|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2006 18:59:51 GMT, Chris Foster wrote: Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly. Repeasing BS doesn't make it true. I agree, but I think some of what you spew is BS too. You have been repeating that for 8 years. I just passed thru Roosevelt National Park (RNP), to get into Rockie Mountain National Park (RMNP). Mountain bikers (and thier associated riders) are not allowed into either park. Which you know is a bald-faced lie. Mountain bikers are allowed in ALL parks. DUH! We've covered this: MV. . I have NEVER recommended "the removal of the cyclists", liar, only removal of BIKES. DUH! You guys are AMAZINGLY dense! SC .Again - because you don't get it. A cyclist, when walking, is a pedestrian (or hiker). Banning bikes also bans mountain biking because the activity of offroad cycling is what defines the action as mountain biking. .. MV. Right, but banning bikes doesn't ban mountain bikers. They can WALK. DUHHHHH! SC .So explain what defines a "mountain biker" if (A) they can not ride the bikes in such a manner as to be a "mountain biker" and (B) if bikes are banned from all trails and everybody must "WALK DUHHHHH!", then what would be defined as "mountain biking" and (C) what would ultimately define someone as a "mountain biker" when walking side by side with other "hikers"? MV There wouldn't be any. That would make most of the world happier. SC ."There wouldn't be any." Your words, not mine. Proving the point that banning "bikes" in essence bans "mountain bikers". Both are beautiful and pristine. I did see lots of ruts where a trail once was. Which means that hiker caused the errosion and not the mountain bikers (who were not there) Or illegal mountain bikers. 3 weekends ago I was up at Helen Hunt Falls near Colorado Springs, up on High Drive. Lots of mountain bikes there. Everybody got along, there was no more or less soil errosion then RMNP. Irrelevant. What's important is damage PER PERSON. If you compare a trail travelled by 100 mountain bikers with one travelled by 10,000 hikers, you can't make any useful comparison, which is what you are doing, since you don't understand science. No. It is relevant. Your own statements make it relevant. Your own application of your terms and variables instead of accepted terminology makes it relevant. Your own insistence on the inclusion of "distance" makes it relevant: "However, the greatest defect of the study and its interpretation is that is that it doesn't consider the distance that bikers travel. Even if we accepted their conclusions that impacts per mile are the same, it would follow that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they are easily able to, and do, travel several times as far as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or 100 miles in a day!" When was the last time you got out to the wilderness vs. going to some made up conference where you actually didnt speek?? Define "wilderness". === Answer the question, Mr. Clinton. |
Ads |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On 28 Jul 2006 13:26:26 GMT, Chris Foster wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote in : On 25 Jul 2006 18:59:51 GMT, Chris Foster wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote in : On 24 Jul 2006 17:46:02 GMT, Chris Foster wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote in om: On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:59:54 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: "Chris Foster" wrote in message news:Xns97F75AFB03A30johnfosterineroeyaho@6 6.150.105.47... P.S. When are (you and Mike V.) going to stop shmelessly fawning over one another in public. You two resemble a couple of closet queens in heat. Yawn. Once again, Vandy is opening wide to receive Ed. Hope you enjoy it Ed. Are you sure you want to be indentified with Jimbo? He is a pathetic figure who at least had the guts to do battle with Ed Gin, the most notorious criminal vandal troll ever to infect ARBR. Everyone felt sorry for him because Ed Gin was such a scoundrel, but Jimbo does not know how to relate to anyone who is not a scoundrel. Hang in there Foster as I think you will soon qualify yourself. Just keep telling Jimbo that he is great and you will be OK, but the minute you tell him that he is not great, he will whine and carry on like a school girl. You have been warned! The one thing you both have going for you is that you are a couple of half-wits who are incapable of a good rejoinder, something that Vandeman and I do all the time on a regular basis. Jimbo and Foster, half-witted sexual innuendoes - yea, that is as good as it is ever going to get with them! Once a jarhead, always a jarhead apparently! By the way, I now believe you are lying about your Ph.D. in electrical engineering. There is just no way anyone as stupid as you could possibly have any higher degrees. Yes. Good catch. So to summarize the facts regarding trail impact: 1. No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more wear to trails than other users. 2. Hooves and feet erode more than wheels. 3. No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear. 4. Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage. 5. Hiking and bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates. 6. Hiking and biking cause roughly the same impact to large mammals, though in some cases hikers have more impact. 7. Hikers have more impact on bald eagles. 8. Bicyclists, because they travel faster, and more quietly than hikers, are more likely to encounter bears (no doubt this will make MV happy!). Anyway, the bottom line is that no one has shown any evidence that bicycle impact on trails and wildlife is worse than hiker impact, and in fact, in some cases the hikers have more impact on wildlife, due to there tendency to be noisier and to travel through an area less quickly. Repeasing BS doesn't make it true. I agree, but I think some of what you spew is BS too. You have been repeating that for 8 years. I just passed thru Roosevelt National Park (RNP), to get into Rockie Mountain National Park (RMNP). Mountain bikers (and thier associated riders) are not allowed into either park. Which you know is a bald-faced lie. Mountain bikers are allowed in ALL parks. DUH! You are tring to play word games again. A person is not alloweed to ride a bicycle (of any type) off road in RMNP (Better?) So what? Mountain bikers are allowed on the trails. Only their BIKES aren't allowed. DUH! === 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.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking." | Edward Dolan | General | 147 | July 24th 06 07:03 PM |
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 18 | July 16th 04 04:28 AM |
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking | BB | Mountain Biking | 31 | July 4th 04 02:35 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 1 | May 5th 04 03:40 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | BB | Mountain Biking | 1 | April 27th 04 07:05 AM |