Vandeman a fraud and professional failure
The Gist
attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
a new thread.
Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to this
post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
journals from any field.
Mike Vandeman
.This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
.attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
.a new thread.
.Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
.(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
.research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
.paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
.journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
.scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
.unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
.appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
.Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to this
.post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
.journals from any field.
First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in peer-reviewed
journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt it.
===
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.)
GaryG
news:fgna8152jggpddrsg...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:32:42 GMT, The Gist <not...@valid.net> wrote:
>
> .This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
> .attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
> .a new thread.
> .Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
> .(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
> .research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
> .paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
> .journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
> .scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
> .unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
> .appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
> .Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to this
> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
> .journals from any field.
>
> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in peer-reviewed
> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt it.
Mikey - you're the one making all these claims for expertise. Therefore, it
is incumbent upon you to establish your bona fides.
The fact that you're trying to change the subject here is very revealing
(and, for a supposed "scientist", quite immature).
GG
TJ
Typical "Wanna Be" Enviro. DUH!!
TJ
BarryNL
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:32:42 GMT, The Gist <not...@valid.net> wrote:
>
> .This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
> .attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
> .a new thread.
> .Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
> .(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
> .research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
> .paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
> .journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
> .scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
> .unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
> .appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
> .Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to this
> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
> .journals from any field.
>
> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in peer-reviewed
> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt it.
I think that tells us everything we need to know. For a real academic it
would have been so easy to just throw in half a dozen references and win
this argument, making "The Gist" look stupid. The fact that you cannot
do this means I think we can assume you have no academic record of any
kind, until some evidence to the contrary emerges.
By the way, I don't have a Ph.D in psychology but I have actually
studied psychology at university and I'm still waiting for a response
from you on some of the psychological issues I raised in earlier posts.
Unless you provide some evidence of psychological knowledge, I think we
can assume your Ph.D is non-existant as well, "Mr" Vandeman.
Mark
Very interesting.
You are suggesting unless someone has done the thing they talk about, they
cannot have a valid opinion on it?
How , then, can you claim to be the worlds expert on mountain biking?
Unless you are a mountain biker of course......
jtaylor
"The Gist" <not...@valid.net> wrote in message
news:KGbhe.1657$Iw1.591@trnddc03...
> This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
> attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
> a new thread.
> Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
> (See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
> research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
> paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
> journal.
Is this really true?
The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
Is this trip REALLY necessary?
Vandeman. He's just a pathetic old fool with a very bitter and sad view of
life and all that it is and can be. His ridiculous crusade is impotent,
without any meaning, and of absolutely no worth beyond his own selfish
self-serving interests. If nothing else, he has proven without any doubt
the he is beyond any kind of reasoning with, beyond seeing past his own
ignorance and prejudice, and certainly is incapable of seeing anything
beyond his own twisted delusions of reality. This much should be obvious to
anyone from the classic newbie that reads one of his posts and subsequent
replies for the first time right down to those that have seen it throughout
the years. Does anyone seriously think they're ever going to change his
mind about anything? That you're going to see him accept any viewpoint
other than his own on any subject? Of course not. Anyone who has tried
knows that such attempts are utterly futile and a complete waste of time,
and just as futile as his attempts to have anyone accept his knowledge on
any subject as being anything other than worthless, much less from that of
an expert. However, he is an expert in one area; He is a master expert when
it comes to provoking and manipulating people into replying to his posts
and starting new threads about him. It's not about nature or mountain
biking. He doesn't care one damn bit about either of those things. All he
cares about is how much he can provoke people into replying so he can carry
on with his one sided arguments. Pity him, feel sorry or him, for that is
his life, as sad as it is. But JTDC don't play into his little game. All
you're doing is feeding his arrogant, obnoxious, attitude and giving him
exactly what he wants. Pointless, isn't it?
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
No sig. No E-mail. Make of it what you wish.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> I don't know why some people are so intent on arguing with this Mike
> Vandeman. He's just a pathetic old fool with a very bitter and sad view of
> life and all that it is and can be. His ridiculous crusade is impotent,
> without any meaning, and of absolutely no worth beyond his own selfish
> self-serving interests.
Before we argued, the above truths were not obvious to the innocent
bystander.
Now some of us argue because, like any other bigot, his hate-speech
should not go unchallenged.
--
Guy
di
"Is this trip REALLY necessary?" <noneo...@business.not> wrote in message
news:Xns9656660414...@199.45.49.11...
>I don't know why some people are so intent on arguing with this Mike
> Vandeman. He's just a pathetic old fool with a very bitter and sad view of
> life and all that it is and can be. His ridiculous crusade is impotent,
> without any meaning, and of absolutely no worth beyond his own selfish
> self-serving interests. If nothing else, he has proven without any doubt
> the he is beyond any kind of reasoning with, beyond seeing past his own
> ignorance and prejudice, and certainly is incapable of seeing anything
> beyond his own twisted delusions of reality. This much should be obvious
> to
> anyone from the classic newbie that reads one of his posts and subsequent
> replies for the first time right down to those that have seen it
> throughout
> the years. Does anyone seriously think they're ever going to change his
> mind about anything?
