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

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

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.

And you, as usual, aren't honest enough to give any details.
--
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 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.

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 Aug 12, 9:15*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
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.

And you, as usual, aren't honest enough to give any details.


Read the article, dummy.

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.

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.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
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.


Misstatement of fact is a lie. Applying a fact of one locale to a completely
different locale and asserting the same result, is a lie. Sometimes you
create the lie, other times you merely repeat it. But, no matter the source,
it's still a lie.

You do this almost daily, and sometimes more than once in the same day.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...

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.
--

Pot, meet the black kettle ...

Mike Vandeman writes:

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

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.

The point should have been obvious, even to you.


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.

Well. :-)

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.

B.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:37:07 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
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.


Misstatement of fact is a lie.

No, it isn't. There must be an intent to deceive.

Applying a fact of one locale to a completely
different locale and asserting the same result, is a lie. Sometimes you
create the lie, other times you merely repeat it. But, no matter the source,
it's still a lie.

You do this almost daily, and sometimes more than once in the same day.

You make no sense whatsoever. As usual. You need to be specific (yes,
I know, you can't).
--
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 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.

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.
--
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