|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More Mountain Biking Propaganda Posing as Science
"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. April 29, 2012 Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day! Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word "similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking. It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash" mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned from trails and restricted to pavement. The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features" is used (p.3056). Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word "similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable. The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500 passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless. The correct conclusion from this research should have been that mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed these glaring errors? References: Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian Rossi ), and Agustina Barros ), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp. 3049-3057. Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3, 2001, pp.397-409. Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature". Available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
More Vandeman Propaganda Posing as Science
On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. [...] How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon? Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
More Vandeman Propaganda Posing as Science
On May 5, 10:30*pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote: "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. [...] How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon? Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
More Vandeman Propaganda Posing as Science
In article ,
Mike Vandeman says... On May 5, 10:30=A0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote: "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. [...] How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon? Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort? -- T=BAm Sherm=AAn - 42.435731=B0N, 83.985007=B0W Post Free or Die! Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you. You do have a short memory. One more time, let's review your trial; see: http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...que-defendant/ which contains in part: - - - - - - - - - - For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike ti not guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty. For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. - - - - - - - - - To which you replied when I last posted that review: BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint you. So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty. Thus you are, in fact, a convicted criminal. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
More Vandeman Propaganda Posing as Science
On May 6, 4:29*pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article , Mike Vandeman says... On May 5, 10:30=A0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote: "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. [...] How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon? Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort? -- T=BAm Sherm=AAn - 42.435731=B0N, 83.985007=B0W Post Free or Die! Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you. You do have a short memory. One more time, let's review your trial; see: http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...ry-unique-defe... which contains in part: - - - - - - - - - - For vandalizing Ian Richards’ bike ti not guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty. For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. - - - - - - - - - To which you replied when I last posted that review: BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint you. So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty. Not really. Juries convict the innocent all the time, as you well know. But he was talking about "the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon", a charge that was DISMISSED. Try to follow the conversation. I know it;s hard for you. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
More Vandeman Propaganda Posing as Science
On 5/6/2012 6:29 PM, Bob Berger wrote:
In , Mike Vandeman says... On May 5, 10:30=A0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)"""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote: "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. [...] How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon? Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort? -- T=BAm Sherm=AAn - 42.435731=B0N, 83.985007=B0W Post Free or Die! Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you. You do have a short memory. One more time, let's review your trial; see: http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...que-defendant/ which contains in part: - - - - - - - - - - For vandalizing Ian Richards� bike ti not guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty. For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. - - - - - - - - - To which you replied when I last posted that review: BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint you. So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty. Thus you are, in fact, a convicted criminal. And the "deadly weapon" referenced above was a HANDSAW. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More Vandeman Propaganda Posing as Science
On 5/6/2012 7:54 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 6, 4:29�pm, Bob wrote: In , Mike Vandeman says... On May 5, 10:30=A0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)"""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote: "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. [...] How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon? Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort? -- T=BAm Sherm=AAn - 42.435731=B0N, 83.985007=B0W Post Free or Die! Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you. You do have a short memory. One more time, let's review your trial; see: http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...ry-unique-defe... which contains in part: - - - - - - - - - - For vandalizing Ian Richards� bike ti not guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty. For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. - - - - - - - - - To which you replied when I last posted that review: BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint you. So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty. Not really. Juries convict the innocent all the time, as you well know. But he was talking about "the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon", a charge that was DISMISSED. Try to follow the conversation. I know it;s hard for you. Hey Mikey, Did you not admit to once cutting trees to make a TREE FORT? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
More Vandeman Propaganda Posing as Science
