Re: "Scientific" "Studies" of Mountain Biking (was Re: MV rational (was Re: Mike Vandeman))

On 1 Dec 2003 10:00:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonesy) wrote:

.Mike Vandeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
.> On 21 Nov 2003 17:30:19 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Liberty) wrote:
.> 
.> .The fact is, Mike, that any trail _is_ erosion. 
.> 
.> Of course. And mountain biking ACCELERATES erosion and adds ADDITIONAL erosion.
.
.No more than hiking, per the studies.

If they were scientific studies, yes, but they AREN'T! Since you haven't read
them, you don't know.
 
.> .The research studies that you have dismissed are repeatable & valid,
.> .and
.> .are only meant to prove that that Mt Biking is no more damaging than
.> .hiking
.> .per each trail use.
.> 
.> I can see thta you haven't even READ those "studies", or you wouldn't make such
.> a wildly stupid statement.
.
.Interesting that you aren't specific in your criticism.  The irony is
.that you repeated whine that folks aren't specific when they criticize
.*your* "studies."
.
.Specifically detail where the studies are lacking.

I have done that dozens of times. They ignore distance & speed travelled. They
don't use realistic comparisons (e.g. typical speeds).
 
.>   No one suggests that is impact free.  We also
.> .know that
.> .a half ton horse/rider with steel hoofs is more than 10 times worse.
.> 
.> That depends on how far & how often they ride. Mountain bikers do A LOT more
.> damage.
.
.Unsupported assertion.

But obvious.
 
.> .But getting low-impact human traffic onto trails is what generates
.> .interest
.> .for your cause:  make trails, gain exposure.  Gain exposure, gain
.> .interest.
.> 
.> Interest in WHAT? Mountain bikers are interested ONLY in mountain biking access.
.
.Really?  I'm interested in seeing nature.

BS. If you were, you wouldn't be on a bike. You would be walking. And looking at
nature. Instead, you spend your time trying not to crash.

  I guess your blanket
.statement was in error, yes?  Or were you purposefully lying?
.
.> They are ABSENT whenever conservation decisions are being made. Or they are
.> OPPOSING conservation.
.
.Only as you define conservation.  Conservation from development? 
.Conservation from clear-cutting?  From strip-mining?

Conservation from habitat destruction.
 
.> .Without interest in keeping roads out, they inevitabley follow.  
.> .According to your website, that's what you're
.> .trying to prevent.  So it seems that you should team up with Mt
.> .Bikers,
.> .as they are allies, not enemies.
.> 
.> Prove it, by supporting bike-free access.
.
.Why?  I don't want bike-free access.  That doesn't make sense, as it
.does nothing to help conservation.  Unless conservation is defined as
."hiker-only."

It reduces negative impacts.
 
.>   Mountain bikers are addicted to the
.> .wilds, and would fight to preserve them right along side of you.
.> 
.> You obviously haven't a clue what "preserve" means!
.
.He doesn't have a clue as to what *you* mean by "preserve."  Your
.definition is different from everyone elses', so it makes it difficult
.for others to understand.

BS. The vast majority agree that bikes don't belong in wilderness. QED
===
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