"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:19:02 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:
[...]
I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done.
by miss-quoting it or re-stating the actual researchers' conclusions to fit
your OPINIONS.
It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
You don't really believe you need university instruction to learn something
new....?
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials.
So why is it so important you make everyone aware you have a PhD?
Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion),
Your OPINION of the activity is no filter for determining the intelligence
of anyone
intelligence, and
results.
Does this also mean re-stating other researchers' results to fit your
OPINION?
Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.
You have answered a "call for papers". Anyone can submit if they care to and
have the financial base or time span to spend their own money on travel and
board. Anyone who submits and meets the criteria of the request may be
"invited" to present.
You have never been listed as a keynote speaker. You have never been invited
as a credible expert listed on the publicity information. You pay your own
way, speak to a few other presenters in the room, pat yourself on the back
and list it as a reference.
When you are listed as a keynote speaker... when your travel, room and board
are paid for by the admission costs of the other attendees, then perhaps you
may have a worthwhile credit for your bio.
It equals about the same as being an "extra" in any given movie. Wow!
Impressive.

Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
of
us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I was a
college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste too
much
breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all about.
They
will never get it in a million years. They simply have no conception of
rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.

I know. They are probably thinking right now that you are talking
about a different -- more base -- kind of rigor. I just hope that
there are some people like you out there that WILL understand. It took
10 years, but the wait was worth it.

10 years and have ONE?! Yeah!

On 19 Jun 2006 13:42:43 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 19 Jun 2006 12:43:46 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:51:12 -0400, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
et...
Edward Dolan wrote:

My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to
share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with
the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to
recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not
reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is
the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not
believe I can say it any clearer than that.

You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails.
They are not
hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are
trails. Unless
a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use
the trails.

Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were
hiking trails.
Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing
things up for hikers.

I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for
hikers to
not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some
bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We
just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real
problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles.

I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be
some trails
for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black
Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without
causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in
the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not
like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the
West which have always been thought of as wilderness.

The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that
he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up
stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact.

I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue.
I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are
irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature
and wilderness.

I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is
that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician
saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO
get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without
their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but
they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars.
At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to
his "experience" that is his determining factor.

It isn't MINE. It's the harm to wildlife.

You have to sidestep that and
try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
information and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for
measure. It is OBVIOUS your goal is to have your "experience" as you
like it. Nature and wildlife is a convenient mouthpiece and a tool
you use to gain that which you desire. If it weren't you would be
more concerned about the permanent distruction caused by building
than whining about a few bikes.

People work on what interests them. So what are YOU doing about that
issue?


He is doing about as much as you are. You both are doing nothing but
complaining about each other in a newsgroup.

Mike, I have seen you do absolutely nothing constructive. All that
you actually do is bitch in this NG.

BS. I have educated the whole world about the impacts of mountain
biking -- something you are incapable of doing.

That accomplishes nothing.


You have done what? Educated the whole world? Oh my god, you have
quite a high opinion of your self. Other than a few people on the NG
who you bitch with, nobody has even heard of you. And sadly, the very
few people who have heard of you, don't agree with you. Get a grip
Mikey. Just admit it, you're a complete failure.

If you've failed to learn anything, that's not MY failure. I doubt
that many of your teachers would but that BS.

That is
the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and
wildlife is of secondary importance.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
Minnesota

===
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

===
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

===
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

===
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

S Curtiss wrote:

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to
elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray
all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you.

At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.

Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend
to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to
engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without
talking.

There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited,
but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail head.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc wrote:


Edward Dolan wrote:

"cc" wrote in message ...


Edward Dolan wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
om...
[...]



I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
polemic and do something USEFUL!!


I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

You haven't a degree, which
you already admitted. And no,
working as a librarian does
NOT count.

I do have a research degree,
but it doesn't matter.


Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
bikers.


Mike, I am stating my opinion.
My interpretation of the
facts. I am being honest, and
I think you are wrong. Get
it straight, idiot. At least
when I state my OPINION I am
clear about it. That is a
requisite of science.
Something which you clearly
know nothing about.

What did they teach you in
school Mike? How to write your
name? It certainly wasn't how
to do research or interpret
data . . . ever heard of the
"scientific method" ?

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are
into fun and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is
a playground. We hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that
you have so little grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will
ever have to know about you. I called you soulless once before and
I meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for
"mountain bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do
not recall a vote to elect you as a spokesman for anyone but
yourself. You are trying to portray all persons who take a walk in
the woods to have the same motives as you.

At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.

Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers
tend to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other
to engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding
without talking.

There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are
prohibited,

It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....


I have, plenty of them. I have NEVER seen mountain bike tracks in RMNP.



but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail
head.
===
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


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into fun
and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground. We
hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know about
you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a vote to
elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to portray
all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as you.

At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.

Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend
to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to
engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without
talking.

There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited,

It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....

but rarely will you find solitude until you're very far from the trail head.
===
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

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc wrote:


Edward Dolan wrote:

"cc" wrote in message ...


Edward Dolan wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax. com...
[...]



I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
polemic and do something USEFUL!!


I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

You haven't a degree, which
you already admitted. And no,
working as a librarian does
NOT count.

I do have a research degree,
but it doesn't matter.


Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
bikers.


Mike, I am stating my opinion.
My interpretation of the
facts. I am being honest, and
I think you are wrong. Get
it straight, idiot. At least
when I state my OPINION I am
clear about it. That is a
requisite of science.
Something which you clearly
know nothing about.

That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.

What did they teach you in
school Mike? How to write your
name? It certainly wasn't how
to do research or interpret
data . . . ever heard of the
"scientific method" ?
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:20 -0700, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:22:32 -0700, cc wrote:



Edward Dolan wrote:


"cc" wrote in message ...



