Vandeman's ignorance busted (yet again) - this one!!!!!!

In article ,
says...
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 11:54:43 AM UTC-7, Stilton Cheesewright wrote:
In article ,

says...





BS. Mountain bikers travel much farther than hikers,





Errrrr,, A hiker, walker, car driver, UPS delivery man, dog etc

'travels' (lets say) ONE mile.



A Mountain Biker 'travels' lets say the SAME ONE MILE.



Do they not 'travel' the EXACT SAME??



SIGH And who has the alledged greater qualifications??



SC.

We're talking about ON THE TRAIL, dum dum. But you already knew that, and chose to ignore it.


OK Num Nuts.

A hiker, walker, dog etc 'travels' (lets say) ONE mile. ON THE TRAIL

A Mountain Biker 'travels' lets say the SAME ONE MILE. ON THE SAME
TRAIL.

Do they not 'travel' the EXACT SAME?? ON THE SAME TRAIL???


SC.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 8:27:27 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:29:01 PM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 6:01:49 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote: On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote: Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific? There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot. To the contrary you are the one who is an idiot. First, YOU have suggested the tasmanian tiger is an New Zealand native species when it isn't. No, I didn't, liar. Learn to READ. Secondly, you have failed to read any of the science regarding New Zealand's environmental issues before commenting on them, BS. I have read it. It's mostly junk science. which doesn't make you look good at all. In fact it makes you look dim. Finally, you fail to recognize my point that mountain biking is not widespread in New Zealand's national parks nor is it a huge environmental problem.. In your opinion, which is worthless & dishonest. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or in your case massive rocks.... hahaha. Whatever. Nice try Mike. You are struggling now. That is obvious. A great example, is you calling someone else's work junk science without giving any explanation

I explained in detail at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm, which you well know, LIAR.

- this is a great example of anti-intellectualism in action.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 8:32:41 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:29:01 PM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 6:01:49 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote: On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote: Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific? There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot. To the contrary you are the one who is an idiot. First, YOU have suggested the tasmanian tiger is an New Zealand native species when it isn't. No, I didn't, liar. Learn to READ. Secondly, you have failed to read any of the science regarding New Zealand's environmental issues before commenting on them, BS. I have read it. It's mostly junk science. which doesn't make you look good at all. In fact it makes you look dim. Finally, you fail to recognize my point that mountain biking is not widespread in New Zealand's national parks nor is it a huge environmental problem.. In your opinion, which is worthless & dishonest. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or in your case massive rocks.... Again you I will ask you please provide some empirical evidence that mountain biking is doing unacceptable damage in new Zealand? This is not a trick question or multiple choice.

Yes, it is. ALL mountain biking damage is unacceptable, since it is a frivolous, worthless activity.

Come on chop chop...And by the way your dribble is irrelevant...Why? It is not science.....

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 9:22:06 AM UTC-7, Stilton Cheesewright wrote:
In article , says... On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 11:54:43 AM UTC-7, Stilton Cheesewright wrote: In article , says... BS. Mountain bikers travel much farther than hikers, Errrrr,, A hiker, walker, car driver, UPS delivery man, dog etc 'travels' (lets say) ONE mile. A Mountain Biker 'travels' lets say the SAME ONE MILE. Do they not 'travel' the EXACT SAME?? SIGH And who has the alledged greater qualifications?? SC. We're talking about ON THE TRAIL, dum dum. But you already knew that, and chose to ignore it. OK Num Nuts.. A hiker, walker, dog etc 'travels' (lets say) ONE mile. ON THE TRAIL A Mountain Biker 'travels' lets say the SAME ONE MILE. ON THE SAME TRAIL. Do they not 'travel' the EXACT SAME?? ON THE SAME TRAIL??? SC.

Mountain bikers always travel farther. DUH!

Yes, it is. ALL mountain biking damage is unacceptable, since it is a frivolous, worthless activity.

How is it inherently any more frivolous or worthless than hiking ?

Do you NEED to go hiking ? No. Hence, axiomatically, it's recreation.

