Re: USGS Study on trail impact

[Pete Rissler]

"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All,
> Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get
> near enough attention, so I am reposting it:
>
>
>
>
>
> Here's a recent study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey on trail use
> in a National River and Recreation Area for the National Park Service.
>
> Here's a synopsis and link from the IMBA page
>
> http://www.imba.com/news/news_releases/05_06/05_12_nps_study.html
>
> Here's a link to the report, again off the IMBA page
>
> http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_nps_report.pdf
>
> Obviously since IMBA is linking to it, the report shows mountain biking in
> a
> favorable light at least being no different than the impact of hiking. ATV
> and Horse trails were the worse degraded. Mountain Bikes had the
> smallest
> width and Cross Sectional Area than the other users (ATV, Horses) though
> there was no significant difference between bikes and hiking (essentially
> the same). Bike trails also had the lowest amount of soil loss. In short
> bike trails were in the best condition followed by hiking then horse then
> ATV trails. If nothing else, the report is invaluable just for the
> references.
>
> One thing I haven't seen on these discussion between hikers, horse riders,
> and mountain bikers is the spread of invasive weeds by horses into Natural
> and Wilderness Areas. Since horses are herbivores they have the potential
> to spread non-native plants (seeds) into new areas by defecation. This to
> me is far worse than any type of trail damage caused by hikers or bikers.
>
> Let the discussion and flaming begin!
>
> Pete Rissler


Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an
accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat
to flaming.
--
Pete Rissler
http://web1.greatbasin.net/~rissler/
http://www.tccycling.com

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:48:51 -0700, "Pete Rissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> All,
>> Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get
>> near enough attention, so I am reposting it:

I guess the reason it didn't get much attention is that it's LOUSY
research!

It is not experimental, so it is impossible to determine the relative
impacts of different forms of recreation. It simply compares
trailsused "mostly" by certain user groups. It is impossible to
conclude anything meaningful from such research. In order to get
meaningful results, you have to compare measured impacts from equal
numbers of passes by specific user groups. If 100,000 hikers used the
hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking trail, no
useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail
conditions", as this "study" did.

>> Here's a recent study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey on trail use
>> in a National River and Recreation Area for the National Park Service.
>>
>> Here's a synopsis and link from the IMBA page
>>
>> http://www.imba.com/news/news_releases/05_06/05_12_nps_study.html
>>
>> Here's a link to the report, again off the IMBA page
>>
>> http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_nps_report.pdf
>>
>> Obviously since IMBA is linking to it, the report shows mountain biking in
>> a
>> favorable light at least being no different than the impact of hiking. ATV
>> and Horse trails were the worse degraded. Mountain Bikes had the
>> smallest
>> width and Cross Sectional Area than the other users (ATV, Horses) though
>> there was no significant difference between bikes and hiking (essentially
>> the same). Bike trails also had the lowest amount of soil loss. In short
>> bike trails were in the best condition followed by hiking then horse then
>> ATV trails. If nothing else, the report is invaluable just for the
>> references.
>>
>> One thing I haven't seen on these discussion between hikers, horse riders,
>> and mountain bikers is the spread of invasive weeds by horses into Natural
>> and Wilderness Areas. Since horses are herbivores they have the potential
>> to spread non-native plants (seeds) into new areas by defecation. This to
>> me is far worse than any type of trail damage caused by hikers or bikers.
>>
>> Let the discussion and flaming begin!
>>
>> Pete Rissler
>
>
>Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an
>accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat
>to flaming.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:48:51 -0700, "Pete Rissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an
>accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat
>to flaming.

No, I think that the post was simply self-explanatory and
comprehensive enough that those who understood it either had nothing
to add or couldn't find anything to attack. You may infer from that
fact that you're getting a response that your tactic of *not* being
intentionally insulting and/or inflammatory is part of the reason that
I don't have you plonked, unlike a certain other group of regular
irritants.

