|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old 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 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Econut's avoidance of the truth
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The OnlyReview of Mike's really old Literature
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Econut's avoidance of the truth
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
"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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
"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 ... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
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. :-) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Econut's avoidance of the truth
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- The Only Review of Mike's really old Literature
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Econut's avoidance of the truth
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 0 | July 19th 08 04:42 PM |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 2 | April 21st 08 02:25 AM |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 0 | October 22nd 06 03:40 AM |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 11 | August 22nd 06 03:47 PM |
The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 9 | August 6th 06 12:04 AM |