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

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 18, 8:44 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Explain where you quoted anything they lied about in the post above,
where you wrote, in its entirety:

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

Zero text, other than your claim of lying.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
> truth, as I did.

And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.

Again, thank you for supporting my argument.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 18, 8:45 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 levelof
> >> >> >>> 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 ofyours
> >> >> > 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?

If you cannot tell the difference between a web forum and a usenet
group, then educate yourself.

E.P.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 18, 8:45 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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?
>
>If you cannot tell the difference between a web forum and a usenet
>group, then educate yourself.

I know the difference, but it's irrelevant. The relevant factor os
that both are censored, hence unreliable.

>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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
>> truth, as I did.
>
>And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
>anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.

BS. Whether or not it's my opinion, it's still the truth. That's all
that matters.

>Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.
>
>Again, thank you for supporting my argument.
>
>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

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 19, 8:18 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 18, 8:44 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> >Explain where you quoted anything they lied about in the post above,
> >where you wrote, in its entirety:
>
> > "Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth."
>
> >Zero text, other than your claim of lying.
>
> >E.P.
>
> Thanks for asking:

[snip irrelevant test]

Again, you quote none of what they wrote, nor offer any hard data to
counter it.

Can't live up to your own standards, huh? What a total shock.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 19, 8:15 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 18, 8:45 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> >If you cannot tell the difference between a web forum and a usenet
> >group, then educate yourself.
>
> I know the difference, but it's irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. You are attempting to obfuscate. That trick
doesn't work on folks smarter than you, Mike.

> The relevant factor os
> that both are censored, hence unreliable.

Since you offer zero logic to support your claim that reliability and
censorship are related, I'll just consider it wishful thinking on your
part.

Get back to me when you can make a logical construct.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 19, 8:16 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
> >> truth, as I did.
>
> >And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
> >anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
>
> BS. Whether or not it's my opinion, it's still the truth.

Circular reasoning is not logic. Try again.

E.P.

 

[SMS]

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> 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.

Actually, getting kicked out of the Sierra Club probably doesn't qualify
as being "well-connected in the environmentalist movement" (not that I
consider the Sierra Club a true environmentalist organizations).

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 19, 11:00 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Actually, getting kicked out of the Sierra Club probably doesn't qualify
> as being "well-connected in the environmentalist movement" (not that I
> consider the Sierra Club a true environmentalist organizations).

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

More than he deserves, really - sociopaths like Mike should never for
one second be given any slack. But I'm a softy...

E.P.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 23:00:09 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Actually, getting kicked out of the Sierra Club

LIAR.
--
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

 

[SMS]

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
>> truth, as I did.
>
> And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
> anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
> Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.
>
> Again, thank you for supporting my argument.

The bottom line is that there's a big incentive for the trail users
opposed to mountain bikes on the trail to come up with a study that
proves that mountain bikes cause more trail damage than other users. Yet
all the studies, both by the various park entities (national, state, and
local) and private studies (both by anti and pro mountain biking groups)
prove that mountain bikes are no more destructive than hikers (in some
cases less destructive) and that both hikers and bicycles are less
destructive than horses.

After all this time, if anyone could show that mountain bikes were
having a greater impact than other users they'd have stepped forward,
yet no one has ever presented any evidence that shows that mountain
bikes are causing more damage than other users.

Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users. Equestrians
are invariably polite as their horses destroy the trail and leave their
droppings for everyone else to deal with.

Of course if anyone ever does a scientific study that contradicts all
the previous studies it'd be worth looking at, or if it becomes
necessary to limit trail use of _all users_ to reduce impact then that
would also be worth looking at. Unfortunately, trail and park use is way
down, so that's not a problem at this time. In fact, what's needed is to
open a lot more trails to mountain bikers to get park visitation back
up, to stop giving politicians excuses to close parks to save money.

 

[SMS]

SMS 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.

Another article is at
"http://web.archive.org/web/20050419115944/http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/01-08-16/biking.html"
thanks to the wayback machine.

"Botanist Richard Reader and graduate student Eden Thurston say hikers
have long argued that the deep treads of spinning mountain bike tires
tear up more dirt than a simple pair of hiking boots. But their study of
trail use found that with average amounts of activity, cycling and
hiking have similar effects on the great outdoors."

We need to work hard to open more trails to mountain bikers, to expand
the use of our parks. Outdoor users of all types need to band together
to prevent destruction of valuable park land for development.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 8:53 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
> have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
> don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
> they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
> reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
> you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users.

According to MTB trail etiquette (at least the one I learned), the
person on the MTB *should* dismount and walk past the hiker.

Which makes some sense, considering the different speeds at which the
two would travel at any given time.

I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.

I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk
around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails.

Expereinced users know better.

E.P.

 

[SMS]

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
> will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.
>
> I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk
> around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails.
>
> Expereinced users know better.