Keep it up.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:48:51 -0700, "Pete Rissler"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> All,
>>> Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get
>>> near enough attention, so I am reposting it:
>
> I guess the reason it didn't get much attention is that it's LOUSY
> research!
>
> It is not experimental, so it is impossible to determine the relative
> impacts of different forms of recreation. It simply compares
> trailsused "mostly" by certain user groups. It is impossible to
> conclude anything meaningful from such research. In order to get
> meaningful results, you have to compare measured impacts from equal
> numbers of passes by specific user groups. If 100,000 hikers used the
> hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking trail, no
> useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail
> conditions", as this "study" did.

Wait a minute...! Here is research actually conducted by a recognized expert
in the field contacted and published by the National Park Service in
accordance with the Department of the Interior and you claim it is "lousy
research"...? Could this be the green glow of jealosy...? After all, why
weren't you contacted as an expert, right? Why weren't your findings
referenced and quoted? Why wasn't Michael J. Vandeman, PhD, called out to
Tennessee and Kentucky to offer "expert" assistance in assimilating the
validity of method and research being done?
Could it be that this research highlights many of the flaws of opinion in
your own piece "The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"...?
Could it be that you counter your own statements made just above "If 100,000
hikers used the hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking
trail, no
useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail conditions", as
this "study" did." with statements made previously about "distance" cyclists
can travel? For example: "Even if we accepted their conclusions that impacts
per mile are the same, it would follow that mountain bikers have several
times the impact of hikers, since they are easily able to, and do, travel
several times as far as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or 100 miles in a day!"
Based on your own statements it would take less cyclists to create the
impact of several hikers. You have also stated off-road cyclists are chasing
other users out of the parks and off the trails so how can you use numbers
of 100,000 hikers and only 10 bikers? These are hardly representative
numbers of actual useage. You claim distance multiplies impact but than
claim impacts can not be compared because of lack of numbers... ?
Your opinions are showing again...

>
>>> Here's a recent study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey on trail
>>> use
>>> in a National River and Recreation Area for the National Park Service.
>>>
>>> Here's a synopsis and link from the IMBA page
>>>
>>> http://www.imba.com/news/news_releases/05_06/05_12_nps_study.html
>>>
>>> Here's a link to the report, again off the IMBA page
>>>
>>> http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_nps_report.pdf
>>>
>>> Obviously since IMBA is linking to it, the report shows mountain biking
>>> in
>>> a
>>> favorable light at least being no different than the impact of hiking.
>>> ATV
>>> and Horse trails were the worse degraded. Mountain Bikes had the
>>> smallest
>>> width and Cross Sectional Area than the other users (ATV, Horses) though
>>> there was no significant difference between bikes and hiking
>>> (essentially
>>> the same). Bike trails also had the lowest amount of soil loss. In
>>> short
>>> bike trails were in the best condition followed by hiking then horse
>>> then
>>> ATV trails. If nothing else, the report is invaluable just for the
>>> references.
>>>
>>> One thing I haven't seen on these discussion between hikers, horse
>>> riders,
>>> and mountain bikers is the spread of invasive weeds by horses into
>>> Natural
>>> and Wilderness Areas. Since horses are herbivores they have the
>>> potential
>>> to spread non-native plants (seeds) into new areas by defecation. This
>>> to
>>> me is far worse than any type of trail damage caused by hikers or
>>> bikers.
>>>
>>> Let the discussion and flaming begin!
>>>
>>> Pete Rissler
>>
>>
>>Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in
>>an
>>accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back
>>seat
>>to flaming.
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[MattB]

