Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise,Hikers and Equestrians Cause Mo



S

SMS

Guest
OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.

"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"

Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
indisputable.

There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
about trail impact.

The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
 
On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> indisputable.
>
> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> about trail impact.
>
> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.

Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
Duh.

E.P.
 
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
>"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
>Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>indisputable.
>
>There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>about trail impact.
>
>The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.

Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> indisputable.
>>
>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> about trail impact.
>>
>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
>Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
>Duh.

Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.

>E.P.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> >"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> >Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >indisputable.
>
> >There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >about trail impact.
>
> >The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
"debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.

What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.

E.P.
 
On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> indisputable.
>
> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> about trail impact.
>
> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
> >Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
> >Duh.
>
> Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.

Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.

E.P.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>>> indisputable.
>>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>>> about trail impact.
>>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
> the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
> actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
> "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>
> What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
> review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
> on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>
> E.P.

Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
newsgroup where he has stated this).

Michael Halliwell
 
M. Halliwell wrote:

> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
> newsgroup where he has stated this).

What's very telling is that after all these years of mountain biking
being in existence, there hasn't been a single study that has shown any
more impact from mountain bikes than from other trail users. Yeah,
you'll sometimes hear hikers complain about mountain bikers, but it's
only because they don't like other trail users, and they also complain
about equestrians (I know I do!). The difference is that horses really
do tear up trails, while mountain bikes have similar or less impact than
hikers. You know that if anyone had any proof that mountain bikes were
more destructive than other trail users that they'd have published some
sort of peer-reviewed study, but this hasn't happened.

In March, I was in Taipei for Taipei Cycle (the biggest bicycle trade
show), and into the exhibit hall rides some old dude on a DaHon folding
bicycle. I'm talking to him, and I see his name tag, OMG, it' Joe
Breeze, one of the inventors of mountain biking. He had borrowed a DaHon
from Josh Hon (son of the founder of DaHon), and ridden quite a distance
across Taipei from a his hotel (a hotel I had laughed about earlier in
the week, because the name is "One Star Hotel)."
 
On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >>> indisputable.
> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >>> about trail impact.
> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
> > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>
> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
> > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > E.P.
>
> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
> newsgroup where he has stated this).

Yeah, I've laughed at that before.

Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
environmentalist movement.

Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.

One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me. :)

E.P.
 
On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> indisputable.
>>
>> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> about trail impact.
>>
>> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>>
>> >Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
>> >Duh.
>>
>> Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.
>
>Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.
>
>E.P.

Obviously, you didn't read my paper, because I quote LOTS of things
that they lied about.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> >"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> >Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >indisputable.
>>
>> >There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >about trail impact.
>>
>> >The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>>
>> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
>I only see the Cessford paper in common.

1. You obviously didn't read carefully.
2. Cessford's paper was a review paper, NOT research.

Maybe you could point out
>the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
>actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
>"debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>
>What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
>review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
>on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>
>E.P.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sun, 18 May 2008 05:03:40 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
<templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>>>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>>>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>>>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>>>> indisputable.
>>>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>>>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>>>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>>>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>>>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>>>> about trail impact.
>>>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>>>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>>>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>>> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>>> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
>> the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
>> actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
>> "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>>
>> What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
>> review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
>> on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>>
>> E.P.
>
>Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
>biking impacts.

Very true. Thanks.

...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
>his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
>newsgroup where he has stated this).
>
>Michael Halliwell
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sun, 18 May 2008 00:56:33 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>M. Halliwell wrote:
>
>> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
>> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
>> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
>> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>
>What's very telling is that after all these years of mountain biking
>being in existence, there hasn't been a single study that has shown any
>more impact from mountain bikes than from other trail users.

BS. See the Wisdom et al study cited in
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Yeah,
>you'll sometimes hear hikers complain about mountain bikers, but it's
>only because they don't like other trail users, and they also complain
>about equestrians (I know I do!). The difference is that horses really
>do tear up trails, while mountain bikes have similar or less impact than
>hikers. You know that if anyone had any proof that mountain bikes were
>more destructive than other trail users that they'd have published some
>sort of peer-reviewed study, but this hasn't happened.

BS. See above.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >>> indisputable.
>> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >>> about trail impact.
>> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
>> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
>> > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
>> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>>
>> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
>> > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
>> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>>
>> > E.P.
>>
>> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
>> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
>> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
>> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>
>Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
>
>Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
>world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
>Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
>for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
>out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
>funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
>environmentalist movement.
>
>Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
>MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
>on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
>influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
>
>One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
>forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
>participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
>on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me. :)

And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.

>E.P.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On May 18, 9:14 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> >> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> >> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >> indisputable.
>
> >> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >> about trail impact.
>
> >> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
> >> >Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
> >> >Duh.
>
> >> Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.
>
> >Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.
>
> >E.P.
>
> Obviously, you didn't read my paper...

Obviously I did, which is irrelevant. You didn't address *this*
article and its cited research. Most of which is not covered in your
"response".

E.P.
 
On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
> >> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
> >> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >>> indisputable.
> >> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >>> about trail impact.
> >> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
> >> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
> >> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> >> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
> >> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
> >> > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
> >> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>
> >> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
> >> > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
> >> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>
> >> > E.P.
>
> >> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
> >> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
> >> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
> >> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>
> >Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
>
> >Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
> >world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
> >Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
> >for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
> >out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
> >funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
> >environmentalist movement.
>
> >Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
> >MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
> >on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
> >influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
>
> >One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
> >forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
> >participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
> >on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me. :)
>
> And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.


Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
convey more information.

E.P.
 
On May 18, 9:15 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> >> >mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> >> >"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> >> >Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> >> >reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> >> >and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> >> >indisputable.
>
> >> >There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> >> >than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> >> >and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> >> >"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> >> >users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> >> >about trail impact.
>
> >> >The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> >> >government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> >> >Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> >I only see the Cessford paper in common.
>
> 1. You obviously didn't read carefully.

I just read it again - yes, as I said before, it seems only Cessford
is the common link. Maybe you're confused?

> 2. Cessford's paper was a review paper, NOT research.

According to you, reviews aren't worth as much as original research,
so thanks for supporting my argument.

E.P.
 
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 18, 9:14 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On May 16, 9:39 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> >> >> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> >> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> >> indisputable.
>>
>> >> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> >> about trail impact.
>>
>> >> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>>
>> >> >Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers.
>> >> >Duh.
>>
>> >> Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.
>>
>> >Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.
>>
>> >E.P.
>>
>> Obviously, you didn't read my paper...
>
>Obviously I did, which is irrelevant. You didn't address *this*
>article and its cited research. Most of which is not covered in your
>"response".

Here is your lie again: "you didn't quote a single thing that they
lied about". Explain why you lied.

>E.P.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 18, 9:20 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On May 17, 10:03 pm, "M. Halliwell" <templetagteam@shawdotca> wrote:
>> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>> >> >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>> >> >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> >>> indisputable.
>> >> >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> >>> about trail impact.
>> >> >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>> >> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>> >> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> >> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out
>> >> > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't
>> >> > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of
>> >> > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
>>
>> >> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature
>> >> > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours
>> >> > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
>>
>> >> > E.P.
>>
>> >> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain
>> >> biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of
>> >> his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this
>> >> newsgroup where he has stated this).
>>
>> >Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
>>
>> >Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
>> >world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
>> >Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
>> >for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
>> >out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
>> >funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
>> >environmentalist movement.
>>
>> >Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote
>> >MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes
>> >on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been
>> >influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
>>
>> >One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to
>> >forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't
>> >participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right
>> >on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me. :)
>>
>> And we all know what censored information is worth: NOTHING.
>
>
>Are you referring to your multiple personalities when you say "we"?
>"We" don't know any such thing - web forums with less spam and noise
>convey more information.

BS. You mean like rec.bicycles.off-road? It's DEAD, as well as
censored. ZERO information, even when something was posted.

>E.P.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 18, 9:15 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> >> >mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> >> >"http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> >> >Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> >> >reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> >> >and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> >> >indisputable.
>>
>> >> >There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> >> >than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> >> >and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> >> >"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> >> >users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> >> >about trail impact.
>>
>> >> >The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> >> >government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> >> >Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>>
>> >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing
>> >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>>
>> >I only see the Cessford paper in common.
>>
>> 1. You obviously didn't read carefully.
>
>I just read it again - yes, as I said before, it seems only Cessford
>is the common link. Maybe you're confused?

Nope. For example, you missed:

A 2001 study performed by botanist Richard Reader of the University of
Guelph (Canada) noted that "We've found that hikers have the same
effect as bikers do, regardless of the number of trips along the path.
In reality, both are equally damaging to the environment, but there is
increased trail wear because twice the number of people are now using
the trails." (Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and
Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest - Eden Thurston
and Richard Reader).

as well as:

Perhaps the most widely accepted research on trail impacts of
different users is the Seney/Wilson Study as it compared all the user
groups together in one study (hikers, motorcycles, mountain bikes, and
horses). Some of the findings from the Seney/Wilson Study include:

"The sediment yields reported in part B of Table 4 indicates that
horse plots produced significantly more sediment yield than the
bicycle, control, or hiker plots." "Hiker and bicycle plots were not
significantly different from each other or the control plots." "
Indeed, hikers produced the second largest increase in sediment yield
following the horse treatments, and overall the horse and hiker plots
suggest that hooves and feet make more sediment available for removal
than wheels on pre-wetted soils. The results in Part D of Table 4
indicate horse traffic produced significantly more sediment than other
users on dry plots as well". (Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses,
Motorcycles, and Off Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana- John
Wilson and Joseph Seney - Mountain Research and Development 1994)

It's obvious that you don't know how to read.

>> 2. Cessford's paper was a review paper, NOT research.
>
>According to you, reviews aren't worth as much as original research,
>so thanks for supporting my argument.

Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
truth, as I did.

>E.P.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

yeroc602
Comparing Hydraulic vs. Mechanical Disc Brakes
Replies
9
Views
99
Mountain Bikes
BY03LSV
BY03LSV
M
MI5-Persecution: Comparing the MI5 Persecution with German Final Solution (16611)
Replies
0
Views
345
Mountain Bikes
[email protected]
M
Diesel6
MTB Setup relative to Road Setup
Replies
7
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Diesel6
Diesel6
S
Re: The Impacts Of The Economy Due To The Tax Rebate
Replies
0
Views
906
Mountain Bikes
Siskuwihane
S
S
Re: The Impacts of Airline Travel By Aging Attention Whores.
Replies
1
Views
903
Mountain Bikes
[email protected]
M
Top Bottom Back