More Mountain Biking Propaganda Posing as Science

On May 7, 10:54*am, Shraga wrote:
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?

I read every word, which is more than you did. But you wouldn't
understand it even if you read it, due to it containing words with
more than one syl-la-ble.

On May 7, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 7, 10:54*am, Shraga wrote:









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?

I read every word, which is more than you did. But you wouldn't
understand it even if you read it, due to it containing words with
more than one syl-la-ble.

Silly child, to you "understanding it" means approaching it applying
your ridiculous confirmation bias. You see, the way you're supposed to
read a scientific article is to remain objective. Sadly, for you that
is clearly impossible. You dismiss everything that remotely supports
mountain biking and regard as gospel everything that condemns it, no
matter how ridiculous. That's why this article got through peer
review... Because qualified people reviewed it, not an armchair
quarterback like you. Your "review" is useless.

Any idiot (i.e., you) can tear down an article like you did. It takes
experience, intelligence and ability to do the work behind it. That's
why Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the impacts of
mountain biking, and you bark like a agitated puppy from your
keyboard.

Incidentally, where is your *empirical* study of the impacts of
mountain biking? I'd love to review it for you.

On 5/7/2012 10:54 AM, Shraga wrote:

Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
with a useful review?

Because our resident convicted criminal has never believed in
scientifically accurate, peer-reviewed, statistically sound, research.

The facts conflict with what he wishes was true.

Bottom line, there is _no_ research showing that mountain biking is any
more damaging to trails or wildlife than other recreational activities
such as hiking or horesback riding. In fact, horseback riding has
significantly greater impact on erosion and wildlife than hiking or
mountain biking. But equestrians are usually well-connected politically,
as well as being well-off financially, so attempts to ban horses from
these areas have been fruitless.

On May 8, 9:38*am, Shraga wrote:
On May 7, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On May 7, 10:54*am, Shraga wrote:

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?

I read every word, which is more than you did. But you wouldn't
understand it even if you read it, due to it containing words with
more than one syl-la-ble.

Silly child, to you "understanding it" means approaching it applying
your ridiculous confirmation bias. You see, the way you're supposed to
read a scientific article is to remain objective. Sadly, for you that
is clearly impossible. You dismiss everything that remotely supports
mountain biking and regard as gospel everything that condemns it, no
matter how ridiculous. That's why this article got through peer
review... Because qualified people reviewed it, not an armchair
quarterback like you. Your "review" is useless.

Any idiot (i.e., you) can tear down an article like you did. It takes
experience, intelligence and ability to do the work behind it. That's
why Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the impacts of
mountain biking, and you bark like a agitated puppy from your
keyboard.

Incidentally, where is your *empirical* study of the impacts of
mountain biking? I'd love to review it for you.

You haven't even READ her article. If you did, you'd have to admit
that everything I said is true! I've never met someone so willing to
blab about something he knows nothing about! She isn't a "world
authority" on anything, except maybe greenwashing mountain biking. You
aren't an authority on ANYTHING relevant. I'm still the world
authority on mountain biking impacts.

On May 8, 5:37*pm, SMS wrote:
On 5/7/2012 10:54 AM, Shraga wrote:

Why don't you go ahead and read the whole thing and get back to us
with a useful review?

Because our resident convicted criminal has never believed in
scientifically accurate, peer-reviewed, statistically sound, research.

The facts conflict with what he wishes was true.

Bottom line, there is _no_ research showing that mountain biking is any
more damaging to trails or wildlife than other recreational activities
such as hiking or horesback riding.

Yes there is. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm (Wisdom et al).

In fact, horseback riding has
significantly greater impact on erosion and wildlife than hiking or
mountain biking. But equestrians are usually well-connected politically,
as well as being well-off financially, so attempts to ban horses from
these areas have been fruitless.

BS. You didn't cite any reaesrch (as I did), because you CAN'T. It
doesn't exist!

On May 5, 9:12*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.
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.

P.S. They also make the same mistake as every other mountain biking
researcher: they ignore distance travelled. Even if mountain bikers
did no more harm per foot (which is what they measured) as hikers, the
fact that they travel several times as fast and several times as far
as hikers would imply that they do several times as much damage!

On May 9, 9:14*pm, Shraga wrote:
On May 9, 10:30*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On May 9, 8:30*am, Shraga wrote:

On May 9, 12:23*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On May 8, 9:38*am, Shraga wrote:

On May 7, 11:53*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On May 7, 10:54*am, Shraga wrote:

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?