Pete Rissler wrote:
> "Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>All,
>> Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get
>>near enough attention, so I am reposting it:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Here's a recent study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey on trail use
>>in a National River and Recreation Area for the National Park Service.
>>
>>Here's a synopsis and link from the IMBA page
>>
>>http://www.imba.com/news/news_releases/05_06/05_12_nps_study.html
>>
>>Here's a link to the report, again off the IMBA page
>>
>>http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_nps_report.pdf
>>
>>Obviously since IMBA is linking to it, the report shows mountain biking in
>>a
>>favorable light at least being no different than the impact of hiking. ATV
>>and Horse trails were the worse degraded. Mountain Bikes had the
>>smallest
>>width and Cross Sectional Area than the other users (ATV, Horses) though
>>there was no significant difference between bikes and hiking (essentially
>>the same). Bike trails also had the lowest amount of soil loss. In short
>>bike trails were in the best condition followed by hiking then horse then
>>ATV trails. If nothing else, the report is invaluable just for the
>>references.
>>
>>One thing I haven't seen on these discussion between hikers, horse riders,
>>and mountain bikers is the spread of invasive weeds by horses into Natural
>>and Wilderness Areas. Since horses are herbivores they have the potential
>>to spread non-native plants (seeds) into new areas by defecation. This to
>>me is far worse than any type of trail damage caused by hikers or bikers.
>>
>>Let the discussion and flaming begin!
>>
>>Pete Rissler
>
>
>
> Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an
> accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat
> to flaming.

Nice work Pete. I think a reasonable approach to posting information can
get drowned out by all the other ****. I didn't see this the first time
around.
I look forward to giving it a throrough read when I have a chance.

Matt

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:32:02 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:48:51 -0700, "Pete Rissler"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> All,
>>>> Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get
>>>> near enough attention, so I am reposting it:
>>
>> I guess the reason it didn't get much attention is that it's LOUSY
>> research!
>>
>> It is not experimental, so it is impossible to determine the relative
>> impacts of different forms of recreation. It simply compares
>> trailsused "mostly" by certain user groups. It is impossible to
>> conclude anything meaningful from such research. In order to get
>> meaningful results, you have to compare measured impacts from equal
>> numbers of passes by specific user groups. If 100,000 hikers used the
>> hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking trail, no
>> useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail
>> conditions", as this "study" did.
>
>Wait a minute...! Here is research actually conducted by a recognized expert
>in the field contacted and published by the National Park Service in
>accordance with the Department of the Interior and you claim it is "lousy
>research"...?

Yes, it is. It doesn't prove what it claims to prove. In fact, it is
so uncontrolled that it proves NOTHING.

Could this be the green glow of jealosy...? After all, why
>weren't you contacted as an expert, right? Why weren't your findings
>referenced and quoted? Why wasn't Michael J. Vandeman, PhD, called out to
>Tennessee and Kentucky to offer "expert" assistance in assimilating the
>validity of method and research being done?

Because mountain bikers don't want their dishonesty/incompetence to be
exposed.

>Could it be that this research highlights many of the flaws of opinion in
>your own piece "The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"...?
>Could it be that you counter your own statements made just above "If 100,000
>hikers used the hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking
>trail, no
>useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail conditions", as
>this "study" did." with statements made previously about "distance" cyclists
>can travel? For example: "Even if we accepted their conclusions that impacts
>per mile are the same, it would follow that mountain bikers have several
>times the impact of hikers, since they are easily able to, and do, travel
>several times as far as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or 100 miles in a day!"
>Based on your own statements it would take less cyclists to create the
>impact of several hikers.

Yes, because mountain bikers have greater impacts.