In article ,
Mike Vandeman says... On May 6, 4:29=A0pm, Bob Berger wrote: In article .= com, Mike Vandeman says... On May 5, 10:30=3DA0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote: "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. [...] How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon? Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort? -- T=3DBAm Sherm=3DAAn - 42.435731=3DB0N, 83.985007=3DB0W Post Free or Die! Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you. You do have a short memory. One more time, let's review your trial; see: http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...ry-unique-defe... which contains in part: - - - - - - - - - - For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike ti not guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty. For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. - - - - - - - - - To which you replied when I last posted that review: BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint you. So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty. Not really. Juries convict the innocent all the time, as you well know. So readers can better judge the odds that you were wrongly convicted, care to estimate the percentage of the time "Juries convict the innocent"? Also, care to estimate the percentage of the time that memebers of a jury are "PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED"? I assert it's effectively zero, since being present would be grounds for a mistrial. But he was talking about "the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon", a charge that was DISMISSED. Wrong. He never used the word "charge" nor did he make reference to the trial. YOU brought them up. (Yes, I too can pick nits). Try to follow the conversation. I know it;s hard for you. I follow well enough to note that you snipped from my post the key sentence, "Thus you are, in fact, a convicted criminal". Wonder why you did that. Hmmm... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
More Vandeman Propaganda Posing as Science
On May 6, 6:43*pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article , Mike Vandeman says... On May 6, 4:29=A0pm, Bob Berger wrote: In article .= com, Mike Vandeman says... On May 5, 10:30=3DA0pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 5/5/2012 11:12 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote: "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. [...] How about an article on the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon? Or using a HANDSAW to cut down trees to make a tree fort? -- T=3DBAm Sherm=3DAAn - 42.435731=3DB0N, 83.985007=3DB0W Post Free or Die! Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance, once again. Can you say "charge dismissed"? Sorry to disappoint you. You do have a short memory. One more time, let's review your trial; see: http://peterfrickwright.com/2011/03/...ry-unique-defe.... which contains in part: - - - - - - - - - - For vandalizing Ian Richards=92 bike ti not guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon: guilty. For exhibiting a deadly weapon at Emanuel Alcala: guilty. For battering Emanuel Alcala: not guilty. For battering Justin Bruss: guilty. - - - - - - - - - To which you replied when I last posted that review: BS. That is only the opinion of the jury, NONE OF WHOM, OF COURSE, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED! We know that juries convict the innocent and free the guilty all the time. Sorry to disappoint you. So, even by your own admission, you were tried in court and not all the charges were dismissed. You were found guilty on three counts; guilty, guilty, guilty. Not really. Juries convict the innocent all the time, as you well know. So readers can better judge the odds that you were wrongly convicted, care to estimate the percentage of the time "Juries convict the innocent"? 100% in my case. Also, care to estimate the percentage of the time that memebers of a jury are "PRESENT WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED"? I assert it's effectively zero, since being present would be grounds for a mistrial. Which is backwards! They are required to be ignorant! But he was talking about "the use of the HANDSAW as a weapon", a charge that was DISMISSED. Wrong. He never used the word "charge" nor did he make reference to the trial. YOU brought them up. (Yes, I too can pick nits). Did you have a point? I didn't think so. Try to follow the conversation. I know it;s hard for you. I follow well enough to note that you snipped from my post the key sentence, "Thus you are, in fact, a convicted criminal". Wonder why you did that. Hmmm... Because it's irrelevant. DUH! So are you, since you know even less than the jury! DUH! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
More Mountain Biking Propaganda Posing as Science
On May 6, 12:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol" Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. April 29, 2012 * * *Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day! Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word "similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking. * * *It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash" mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned from trails and restricted to pavement. * * *The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features" is used (p.3056). * * *Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word "similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable. * * *The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500 passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless. * * *The correct conclusion from this research should have been that mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed these glaring errors? References: Pickering, Catherine Marina ), Sebastian Rossi ), and Agustina Barros ), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp. 3049-3057. Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader ), "Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3, 2001, pp.397-409. Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2004. "The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature". Available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. Speaking of "sound bites," based on your citations, you apparently skimmed the abstract and introduction, skipped the meat of the article, and jumped right to the discussion. No wonder you misinterpreted the article; you were being lazy, as usual. Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us with a useful review? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking | reader | Mountain Biking | 0 | September 19th 05 12:06 AM |
The "Science" on Mountain Biking Impacts | Gary S. | Mountain Biking | 7 | April 24th 04 05:33 PM |
The "Science" on Mountain Biking Impacts | Gary S. | Social Issues | 1 | April 24th 04 05:33 PM |
The "Science" on Mountain Biking Impacts | Gary S. | Social Issues | 3 | April 23rd 04 04:51 AM |
IMBA Tries to Justify Mountain Biking with Junk Science | HCH | Mountain Biking | 4 | April 10th 04 11:38 PM |