I read every word, which is more than you did. But you wouldn't
understand it even if you read it, due to it containing words with
more than one syl-la-ble.

Silly child, to you "understanding it" means approaching it applying
your ridiculous confirmation bias. You see, the way you're supposed to
read a scientific article is to remain objective. Sadly, for you that
is clearly impossible. You dismiss everything that remotely supports
mountain biking and regard as gospel everything that condemns it, no
matter how ridiculous. That's why this article got through peer
review... Because qualified people reviewed it, not an armchair
quarterback like you. Your "review" is useless.

Any idiot (i.e., you) can tear down an article like you did. It takes
experience, intelligence and ability to do the work behind it. That's
why Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the impacts of
mountain biking, and you bark like a agitated puppy from your
keyboard.

Incidentally, where is your *empirical* study of the impacts of
mountain biking? I'd love to review it for you.

You haven't even READ her article. If you did, you'd have to admit
that everything I said is true! I've never met someone so willing to
blab about something he knows nothing about! She isn't a "world
authority" on anything, except maybe greenwashing mountain biking. You
aren't an authority on ANYTHING relevant. I'm still the world
authority on mountain biking impacts.

I don't have to admit anything. The bulk of your senseless yammering
has to do with subjective preferences in terminology driven by your
personal prejudices. You hardly touch their methods, and when you do
it's about a topic they specifically address in the discussion. In
short, you are whining because their objective article doesn't support
YOUR bias.

Worse still, you question the ethics of the research team because you
suspect one or more of them may be mountain bikers while providing
ZERO supporting evidence. But a complete lack of evidence never
stopped you from drawing incorrect conclusions before, now did it? I
guess this shouldn't be any different. Did you disclose that you liked
food when you wrote your dissertation? Because that would be a clear
conflict of interest too.

You have never published a refereed journal article on the impacts of
mountain biking. You have also never produced the results of an
empirical study on the topic. That makes you an equivalent authority
as everyone else in the world who has never been published on it. You
are not qualified to review anyone's research on the environmental
impacts of ANYTHING because you haven't done any yourself.

As I wrote before, you are, at best, an armchair quarterback who likes
to whine.

My statement stands. Catherine Pickering is the world authority on the
impacts of mountain biking, as demonstrated by her command of the
related literature and her ability to conduct research not just on the
topic directly, but also on related domains. You, in contrast, are a
local loon with a penchant for writing letters.

Very funny. You forgot that it's as plain as day that you haven't read
nor understood her paper, since there is a TOTAL lack of specifics in
your comment. Mountain bikers are SO easy!

It's obvious that at least one of the researchers is a mountain biker,
although they violated the journal's ethical standard by not
disclosing that fact. The "peer" reviewers are also probably mountain
bikers. Who else could miss the GLARING errors in her paper??? Any
elementary statistics student knows that statistics can never prove
two things equal. The most you can do is fail to prove them
significantly different. So she misstates her results, by saying that
mountain biking & hiking have "similar" impacts. DUH!

Either get specific (reply to my points individually), or shut up.

How about I answer however I want instead?

Given your extensive history of dodging questions, changing the
subject and providing non-answers to specific questions, you are the
LAST person who should be demanding specifics from anybody.

In any case, I was plenty specific with the issues I raised (i.e., you
aren't qualified to review a scientific article). You're just trying
to change the subject again to help yourself feel relevant, I guess.

Still, I'm feeling charitable, so here are some specifics for you:

You are misrepresenting (i.e., lying) their use of the word,
"similar," as a "result." The authors provide extensive quantitative
data describing their results (which you conveniently withheld);
following that, they use the word "similar" to summarize a portion of
those results, which is completely reasonable and not uncommon in a
scientific paper. So, Mike, if you have a problem with the results and
you read beyond the introduction as you claim, you should have no
problem explaining to me why you disagree that the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL
RESULTS they provide should not be described using the word,
"similar."

When you're done with that, post a link citing the journal's specific
"ethical standard" that was violated, provide the evidence that one or
more of the authors is a mountain biker, and provide the evidence that
one or more of the blind reviewers is a mountain biker. If it's
"obvious" you should have no problem providing that evidence, right?

Finally, cite the Australian laws/statutes/precedents that show riding
"beyond formed trails" and "social trails" are illegal in the location
where the research was being conducted.

There, that specific enough for you, jackass?

