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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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...

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!

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?