Edward Dolan wrote:



"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news:jobb92doebg5qh5qj7k7j8tlpei5a5f4hr@4ax .com...
[...]




I see. Since you don't have a Ph.D., you don't understand what you are
missing. A Ph.D. is a RESEARCH degree, and qualifies one to do
research OR CRITIQUE RESEARCH, which is exactly what I have done. It
also demonstrates that one can do LIBRARY RESEARCH and learn new
subjects (DOZENS of them, over the course of university instruction).
Only someone extremely dense (or extremely biased) judges one purely
on the basis of official credentials. Since there ARE no official
credentials in the science of mountain biking impacts, you have to
judge using other criteria, such as HONESTY (all mountain bikers
disqualify themselves based on this criterion), intelligence, and
results. Being asked to present papers at NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES (including the science of recreation impacts)
indicates that the people who matter and know best (scientists) judge
me as qualified to judge the impacts of mountain biking. You (and
other mountain bikers) will never even be in the audience, much less
be asked to give such a paper.


Mike, there are very few folks who have not proceeded to the Ph.D. degree
who will know what you are talking about, but I can assure you that those
of us like myself who have been on the periphery of Graduate Schools (I
was a college librarian) will know what you are capable of. Do not waste
too much breath trying to explain to the hoi polloi what research is all
about. They will never get it in a million years. They simply have no
conception of rigor when it comes to the mental disciplines.


Can you two please take your stroking offline? It's making me sick. And
yes, there are many qualified to do research in this audience, and the
consensus is that you are WRONG. So stop with your fascist, bigoted
polemic and do something USEFUL!!


I am going to defend Mr. Vandeman as best I can since all I see is a lot of
numskull mountain bikers ganging up on him. My God, just because you are a
mountain biker does not mean you have to be brainless.

Unless you have a Ph.D., you are not really qualified to do research because
you have not been trained to do it. Like most, you are confusing search with
research. Those of us with higher educations know the difference.

You haven't a degree, which
you already admitted. And no,
working as a librarian does
NOT count.

I do have a research degree,
but it doesn't matter.


Right. It also takes honesty, which is sorely lacking among mountain
bikers.


Mike, I am stating my opinion.
My interpretation of the
facts. I am being honest, and
I think you are wrong. Get
it straight, idiot. At least
when I state my OPINION I am
clear about it. That is a
requisite of science.
Something which you clearly
know nothing about.

Bah . . that is clearly an
opinion based on the data of
your inane conversation, which
are strong, as it happens.
You're grasping at straws.



That last sentence is an ASSERTION OF FACT that is FALSE. That is
known as a "lie". You didn't say it was an opinion. So, no, you are
NOT honest, nor do you know anything about science.


What did they teach you in
school Mike? How to write your
name? It certainly wasn't how
to do research or interpret
data . . . ever heard of the
"scientific method" ?

===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:55:35 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

At least Dolan has the foresight to admit it is the disruption to his
"experience" that is his determining factor.

Yes, it's refreshing to see some honesty about that. I think that many
hikers would agree that they don't like the disruption of their
experience. Still, it's a mistake to believe that mountain bikers don't
also like the "experience" of solitude.

You have to sidestep that and
try to speak about nature and impact and wildlife by distorting
information
and trying to use your OPINION as some yardstick for measure.

Yes, I think that's why MV always loses these arguments. He's trying to
base his dislike of mountain bikes on something other than the
disruption of his hiking enjoyment.

Since every study has shown that mountain bikers don't disrupt wildlife,
or cause more trail damage, than hikers, he'd be well advised to at
least be honest enough to take the same approach as Dolan in his
arguments against mountain bikes.

I AM being honest. That's exactly what drives mountain bikers so
crazy! They can't believe that anyone could be less selfish than they
are!
What drives us is your constant insistence that your OPINIONS are fact, that
your view of environmental protection or access is the ONLY viewpoint
possible and that you inflate the importance of your OPINIONS by referencing
yourself and some conferences that allowed you 15 minutes to read your
statements. We continue to band together nationwide with other groups and
organizations to cooperate on access, stewardship and voice against total
destruction of the areas we enjoy from sprawl and construction. Your
OPINIONS of the activity (off-road cycling) is not a filter to determine the
mental state of anyone involved in that activity.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:41:01 -0700, SMS
wrote:

S Curtiss wrote:

I have noticed mountain bikers like to travel in groups and are into
fun
and games for the most part. They treat nature like it is a playground.
We
hikers are not constituted that way. The fact that you have so little
grasp of the hiker mentality tells me all I will ever have to know
about
you. I called you soulless once before and I meant it.

You can no more speak for "hikers" as a group as you can for "mountain
bikers". Each individual has their motives. Again, I do not recall a
vote to
elect you as a spokesman for anyone but yourself. You are trying to
portray
all persons who take a walk in the woods to have the same motives as
you.

At least in my area, it's the hikers that tend to travel in large
groups. I've seen groups of more than 50 hikers up on Mount Tam, when
the Sierra Club singles group has one of their larger hikes, and I've
been on some of those hikes when I was single. Not much solitude.

Mountain bikers tend to either be alone, or in a group of two to four
people. I live close to a large open space preserve that is open to
mountain bikes, and this is what I have observed. Also, the hikers tend
to be much noisier, because they are close enough to each other to
engage in conversations, while the mountain bikers are riding without
talking.

There are plenty of places to hike where mountain bikes are prohibited,

It SOUNDS good, but I have never been on a hiking trail that didn't
have mountain bike tracks on it from illegal mountain biking. And, no,
it is NOT just A FEW bad apples. There are plenty to go around....

What an easy and meaningless comment! Especially since you consider ALL
mountain biking to be illegal! Your OPINION is not a filter in determining
the legality of cyclists' access.