I don't think anyone would ever think they are going to change his mind,
replying to him is just entertainment and something to do when not much else
is going on. No sensible person would ever take him seriously enough to
argue with him in an effort to change anything.
Mike Vandeman
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:fgna8152jggpddrsg...@4ax.com...
.> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:32:42 GMT, The Gist <not...@valid.net> wrote:
.>
.> .This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
.> .attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
.> .a new thread.
.> .Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
.> .(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
.> .research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
.> .paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
.> .journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
.> .scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
.> .unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
.> .appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
.> .Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to this
.> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
.> .journals from any field.
.>
.> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in peer-reviewed
.> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt it.
.
.Mikey - you're the one making all these claims for expertise. Therefore, it
.is incumbent upon you to establish your bona fides.
I already did: Ph.D.
.The fact that you're trying to change the subject here is very revealing
.(and, for a supposed "scientist", quite immature).
.
.GG
.
.> ===
.> 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
.
Mike Vandeman
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:32:42 GMT, The Gist <not...@valid.net> wrote:
.>
.> .This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
.> .attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
.> .a new thread.
.> .Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
.> .(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
.> .research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
.> .paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
.> .journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
.> .scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
.> .unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
.> .appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
.> .Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to this
.> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
.> .journals from any field.
.>
.> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in peer-reviewed
.> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt it.
.
.I think that tells us everything we need to know. For a real academic it
.would have been so easy to just throw in half a dozen references and win
.this argument, making "The Gist" look stupid. The fact that you cannot
.do this means I think we can assume you have no academic record of any
.kind, until some evidence to the contrary emerges.
.
.By the way, I don't have a Ph.D in psychology but I have actually
.studied psychology at university and I'm still waiting for a response
.from you on some of the psychological issues I raised in earlier posts.
.Unless you provide some evidence of psychological knowledge, I think we
.can assume your Ph.D is non-existant as well, "Mr" Vandeman.
Did you say something?
Mike Vandeman
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:fgna8152jggpddrsg...@4ax.com...
.> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:32:42 GMT, The Gist <not...@valid.net> wrote:
.>
.> .This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
.> .attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
.> .a new thread.
.> .Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
.> .(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
.> .research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
.> .paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
.> .journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
.> .scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
.> .unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
.> .appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
.> .Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to this
.> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
.> .journals from any field.
.>
.> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in peer-reviewed
.> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt it.
.> ===
.> 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
.
.Very interesting.
.
.You are suggesting unless someone has done the thing they talk about, they
.cannot have a valid opinion on it?
.
.How , then, can you claim to be the worlds expert on mountain biking?
.
.Unless you are a mountain biker of course......
.
I rode a mountain bike once. That was enough. See my web site.
Mike Vandeman
<jta...@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote:
.
."The Gist" <not...@valid.net> wrote in message
.news:KGbhe.1657$Iw1.591@trnddc03...
.> This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
.> attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
.> a new thread.
.> Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
.> (See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
.> research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
.> paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
.> journal.
.
.Is this really true?
.
.The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
.ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
I never claimed to be a scientist. DUH!
Mike Vandeman
<noneo...@business.not> wrote:
.I don't know why some people are so intent on arguing with this Mike
.Vandeman.
Then why are YOU doing it, hypocrite?
He's just a pathetic old fool with a very bitter and sad view of
.life and all that it is and can be. His ridiculous crusade is impotent,
.without any meaning, and of absolutely no worth beyond his own selfish
.self-serving interests. If nothing else, he has proven without any doubt
.the he is beyond any kind of reasoning with, beyond seeing past his own
.ignorance and prejudice, and certainly is incapable of seeing anything
.beyond his own twisted delusions of reality. This much should be obvious to
.anyone from the classic newbie that reads one of his posts and subsequent
.replies for the first time right down to those that have seen it throughout
.the years. Does anyone seriously think they're ever going to change his
.mind about anything? That you're going to see him accept any viewpoint
.other than his own on any subject? Of course not. Anyone who has tried
.knows that such attempts are utterly futile and a complete waste of time,
.and just as futile as his attempts to have anyone accept his knowledge on
.any subject as being anything other than worthless, much less from that of
.an expert. However, he is an expert in one area; He is a master expert when
.it comes to provoking and manipulating people into replying to his posts
.and starting new threads about him.
Like you just did! Hypocrite.
It's not about nature or mountain
.biking. He doesn't care one damn bit about either of those things. All he
.cares about is how much he can provoke people into replying so he can carry
.on with his one sided arguments. Pity him, feel sorry or him, for that is
.his life, as sad as it is. But JTDC don't play into his little game. All
.you're doing is feeding his arrogant, obnoxious, attitude and giving him
.exactly what he wants. Pointless, isn't it?
.
."Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
.
.No sig. No E-mail. Make of it what you wish.
Worthless, since you are afraid to give your real name.