No, of course not. You have said NOTHING specific about their paper
that one might know if you had actually READ it. You continue to
bluff. Address each of my complaints, and why, GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE PAPER (you might actually have to READ it), you disagree with my
assessment. As I clearly stated before, "similar" is not a scientific
word, since it's not quantifiable.

Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
common practice. .

In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
100% correct.

If my questions make you uncomfortable, feel free to run along and
write a letter to an editor somewhere and leave the science to the
scientists.

On May 10, 8:06*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 9, 9:14*pm, Shraga wrote:

Either get specific (reply to my points individually), or shut up.

How about I answer however I want instead?

Given your extensive history of dodging questions, changing the
subject and providing non-answers to specific questions, you are the
LAST person who should be demanding specifics from anybody.

In any case, I was plenty specific with the issues I raised (i.e., you
aren't qualified to review a scientific article). You're just trying
to change the subject again to help yourself feel relevant, I guess.

Still, I'm feeling charitable, so here are some specifics for you:

You are misrepresenting (i.e., lying) their use of the word,
"similar," as a "result." The authors provide extensive quantitative
data describing their results (which you conveniently withheld);
following that, they use the word "similar" to summarize a portion of
those results, which is completely reasonable and not uncommon in a
scientific paper. So, Mike, if you have a problem with the results and
you read beyond the introduction as you claim, you should have no
problem explaining to me why you disagree that the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL
RESULTS they provide should not be described using the word,
"similar."

When you're done with that, post a link citing the journal's specific
"ethical standard" that was violated, provide the evidence that one or
more of the authors is a mountain biker, and provide the evidence that
one or more of the blind reviewers is a mountain biker. If it's
"obvious" you should have no problem providing that evidence, right?

Finally, cite the Australian laws/statutes/precedents that show riding
"beyond formed trails" and "social trails" are illegal in the location
where the research was being conducted.

There, that specific enough for you, jackass?

No, of course not. You have said NOTHING specific about their paper
that one might know if you had actually READ it. You continue to
bluff. Address each of my complaints, and why, GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE PAPER (you might actually have to READ it), you disagree with my
assessment. As I clearly stated before, "similar" is not a scientific
word, since it's not quantifiable.

Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
summarizing a quantitative result. As I wrote before, if you had any
experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.

The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
Strike one.

Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
common practice. .

What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper" written
by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
scientist instead?

I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
explain the difference to you? Strike two.

In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
100% correct.

If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.

What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.

How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.

You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

On May 10, 8:16*pm, Shraga wrote:
On May 10, 8:06*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On May 9, 9:14*pm, Shraga wrote:
Either get specific (reply to my points individually), or shut up.

How about I answer however I want instead?

Given your extensive history of dodging questions, changing the
subject and providing non-answers to specific questions, you are the
LAST person who should be demanding specifics from anybody.

In any case, I was plenty specific with the issues I raised (i.e., you
aren't qualified to review a scientific article). You're just trying
to change the subject again to help yourself feel relevant, I guess.

Still, I'm feeling charitable, so here are some specifics for you:

You are misrepresenting (i.e., lying) their use of the word,
"similar," as a "result." The authors provide extensive quantitative
data describing their results (which you conveniently withheld);
following that, they use the word "similar" to summarize a portion of
those results, which is completely reasonable and not uncommon in a
scientific paper. So, Mike, if you have a problem with the results and
you read beyond the introduction as you claim, you should have no
problem explaining to me why you disagree that the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL
RESULTS they provide should not be described using the word,
"similar."

When you're done with that, post a link citing the journal's specific
"ethical standard" that was violated, provide the evidence that one or
more of the authors is a mountain biker, and provide the evidence that
one or more of the blind reviewers is a mountain biker. If it's
"obvious" you should have no problem providing that evidence, right?

Finally, cite the Australian laws/statutes/precedents that show riding
"beyond formed trails" and "social trails" are illegal in the location
where the research was being conducted.

There, that specific enough for you, jackass?

No, of course not. You have said NOTHING specific about their paper
that one might know if you had actually READ it. You continue to
bluff. Address each of my complaints, and why, GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE PAPER (you might actually have to READ it), you disagree with my
assessment. As I clearly stated before, "similar" is not a scientific
word, since it's not quantifiable.

Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
summarizing a quantitative result.

BS. It's totally meaningless in a statistical context. I know, you
don't have the faintest idea what that means.

As I wrote before, if you had any
experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.

The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
Strike one.

Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
common practice. .