You have also stated off-road cyclists are chasing
>other users out of the parks and off the trails so how can you use numbers
>of 100,000 hikers and only 10 bikers? These are hardly representative
>numbers of actual useage. You claim distance multiplies impact but than
>claim impacts can not be compared because of lack of numbers... ?
>Your opinions are showing again...
>
>>
>>>> Here's a recent study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey on trail
>>>> use
>>>> in a National River and Recreation Area for the National Park Service.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a synopsis and link from the IMBA page
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imba.com/news/news_releases/05_06/05_12_nps_study.html
>>>>
>>>> Here's a link to the report, again off the IMBA page
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_nps_report.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Obviously since IMBA is linking to it, the report shows mountain biking
>>>> in
>>>> a
>>>> favorable light at least being no different than the impact of hiking.
>>>> ATV
>>>> and Horse trails were the worse degraded. Mountain Bikes had the
>>>> smallest
>>>> width and Cross Sectional Area than the other users (ATV, Horses) though
>>>> there was no significant difference between bikes and hiking
>>>> (essentially
>>>> the same). Bike trails also had the lowest amount of soil loss. In
>>>> short
>>>> bike trails were in the best condition followed by hiking then horse
>>>> then
>>>> ATV trails. If nothing else, the report is invaluable just for the
>>>> references.
>>>>
>>>> One thing I haven't seen on these discussion between hikers, horse
>>>> riders,
>>>> and mountain bikers is the spread of invasive weeds by horses into
>>>> Natural
>>>> and Wilderness Areas. Since horses are herbivores they have the
>>>> potential
>>>> to spread non-native plants (seeds) into new areas by defecation. This
>>>> to
>>>> me is far worse than any type of trail damage caused by hikers or
>>>> bikers.
>>>>
>>>> Let the discussion and flaming begin!
>>>>
>>>> Pete Rissler
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in
>>>an
>>>accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back
>>>seat
>>>to flaming.
>> ===
>> 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.)
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:32:02 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> All,
>>>>> Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get
>>>>> near enough attention, so I am reposting it:
>>>
>>> I guess the reason it didn't get much attention is that it's LOUSY
>>> research!
>>>
>>> It is not experimental, so it is impossible to determine the relative
>>> impacts of different forms of recreation. It simply compares
>>> trailsused "mostly" by certain user groups. It is impossible to
>>> conclude anything meaningful from such research. In order to get
>>> meaningful results, you have to compare measured impacts from equal
>>> numbers of passes by specific user groups. If 100,000 hikers used the
>>> hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking trail, no
>>> useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail
>>> conditions", as this "study" did.
>>
>>Wait a minute...! Here is research actually conducted by a recognized
>>expert
>>in the field contacted and published by the National Park Service in
>>accordance with the Department of the Interior and you claim it is "lousy
>>research"...?
>
> Yes, it is. It doesn't prove what it claims to prove. In fact, it is
> so uncontrolled that it proves NOTHING.

Your opinion as a filter again.
>
> Could this be the green glow of jealosy...? After all, why
>>weren't you contacted as an expert, right? Why weren't your findings
>>referenced and quoted? Why wasn't Michael J. Vandeman, PhD, called out to
>>Tennessee and Kentucky to offer "expert" assistance in assimilating the
>>validity of method and research being done?
>
> Because mountain bikers don't want their dishonesty/incompetence to be
> exposed.

First of all, where does anything say this study was commissioned by or for
"mountain bikers".? Second, are you actually saying you personally were not
invited or consulted because of a "mountain biker" conspiracy...?
>
>>Could it be that this research highlights many of the flaws of opinion in
>>your own piece "The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"...?
>>Could it be that you counter your own statements made just above "If
>>100,000
>>hikers used the hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking
>>trail, no
>>useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail conditions",
>>as
>>this "study" did." with statements made previously about "distance"
>>cyclists
>>can travel? For example: "Even if we accepted their conclusions that
>>impacts
>>per mile are the same, it would follow that mountain bikers have several
>>times the impact of hikers, since they are easily able to, and do, travel
>>several times as far as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or 100 miles in a
>>day!"
>>Based on your own statements it would take less cyclists to create the
>>impact of several hikers.
>
> Yes, because mountain bikers have greater impacts.

Thanks, finally, for answering the direct questions: "Could it be that this
research highlights many of the flaws of opinion in your own piece "The
Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"...? and "Could it be that
you counter your own statements made just above...?"

And thanks, also, for completely disregarding the remaining context
below....
>
> You have also stated off-road cyclists are chasing
>>other users out of the parks and off the trails so how can you use numbers
>>of 100,000 hikers and only 10 bikers? These are hardly representative
>>numbers of actual useage. You claim distance multiplies impact but then
>>claim impacts can not be compared because of lack of numbers... ?
>>Your opinions are showing again...
>>
>>>

 

[BB]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:48:51 -0700, Pete Rissler wrote:

> Maybe I need to put words in like liar, idiots, stupid, etc. and write in an
> accusatory tone to elicit a response. Looks like science takes a back seat
> to flaming.

