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

Mike Vandeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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.

Hmmm, published in peer-reviewed journals, or presented at conferences
(which, by your own logic, is plenty enough peer-review) - looks
plenty scientific to me.  Of course, your assertion (without any shred
of logic, much less proof) otherwise notwithstanding.
  
> .> .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.

Actually, you haven't.  You have *claimed* to have rebutted them, but
without a link to a specific rebuttal, we'll just call this a lie on
your part.

> They ignore distance & speed travelled. They
> don't use realistic comparisons (e.g. typical speeds).

I'd ignore speed travelled as well.  Speed has nothing to do with
anything.

Distance, however, is a valid point.  You're adding a volume-of-use
metric which is a very useful tool in describing and mitigating
potential damage.  After all, as the volume-of-use approaches zero, so
does the negative impacts of the use.

Because you have introduced a volume-of-use metric, we can now see
where your real efforts should be directed.  Since there are so many
more hikers than mountain bikers, it makes much more sense to ban
hikers from the trails, if one is concerned with mitigating damage.
 
> .>   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.

No, not obvious.  In fact, the studies suggest otherwise.  Some of
those studies, which are even in your field of study, suggest that
mountain biking as a cause of greater damage is more a perceptual
issue than a real one.

If you wish to rebut that, you should bring facts and figures, and not
more handwaving.

>  
> .> .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.

Circular logic is not persuasive.  Your opinion on how one *should*
see nature is not universal, nor should it be.

> You would be walking.

There are some folks who think that they can see nature from inside a
car.  Or a tour bus.  Or an airplane.  Your opinion on what is or is
not "seeing nature" has no value to anyone but yourself.

> And looking at
> nature.

I do more than look.  I listen (mountain bikes are quiet, you know)
and I experience the scents only found away from a lot of people - in
the woods, off the tarmac.

> Instead, you spend your time trying not to crash.

You'll have to show video to prove that.  Your declarative statement
is untrue.  I guess that means that you have just lied.  So much for
"telling the truth about mountain biking."
 
>   I guess your blanket
> .statement was in error, yes?  Or were you purposefully lying?

No response?  I've caught you in several lies now.  Hard to take the
high road when you don't tell the truth...

> .> 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.

To what level?  The streets that carry the trucks that supply your
grocery store?  The dam that provides the electricity for your
computer?  The timber used in the construction of your house?

I notice that when you want, you can be very specific to the metric
you wish to use, but when it suits your position, you are very
general.  Most educated people consider this to be what is known as
"junk science."
  
> .> .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.

"Reducing negative impacts" is a very general goal.  You would have
more effect by turning off your computer, and not using that
electricity.  Or by avoiding going out in the woods, since hiking has
negative impacts.  No, I support "hiker-free" access, because hikers
cause much more damage, since there are so many of them.  So, if you
really want to reduce impacts, you would join me in supporting
"hiker-free" access.
  
> .>   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


Proof?
--
Jonesy