It's also inconsiderate for hikers to string themselves out across the
entire trail so that other users can't get past.

I find that a bell on the bike is very useful. You don't have to yell
out which many trail users find irritating. A lot of the time the bikes
are very quiet and you don't hear them approaching without some sort of
extra sound. It can be startling to hikers to have a bike come up next
to them without warning.

I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
between trail users. It's the developers that we all need to be
fighting, not fighting among ourselves. Fortunately, there aren't a lot
of Vandeman type people in the world.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

\On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:53:22 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>>
>>> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
>>> truth, as I did.
>>
>> And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
>> anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
>> Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.
>>
>> Again, thank you for supporting my argument.
>
>The bottom line is that there's a big incentive for the trail users
>opposed to mountain bikes on the trail to come up with a study that
>proves that mountain bikes cause more trail damage than other users.

Nonsense. What's the point in proving the OBVIOUS?

Yet
>all the studies, both by the various park entities (national, state, and
>local) and private studies (both by anti and pro mountain biking groups)
>prove that mountain bikes are no more destructive than hikers (in some
>cases less destructive) and that both hikers and bicycles are less
>destructive than horses.

You are LYING.

Wisdom, M. J. ([email protected]), Alan A. Ager ([email protected] ), H.
K. Preisler ([email protected]), N. J. Cimon ([email protected]), and
B. K. Johnson ([email protected]), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004, pp.531-550.

>After all this time, if anyone could show that mountain bikes were
>having a greater impact than other users they'd have stepped forward,
>yet no one has ever presented any evidence that shows that mountain
>bikes are causing more damage than other users.

BS. See above.

>Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
>have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
>don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
>they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument.

We're talking about BIKES, idiot. BIKES have no rights.

In
>reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
>you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users. Equestrians
>are invariably polite as their horses destroy the trail and leave their
>droppings for everyone else to deal with.
>
>Of course if anyone ever does a scientific study that contradicts all
>the previous studies it'd be worth looking at, or if it becomes
>necessary to limit trail use of _all users_ to reduce impact then that
>would also be worth looking at. Unfortunately, trail and park use is way
>down, so that's not a problem at this time. In fact, what's needed is to
>open a lot more trails to mountain bikers to get park visitation back
>up, to stop giving politicians excuses to close parks to save money.

BIKES aren't users. If we get rid of the BIKES, there would be no
mountain biking problems.
--
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 20, 8:53 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
>> have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
>> don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
>> they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
>> reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
>> you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users.
>
>According to MTB trail etiquette (at least the one I learned), the
>person on the MTB *should* dismount and walk past the hiker.
>
>Which makes some sense, considering the different speeds at which the
>two would travel at any given time.
>
>I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
>will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.

That does NOTHING to protect the animals and plants that you are
killing. Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

>I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk
>around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails.
>
>Expereinced users know better.
>
>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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>> I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
>> will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.
>>
>> I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk
>> around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails.
>>
>> Expereinced users know better.
>
>It's also inconsiderate for hikers to string themselves out across the
>entire trail so that other users can't get past.
>
>I find that a bell on the bike is very useful. You don't have to yell
>out which many trail users find irritating. A lot of the time the bikes
>are very quiet and you don't hear them approaching without some sort of
>extra sound. It can be startling to hikers to have a bike come up next
>to them without warning.
>
>I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
>between trail users.

There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.

It's the developers that we all need to be
>fighting, not fighting among ourselves. Fortunately, there aren't a lot
>of Vandeman type people in the world.
--
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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:57:46 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>SMS 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.
>
>Another article is at
>"http://web.archive.org/web/20050419115944/http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/01-08-16/biking.html"
>thanks to the wayback machine.
>
>"Botanist Richard Reader and graduate student Eden Thurston say hikers
>have long argued that the deep treads of spinning mountain bike tires
>tear up more dirt than a simple pair of hiking boots. But their study of
>trail use found that with average amounts of activity, cycling and
>hiking have similar effects on the great outdoors."

They lied about their results. See
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

>We need to work hard to open more trails to mountain bikers, to expand
>the use of our parks. Outdoor users of all types need to band together
>to prevent destruction of valuable park land for development.

That's exactly what we are doing: banding together to stop the
destruction caused by mountain biking.
--
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

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On May 20, 5:40 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 20, 8:53 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
> >> have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
> >> don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
> >> they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
> >> reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
> >> you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users.
>
> >According to MTB trail etiquette (at least the one I learned), the
> >person on the MTB *should* dismount and walk past the hiker.
>
> >Which makes some sense, considering the different speeds at which the
> >two would travel at any given time.
>
> >I NEVER ride past a hiker.  Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
> >will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.
>
> That does NOTHING to protect the animals and plants that you are
> killing.

Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
than I would have on foot.

> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

I don't create ruts.

E.P.