ANOTHER Mountain Biker Dies!

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
[...]
You're a vile thug with delusions of competence.
Maybe if you spend some time calculating how much oxygen you waste,
and act to solve that, you may some day aspire to some level of
mediocrity, if you work hard at it.
Until then,
Sod off, before your probation officer finds out you've been
impersonating something other than the petty wankstain you are.

You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish
foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless
crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You
cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry ****head cockup
pratting
naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted
fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.

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

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
[...]
So go and complain to your parole officer that people keep recognising
you for what you are.
I'm sure he'll point out the teeth marks in your arse for you.
If you are really lucky, you may get a psychiatric referral.
If we are really lucky, it will be a committal.

You twittering, lumpish, susurrant flagellant. You slubbering, spoiled,
fly-eating grocery bag. You gurgling, tensionless, lesbian pig. You
badgering, outback, tart codpiece. You are a pirouetting, lubberly,
squeamish dwarf. You usuring, half-bound, winking porter. You are a
suckling, postmenopausal, smug yearling. You are a subserving,
cheese-obsessed, mucoid chemist. You hopping, asthmatic, strangled
kaiser. You are a staring, disorientated, infested onion. You qrasping,
half-baked, swimming peasant. You are a chivying, over-decorated, screwy
**** eater. You are a slumping, foolhardy, dampish pigfish. You
presupposing, puke-inducing, mop-headed cornflake. You supplicating,
spotted, sticky g-string. You are a quacking, styptic, tin-canned bum
boy. You are a puckering, flea-infested, queer yabberer. You
fanaticising, spurious, horrific salesman. You are a gumming,
subjugated, raw-boned frau. You are a kowtowing, suffusive, narcoleptic
flapper. You are less than a moralising, semisolid, cooked-over
clack-dish. You gulping, beetling, gangling yawner. You are a flapping,
tormented, swag-bellied faecal impaction. You are an officiating, mingy,
do-it-yourself hoof.

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

On Feb 12, 12:18*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Mike Vandeman considered Sat, 11 Feb 2012
16:39:37 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:





On Feb 11, 9:50*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
Mike Vandeman considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012
13:05:23 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Feb 10, 11:44*am, Rick Hopkins wrote:
On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker.. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). *Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. *- at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. *In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. *So you are the world authority only in your
mind. *You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes..

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. * Kind of like a bad soap
opera. *I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. *You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying..
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have *replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. *And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

Take care, Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry to disappoint you: Vandeman, Michael J. ),
2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In
Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B.
Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and
Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also
available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
speak to replace someone who didn't show up.

You mean you bullied and browbeat her into it.

Nope. It hardly took any persuading, since the paper has been given
many times before.

Not, apparently, to reputable conferences.

How would YOU know?! The Society for Conservation Biology happens to
be the premier organization in the world for conservation science. Ask
your mommie to explain the big words for you (all those with more than
one syl-la-ble).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I gave the same paper I
have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement.

You mean it was completely ignored.
Not surprising really.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I know
that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular.

Ah, so there is only ONE "paper", which all the scientific
establishment regard with such contempt that they utterly ignore it.

One is all it took. Debunking mountain biking is child's play.

Well, child is your mental development level (and a spoilt one at
that), and you are certainly playing.

You just seem to be falling well short of the debunking part.

Given that you NEVER give any specifics, it's obvious that you are
bluffing & lying.

On Feb 12, 12:21*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Mike Vandeman considered Sun, 12 Feb 2012
09:07:03 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Feb 11, 3:18*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

nothing of any consequence, much like every other day of what it
likes to regard as it's life

Sad little wankstain chatting to itself now I see.
I suppose it's the only way it can pretend it's getting any attention
at all.

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
pm)."

Even YOU don't think what you are saying is important! So why should
anyone else?!

On Feb 12, 12:30*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Mike Vandeman considered Sat, 11 Feb 2012
18:51:47 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to lie:





On Feb 11, 5:46*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Feb 11, 7:31*pm, Mike Vandeman lied:

On Feb 11, 9:37*am, Phil W Lee wrote:

Mike Vandeman considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012
00:13:00 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to lie:

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman lied:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker.. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

You mean that on at least 24 occasions, you have ranted to a bunch of
your fellow conspirators, probably over a considerable quantity of
alcohol.

Sorry to disappoint you. I don't drink. All of the conferences, and my
talks, were full of scientists. NOT ONE has ever found anything wrong
with my papers. That is plenty of peer review. So is this: Vandeman,
Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking
on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R.
E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156;
expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

How did you get to these conferences?

