Further example of Vandeman claiming his opinions of and on any research
concerning off-road cycling (recreation) as compared to hiking (recreation)
are the only possible conclusions and opinions that should matter. He
implies IMBA is dishonest by only utilizing information favorable to their
pro-cycling position while at the same time does exactly the same thing by
citing only bits that support his anti-cycling positions. He states:
"The International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) has done me the favor
of collecting all the research they could find that seemed favorable to
mountain biking. Gary Sprung (2004) summarized it in his carefully worded
essay, "Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking". Gary says "the
empirical studies thus far do not support the notion that bikes cause more
natural resource impact"."
And here is the Vandeman kicker:
"I will show that this is not true; in fact, those studies, if their data
are interpreted properly, show the exact opposite: that mountain biking has
much greater impact than hiking!"
Note the phrase, "if their data are interpreted properly". Vandeman again
states his interpretation of information, his conclusions and his opinions
are the only ones possible even to the point of superceding the opinions and
conlusions of the actual researchers themselves. He cites a "carefully
worded essay" by Gary Sprung yet right here posts his own "carefully worded
essay" to express his opinions. Vandeman's website and usenet history is
full of "carefully worded essays" expressing the opinions he builds from
selected bits of science and research yet belittles Sprung and IMBA for
doing the same. However, a look at the IMBA website research
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/index.html and
http://www.imba.com/resources/bike_management/index.html management
references many aspects of research. The Sprung paper
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html also goes a step
beyond and cites the criticism of cycling as well as a response with
references.
It is actually quite humorous that Vandeman belittles Sprung in the opinions
and findings he states in this post yet attempts to copy Sprung by citing
critical examples and attempting to discredit or disprove them... Often
with similar opinions or statements that Sprung is citing to counter in the
first place.
What is all comes down to is really simple. Vandeman simply tries to imply
his OPINIONS are the only possible opinions to have and his conclusions are
the only ones possible. The FACT that differing opinions exist, and that
differing conclusions exists is outside the Vandeman realm of possibility.
Fortunately, the organizations that make the decisions recognize the balance
of differing opinions, views on recreation and access and attempt a balance
between multi-use access areas, trails systems useage, availability, economy
and preservation in designated wilderness areas and unique historical or
natural areas.
The growth of outdoor recreation, including off-road cycling AND hiking,
would lend favor to these cooperative efforts. This same growth in outdoor
recreation has also increased the general public awareness of the importance
of preservation and environment.