Its just that we've heard so many of these things over the years that its
old news. The few people who refuse to believe it will always find some
way to rationalize that its wrong; everyone else already knows better.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:09:42 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:32:02 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not get
>>>>>> near enough attention, so I am reposting it:
>>>>
>>>> I guess the reason it didn't get much attention is that it's LOUSY
>>>> research!
>>>>
>>>> It is not experimental, so it is impossible to determine the relative
>>>> impacts of different forms of recreation. It simply compares
>>>> trailsused "mostly" by certain user groups. It is impossible to
>>>> conclude anything meaningful from such research. In order to get
>>>> meaningful results, you have to compare measured impacts from equal
>>>> numbers of passes by specific user groups. If 100,000 hikers used the
>>>> hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking trail, no
>>>> useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail
>>>> conditions", as this "study" did.
>>>
>>>Wait a minute...! Here is research actually conducted by a recognized
>>>expert
>>>in the field contacted and published by the National Park Service in
>>>accordance with the Department of the Interior and you claim it is "lousy
>>>research"...?
>>
>> Yes, it is. It doesn't prove what it claims to prove. In fact, it is
>> so uncontrolled that it proves NOTHING.
>
>Your opinion as a filter again.
>>
>> Could this be the green glow of jealosy...? After all, why
>>>weren't you contacted as an expert, right? Why weren't your findings
>>>referenced and quoted? Why wasn't Michael J. Vandeman, PhD, called out to
>>>Tennessee and Kentucky to offer "expert" assistance in assimilating the
>>>validity of method and research being done?
>>
>> Because mountain bikers don't want their dishonesty/incompetence to be
>> exposed.
>
>First of all, where does anything say this study was commissioned by or for
>"mountain bikers".?

It's OBVIOUS. They are the ONLY people interested in justifying
mountain biking. DUH!

Second, are you actually saying you personally were not
>invited or consulted because of a "mountain biker" conspiracy...?
>>
>>>Could it be that this research highlights many of the flaws of opinion in
>>>your own piece "The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"...?
>>>Could it be that you counter your own statements made just above "If
>>>100,000
>>>hikers used the hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking
>>>trail, no
>>>useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail conditions",
>>>as
>>>this "study" did." with statements made previously about "distance"
>>>cyclists
>>>can travel? For example: "Even if we accepted their conclusions that
>>>impacts
>>>per mile are the same, it would follow that mountain bikers have several
>>>times the impact of hikers, since they are easily able to, and do, travel
>>>several times as far as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or 100 miles in a
>>>day!"
>>>Based on your own statements it would take less cyclists to create the
>>>impact of several hikers.
>>
>> Yes, because mountain bikers have greater impacts.
>
>Thanks, finally, for answering the direct questions: "Could it be that this
>research highlights many of the flaws of opinion in your own piece "The
>Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"...?

BS. There ARE no flaws.