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:04:30 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Yes, it is. ALL mountain biking damage is unacceptable, since it is a frivolous, worthless activity.



How is it inherently any more frivolous or worthless than hiking ?

Hiking doesn't destroy habitat, kill wildlife, nor drive other trail users off the trails.

Do you NEED to go hiking ? No. Hence, axiomatically, it's recreation.

Yes, everyone needs exercise. But not exercise that destroys habitat and kills and maims people, the way mountain biking does. If you had any morals, you would be ashamed of yourself.

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 3:57:26 PM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:04:30 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

Yes, it is. ALL mountain biking damage is unacceptable, since it is a frivolous, worthless activity.







How is it inherently any more frivolous or worthless than hiking ?



Hiking doesn't destroy habitat, kill wildlife, nor drive other trail users off the trails.



Do you NEED to go hiking ? No. Hence, axiomatically, it's recreation.



Yes, everyone needs exercise. But not exercise that destroys habitat and kills and maims people, the way mountain biking does. If you had any morals, you would be ashamed of yourself.

I have asked you before Vandeman - where is your evidence that mountain biking harms wildlife in New Zealand? How many Kiwi, Kereru or Kakapo have been killed by mountain bikers compared to cats, stoats or dogs? Come on chop chop....I want a answer. Put up or shut up....

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 11:16:49 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:24:36 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

Surely the level of environmental impact would be location specific?



There you go again, claiming that the laws of physics and biology are different in New Zealand from everywhere else. Idiot.

Here are the facts Vandeman:

Fact 1: One of New Zealand’s greatest biodiversity problems is the impact of introduced mammalian predators and herbivores such as the brustrail possum, rats, cats, stoats and deer. I have provided evidence in the form of videos from scientists as well as academic literature, which has been peer reviewed and published.

Fact 2: You have stated the evidence is junk science yet you provide no evidence to support this claim. As a result your statements can’t be taken seriously. In fact that comment which is meant to be insult is simply ignorant.

How is it inherently any more frivolous or worthless than hiking ?

Hiking doesn't destroy habitat, kill wildlife, nor drive other trail users off the trails.

Do you NEED to go hiking ? No. Hence, axiomatically, it's recreation.

Yes, everyone needs exercise. But not exercise that destroys habitat and kills and maims people, the way mountain biking does. If you had any morals, you would be ashamed of yourself.

Nice way to avoid the point Mike. You said mountainbiking was a pointless and frivolous activity ... and I simply pointed out that hiking is also a recreational activity with similar impacts on the environment.

On 8/8/2013 1:19 AM, Blackblade wrote:

Nice way to avoid the point Mike. You said mountainbiking was a pointless and frivolous activity ... and I simply pointed out that hiking is also a recreational activity with similar impacts on the environment.

That's the bottom line. _All_ activities that use trails have an impact.
All are recreation. Some have much more of an impact--these are the
non-human powered activities involving horses, motors, or engines.

How much impact are we willing to accept? Hiking and mountain biking
have similar impacts in terms of erosion and wildlife disturbance, hence
it would make no sense to ban one and allow the other.

It is true that these two groups of users have the opportunity to annoy
each other. Groups of hikers tend to talk loudly and block the trail. If
you've ever come across a large Sierra Club hiking outing it can be
unnerving; I once went on a Sierra Club hike on Mount Tam in Marin
county where 92 people showed up and even though the leaders divided the
group into two hikes, even 46 people in a group is way too many.
Mountain bikers aren't as loud, and that's part of the problem--they can
be riding pretty fast and startle hikers. If the governing bodies of
parks wanted to alternate access between the two groups (like some lakes
do between power boats and sail boats) that would be fine.

The bigger problem with trails in the San Francisco Bay Area is with
those that allow equestrian use. The horses create a huge mess that the
owners don't clean up, which annoys all the other trail users and they
cause a lot of trail damage. They actually are worse than motorized
vehicles on trails because their negative effects last long after they
pass through. Alas, equestrians tend to be wealthy and well-connected so
attempts to ban horses usually fail.