Awhile back you denied you even attended them, now you boast about it.
Typical convicted criminal, always lying.

You are full of it, like ALL mountain bikers. You wouldn't know the
truth if it bit you in the ass -- which it does frequently. If you
aren't going to tell the truth, why do you bother posting???

So go and complain to your parole officer that people keep recognising
you for what you are.
I'm sure he'll point out the teeth marks in your arse for you.
If you are really lucky, you may get a psychiatric referral.
If we are really lucky, it will be a committal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
pm)."

Did you say something? I didn't think so.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Feb 12, 12:21 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

.... the usual **** garbage!
[...]

Michael Vandeman wrote:

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
pm)."

Even YOU don't think what you are saying is important! So why should
anyone else?!

I did not think that was possible since it is a posting from Google Groups.
I wonder how it is done? I was under the impression that once something is
posted to a Usenet newsgroup, it is there for all eternity.

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

On Feb 12, 7:47*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

...
On Feb 12, 12:21 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

... the usual **** garbage!
[...]

Michael Vandeman wrote:
"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.

This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
pm)."

Even YOU don't think what you are saying is important! So why should

anyone else?!

I did not think that was possible since it is a posting from Google Groups.
I wonder how it is done? *I was under the impression that once something is
posted to a Usenet newsgroup, it is there for all eternity.

I thought so, too. I use Google Groups. Perhaps other newsreaders have
more options available, although I have never heard of that one..

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

On Feb 13, 2:37*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Mike Vandeman considered Sun, 12 Feb 2012
23:04:17 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:





On Feb 12, 7:47*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

....
On Feb 12, 12:21 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

... the usual **** garbage!
[...]

Michael Vandeman wrote:
"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.

This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
pm)."

Even YOU don't think what you are saying is important! So why should

anyone else?!

I did not think that was possible since it is a posting from Google Groups.
I wonder how it is done? *I was under the impression that once something is
posted to a Usenet newsgroup, it is there for all eternity.

I thought so, too. I use Google Groups. Perhaps other newsreaders have
more options available, although I have never heard of that one..

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

Anyone competent would know that you just set the X-No-Archive flag to
"Yes", although it has to be admitted that the intersection of
"competent users" and "google groups users" is almost a null set.
Most properly designed and configured news clients have the option to
set a default value for this. *It seems Google know their target
market well enough to realise it's not worth bothering with for them,
although they seem to have chosen the wrong setting as a default -
gurgle gropes lusers outpourings are rarely worth considering even in
the short term, and almost never beyond the time it takes to hit "D".

Thanks. They are probably thinking that -- trashy though it is -- it
gives some information that an advertiser would be interested in,
which is likely true. Personally, knowing that everything I write is a
carefully-considered priceless gem, or I wouldn't waste my time
writing it, I wouldn't be interested in that option.

On Feb 12, 9:07*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 11, 3:18*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:









On Feb 10, 11:44*am, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:13*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, Rick Hopkins wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message

...
On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
[...]

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.
Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor.. *If you

had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. *Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

Paper published in medical journal in 2011

completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. *The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) *of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. *So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
**** about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way..

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

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

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make **** up to fit
your tiny little world. *You guys remind me of when *Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". *I
take evidence based approaches. *If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. * The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. *I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. *So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). *You and *Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. *But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). *Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. *- at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely ****ed off by you. *In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment.

Just for grins, I wonder if you can find anything SPECIFIC that is
wrong with my paper?http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. I doubt it.
You have amply proven that you are nothing but hot air. I'm sure you
will try to wriggle out of this.

Take care, Rick

Just as I predicted! Dr. Hopkins runs away, rather than admit that he
can't provide any SPECIFICS. He is nothing but HOT AIR and gratuitous
insults. How "scientific"! Idiot.

No Mike, I did not run away, I have a life and was enjoying a nice
hiatus away from my computer. I do admit you have providing nothing
of substance and this will be my last comment on this subject.

Over 300 years ago, Francis Bacon, the father of modern science noted,
“that the quilt of the senses is either of two sorts, it either
destitutes us or deceives us.” Bacon so wisely observed, that human
biases and perceptions confound our ability to understand the natural
world. It is what lead him to develop a systematic approach that
would to the degree possible, minimize their influence in inferring
patterns in nature. You have conducted absolutely no orginal research
on the subject of what impacts mountain biking (or trail use of any
kind) does or does not have on natural systems. You have however,
offered opinions ad naseum based soley on your biases and
perceptions. Your reviews are consistently silly and whenever you
strive to make a reasoned argument, you sabotage yourself by making an
absolutely idiotic statement – your biases precede you by a country
mile.