and "Could it be that
>you counter your own statements made just above...?"
>
>And thanks, also, for completely disregarding the remaining context
>below....
>>
>> You have also stated off-road cyclists are chasing
>>>other users out of the parks and off the trails so how can you use numbers
>>>of 100,000 hikers and only 10 bikers? These are hardly representative
>>>numbers of actual useage. You claim distance multiplies impact but then
>>>claim impacts can not be compared because of lack of numbers... ?
>>>Your opinions are showing again...
>>>
>>>>
>
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:09:42 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:32:02 -0400, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Chris Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>> Here is a artical originally posted by Pete Rissler. It did not
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> near enough attention, so I am reposting it:
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess the reason it didn't get much attention is that it's LOUSY
>>>>> research!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not experimental, so it is impossible to determine the relative
>>>>> impacts of different forms of recreation. It simply compares
>>>>> trailsused "mostly" by certain user groups. It is impossible to
>>>>> conclude anything meaningful from such research. In order to get
>>>>> meaningful results, you have to compare measured impacts from equal
>>>>> numbers of passes by specific user groups. If 100,000 hikers used the
>>>>> hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain biking trail, no
>>>>> useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail
>>>>> conditions", as this "study" did.
>>>>
>>>>Wait a minute...! Here is research actually conducted by a recognized
>>>>expert
>>>>in the field contacted and published by the National Park Service in
>>>>accordance with the Department of the Interior and you claim it is
>>>>"lousy
>>>>research"...?
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. It doesn't prove what it claims to prove. In fact, it is
>>> so uncontrolled that it proves NOTHING.
>>
>>Your opinion as a filter again.

Your silence here speaks VOLUMES!
>>>
>>> Could this be the green glow of jealosy...? After all, why
>>>>weren't you contacted as an expert, right? Why weren't your findings
>>>>referenced and quoted? Why wasn't Michael J. Vandeman, PhD, called out
>>>>to
>>>>Tennessee and Kentucky to offer "expert" assistance in assimilating the
>>>>validity of method and research being done?
>>>
>>> Because mountain bikers don't want their dishonesty/incompetence to be
>>> exposed.
>>
>>First of all, where does anything say this study was commissioned by or
>>for
>>"mountain bikers".?
>
> It's OBVIOUS. They are the ONLY people interested in justifying
> mountain biking. DUH!
"This assessment was initiated in response to concerns by park staff and the
public regarding the possible environmental impacts associated with BSF
trail uses."
Now - You show ANYWHERE in this paper that "mountain bikers" commissioned
this study for the purpose you just stated.
Either do so, or ADMIT your statement "It's OBVIOUS" is a direct reflection
of your OPINION and a LIE attempting to discredit the findings AND the real
and accredited researchers who authored the piece.
>
> Second, are you actually saying you personally were not
>>invited or consulted because of a "mountain biker" conspiracy...?
>>>
>>>>Could it be that this research highlights many of the flaws of opinion
>>>>in
>>>>your own piece "The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and
>>>>People"...?
>>>>Could it be that you counter your own statements made just above "If
>>>>100,000
>>>>hikers used the hiking trail & 10 mountain bikers used the mountain
>>>>biking
>>>>trail, no
>>>>useful information can be gleaned from comparing the" trail conditions",
>>>>as
>>>>this "study" did." with statements made previously about "distance"
>>>>cyclists
>>>>can travel? For example: "Even if we accepted their conclusions that
>>>>impacts
>>>>per mile are the same, it would follow that mountain bikers have several
>>>>times the impact of hikers, since they are easily able to, and do,
>>>>travel
>>>>several times as far as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or 100 miles in a
>>>>day!"
>>>>Based on your own statements it would take less cyclists to create the
>>>>impact of several hikers.
>>>
>>> Yes, because mountain bikers have greater impacts.
>>
>>Thanks, finally, for answering the direct questions: "Could it be that
>>this
>>research highlights many of the flaws of opinion in your own piece "The
>>Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People"...?
>
> BS. There ARE no flaws.

Who says...? Come on! Tell us which other expert or authority makes this
statement concerning your article. You making the statement is
MEANINGLESS!!!!
>
> and "Could it be that
>>you counter your own statements made just above...?"
>>
>>And thanks, also, for completely disregarding the remaining context
>>below....
>>>
>>> You have also stated off-road cyclists are chasing
>>>>other users out of the parks and off the trails so how can you use
>>>>numbers
>>>>of 100,000 hikers and only 10 bikers? These are hardly representative
>>>>numbers of actual useage. You claim distance multiplies impact but then
>>>>claim impacts can not be compared because of lack of numbers... ?
>>>>Your opinions are showing again...
>>>>
??? Can not reply to what is so OBVIOUS...?? Your silence again speaks
VOLUMES!