What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper"

Because it's the only place you will find the truth. You won't read it
simply because you don't care about the truth.

written
by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
scientist instead?

I AM a scientist. That's what a Ph.D. is, dumdum.

I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
explain the difference to you? Strike two.

In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
100% correct.

If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.

Prove that it's legal. You can't, because it isn't.

What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.

How would YOU know what a "good scientist" is??? What are your
qualifications? NONE, I suspect, or you wouldn't STILL be sticking to
vague generalities.

How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.

One is enough to know the truth. One honest article beats any number
of examples of biased propaganda.

You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

As I suspected, you can't say anythng SPECIFIC about the article,
because you haven't read i! That's why you keep changing the subject
to irrelevancies.

As to getting published in peer-reviewed publications, you seemt to
have overlooked 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 at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Ready to throw in the towel? You have proved that you can't even use a
library! You aren't honest enough to admit that you are making
assertions about an article that you haven't even read! Typical
dishonest mountain biker. QED

On May 10, 8:16*pm, Shraga wrote:
On May 10, 8:06*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On May 9, 9:14*pm, Shraga wrote:
Either get specific (reply to my points individually), or shut up.

How about I answer however I want instead?

Given your extensive history of dodging questions, changing the
subject and providing non-answers to specific questions, you are the
LAST person who should be demanding specifics from anybody.

In any case, I was plenty specific with the issues I raised (i.e., you
aren't qualified to review a scientific article). You're just trying
to change the subject again to help yourself feel relevant, I guess.

Still, I'm feeling charitable, so here are some specifics for you:

You are misrepresenting (i.e., lying) their use of the word,
"similar," as a "result." The authors provide extensive quantitative
data describing their results (which you conveniently withheld);
following that, they use the word "similar" to summarize a portion of
those results, which is completely reasonable and not uncommon in a
scientific paper. So, Mike, if you have a problem with the results and
you read beyond the introduction as you claim, you should have no
problem explaining to me why you disagree that the SPECIFIC NUMERICAL
RESULTS they provide should not be described using the word,
"similar."

When you're done with that, post a link citing the journal's specific
"ethical standard" that was violated, provide the evidence that one or
more of the authors is a mountain biker, and provide the evidence that
one or more of the blind reviewers is a mountain biker. If it's
"obvious" you should have no problem providing that evidence, right?

Finally, cite the Australian laws/statutes/precedents that show riding
"beyond formed trails" and "social trails" are illegal in the location
where the research was being conducted.

There, that specific enough for you, jackass?

No, of course not. You have said NOTHING specific about their paper
that one might know if you had actually READ it. You continue to
bluff. Address each of my complaints, and why, GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE PAPER (you might actually have to READ it), you disagree with my
assessment. As I clearly stated before, "similar" is not a scientific
word, since it's not quantifiable.

Asked and answered. If you didn't understand my response that's your
problem, not mine. It's a perfectly reasonable word to use when
summarizing a quantitative result. As I wrote before, if you had any
experience reading scientific papers you would know that. Your
preposterous objection to it highlights your ignorance.

The fact that you don't understand the results section is noted.
Strike one.

Unless they will admit to being mountain bikers, there's no way to
know (they refuse to answer -- a dead giveaway of dishonesty), but in
my experience, ONLY MOUNTAIN BIKERS write slanted, unscientific papers
like that, that purport to be science. We know, of course, from my
survey paper (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm) that that is a
common practice. .

What would I have to gain from reading an unpublished "paper" written
by an amateur letter-writer? Can you recommend anything written by a
scientist instead?

I asked for proof, not your biased opinion. Do you need an adult to
explain the difference to you? Strike two.

In every jurisdiction in the world, off-trail riding is illegal. Why
would Australia be different? You are just afraid to admit that I am
100% correct.

If you're correct, then it shouldn't be a problem to quote a legal
precedent. You won't, because you can't. Strike three.

What you fail to understand, Mike, is that you're trying to refute
science with faith-based arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. A
real scientist would understand that it doesn't work that way. That's
why you'll have to observe from the sidelines and whine while good
scientists like Pickering et al. keep getting published.

How many years have you been railing against mountain biking, Mike?
15? 20? And how many empirical studies, conference proceedings,
journal articles and book chapters have you produced in those lost
decades? Probably less than the average graduate student.

You might want to hold off and do something worth mentioning before
calling yourself an "authority" on anything.

And you are an authority on WHAT, exactly? Bluffing? Lying? You can't
even tell us your real name! What an idiot.