem while real habitat crumbles around him.

At a rally this past Saturday, I mentioned his name to a few people
and while some never heard of him, a few people started to laugh and
comments of "nutcase" and "kook" were common. It was discussed how no
one took him seriously and when I mentioned I believed he did more to
hurt his cause than help it, all agreed.

Mountain bikers, no doubt -- a notoriously unreliable source of
information.

So you were there?

Sorry Michael J. Vandeman, you haven't a clue as to who was there, as
usual.

On 11 Aug 2008 21:31:21 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:19:16 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:
snip

You STILL don't get it! The impact of the presence of humans is much
greater than would be expected from the area of the trail, since
animals can smell and hear people from over a mile away. You continue
to ignore that FACT pointed out by Ed Grumbine in _Ghost Bears_ (I
know, you haven't read that, either).

Are you by any chance aware that humans are animals, mammals in
particular?

Your point being? I probably should have clarified: SOME animals.

Also, look at http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html. It
seems that the frequency range that a few species are sensitive to
is less than ours. :-) Couldn't find a table for intensity, though.
--
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