You ask me to review your stuff and offer a critique (oh and Mike
finds it necessary to consistently violate proper NG edict by emailing
me privately – emails that are set to go into my spam folder in the
future). I will offer a suitable unbiased review when you submit to
me a paper derived from original research with the intention of
submitting it to a suitable peer-reviewed journal. I suggest you
consider relying on a sampling methodology that is based on a patch-
occupancy framework. I direct you to the book written by the
absolutely brilliant statisticians/ecologists McKenzie, Nichols,
Royale, Pollack, Bailey and Hines. 2006. Occupancy Estimation and
Modeling. Academic Press. These authors so aptly point out that
unless you can estimate detection probability of the relevant species
you cannot unbiasedly infer patterns and dynamics of species
occurrence. As these authors point out, if you visit a sample point
four times, see species A the first time, do not see it the 2nd and
3rd time, and see it the 4th time (1,0,0,1) what can you infer about
occupancy. The 2nd and 3rd time you either didn’t detect the species
because it was absent, or you didn’t detect it because you missed it.
One thing we clearly know is that there is no such thing as a species
detection probability of 1. One cannot make robust inferences about
patterns of occurrence or dynamics an estimate of the underlying
detection probabilities of individual species.

By having a sufficient number of sampling units (relevant to the
species you are studying), relevant co-variates (species do not occur
randomly or uniformly in the environment and thus, various landscape
features, and habitat cover affect a specific species distribution),
and important predictor variables such as trails users, etc. or absent
of said features. This will require you to find a study area, choose
a relevant spatial scale, appropriate species to use to infer affects
of trails and trail users, collaborate with true species experts for
those species you choose to study, and generate a series of “a priori”
hypotheses to evaluate. This is not the only way to conduct unbiased
research on the subject, but probably one of the most robust ways to
infer changes in patterns due to different trail uses. You do that
and I will commit to offering you a fair unbiased review of your
paper. In order to accomplish this sort of work will also require
obtaining grants from government agencies or foundations. Otherwise
do not waste my time with our incessant proselytizing.

I am besieged daily with real issues related to large carnivores and
the constant attack that game agencies, ranchers, and hunters place on
the killing of carnivores across this country (and world wide) in the
name of “management”. Here are just a couple of the 20 to 25 emails I
get a day about the wholesale slaughter of carnivores throughout the
US and not just Alaska. Your issues whether real or imagined are
trivial to what is going on in the name of management of carnivores.
I and other conservation biologist, NGOs will rather focus on those
issues that are immediate and consequences massive – yours are
neither.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,7251505.story

http://wallowa.com/free/idaho-hunter...9bb2963f4.html

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/si...r?em_id=7101.0

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...ounty.html.csp

Your opinion pieces are passionate and biased. You debate by
attempting to marginalizing those who offer a different interpretation
of your review of the literature and you regularly attack people by
calling them liars and mt. bikers. Your opinions are of little
consequence within the conservation community as you saw how you were
treated during the SCB conference. So fire away, you and Ed will throw
upteen useless insults my way yada yada yada.

As I said before, if acting self-important works for you, go for it. I
choose to work on real issues.

Enjoy, Rick

"Rick Hopkins" wrote in message
...
[...]
Your opinion pieces are passionate and biased. You debate by
attempting to marginalizing those who offer a different interpretation
of your review of the literature and you regularly attack people by
calling them liars and mt. bikers. Your opinions are of little
consequence within the conservation community as you saw how you were
treated during the SCB conference. So fire away, you and Ed will throw
upteen useless insults my way yada yada yada.

As I said before, if acting self-important works for you, go for it. I
choose to work on real issues.

What good does it do to have some education on a subject if you can't bring
some common sense to it. I do not want mountain biking on hiking trails -
period! Why? Because it is an incompatible use. What is there to know about
this subject that I do not know? Any land manger who thinks both groups can
use this resource without conflict is clearly an idiot. Are you an idiot
too?

Your blather about "real Issues" is neither here nor there. The subject is
mountain biking on hiking trails. The only expert in the world on that
particular subject is Mr. Michael Vandeman. What you have said on that
subject so far is nonsensical.

By the way, I am this world's foremost expert at reading between the lines.
You have directed as many insults at others as anyone I have ever
encountered on Usenet. Just because you don't resort to crude language means
nothing. An insult is an insult. I am just better at it than you because I
have been dealing with mountain bikers longer. A fine tuned insult goes
right over their heads, so I go for their groins instead since that is where
their miniscule brains are located.

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