Mike Vandeman
.
."Is this trip REALLY necessary?" <noneo...@business.not> wrote in message
.news:Xns9656660414...@199.45.49.11...
.>I don't know why some people are so intent on arguing with this Mike
.> Vandeman. He's just a pathetic old fool with a very bitter and sad view of
.> life and all that it is and can be. His ridiculous crusade is impotent,
.> without any meaning, and of absolutely no worth beyond his own selfish
.> self-serving interests. If nothing else, he has proven without any doubt
.> the he is beyond any kind of reasoning with, beyond seeing past his own
.> ignorance and prejudice, and certainly is incapable of seeing anything
.> beyond his own twisted delusions of reality. This much should be obvious
.> to
.> anyone from the classic newbie that reads one of his posts and subsequent
.> replies for the first time right down to those that have seen it
.> throughout
.> the years. Does anyone seriously think they're ever going to change his
.> mind about anything?
.
.I don't think anyone would ever think they are going to change his mind,
.replying to him is just entertainment and something to do when not much else
.is going on. No sensible person would ever take him seriously enough to
.argue with him in an effort to change anything.
Then what are you doing? Idiot.
Mike Vandeman
you know?) wrote:
.Is this trip REALLY necessary? <noneo...@business.not> wrote:
.
.> I don't know why some people are so intent on arguing with this Mike
.> Vandeman. He's just a pathetic old fool with a very bitter and sad view of
.> life and all that it is and can be. His ridiculous crusade is impotent,
.> without any meaning, and of absolutely no worth beyond his own selfish
.> self-serving interests.
.
.Before we argued, the above truths were not obvious to the innocent
.bystander.
.
.Now some of us argue because, like any other bigot, his hate-speech
.should not go unchallenged.
Proving that you can't learn from your mistakes.
bic...@charter.net
Yeah, he said "Provide as a reply to this
post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
journals from any field."
Put up or shut up.
Mark
By that reasoning then, with your superhuman powers of deduction and
information assimilation, you could take one aspirin and be able to
formulate a cure for cancer.
ray
than he is, and that people are interested in his opinion, no matter
how absurd, poorly thought out or loudly yelled. Every time some body
replies to his goading, it makes him feel important and like somebody
gives a damn about his opinion. just stop paying him any attention what
so ever. It works with my two year old and both of my dogs, should work
on him.
Rick Courtright
> This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
> attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
> a new thread.
It doesn't take very much energy for me to find something better to do
than feed this troll. He's been spewing his nonsense for years (a friend
warned me of "Mike Venom-man" who knows how long ago?), and apparently
won't go away on his own, but to encourage him further seems a total
waste of all resources involved. Killfiles and delete keys are good
things.
Rick
Gary S.
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:14:47 -0700, "GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>
>.Mikey - you're the one making all these claims for expertise. Therefore, it
>.is incumbent upon you to establish your bona fides.
>
>I already did: Ph.D.
>
And nothing since then? That was about 30 years ago. Real scientists
continue to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and advance their
knowledge with new information. Real scientists stay with their field
of expertise, and do not spout off on every other topic with a claim
of their PhD making them expert on that as well.
How come more people do not get the Omni PhD (tm) like you did, making
them expert in everything?
Your PhD as used now seems to be nothing more than an attempt at
intimidation. It certainly is not relevant to your crusade.
You have gone from the statistical approach you apparently used for
your PhD, to now just KNOWING the TRUTH about everything.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Gary S.
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:40:35 -0300, "jtaylor"
><jta...@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote:
>
>.The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
>.ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
>
>I never claimed to be a scientist. DUH!
>
Yes, you have. Many, many times.
Anyone in the world could go to Google Groups, and look for messages
from you with the words science or scientist. Plenty of PROOF there,
in your own words, which I have not, cannot possibly filter or alter
in any way.
Were you LYING then, or are you LYING now?
And what is throwing around a PhD supposed to mean in a completely
unrelated field?
pmhilton
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>
>>Did you say something?
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, he said "Provide as a reply to this
>post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
>journals from any field."
>
>Put up or shut up.
>
>
>
He can't do the former & refuses to do the latter. You're attempting
rational discourse with an irrational being.
Pete H
--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero
pmhilton
>The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
>ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
>
Apparently not one single thing.
Gary S.
>jtaylor wrote:
>
>>The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
>>ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
>>
>Apparently not one single thing.
>
>Pete H
If you look at the topic of his PhD dissertation, he did not exactly
push forward the boundaries of human knowledge then, either.
Food taste preferences of different ethnic groups?
BarryNL
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:58:00 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:14:47 -0700, "GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>>
>>.Mikey - you're the one making all these claims for expertise. Therefore, it
>>.is incumbent upon you to establish your bona fides.
>>
>>I already did: Ph.D.
>>
>
> And nothing since then? That was about 30 years ago. Real scientists
> continue to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and advance their
> knowledge with new information. Real scientists stay with their field
> of expertise, and do not spout off on every other topic with a claim
> of their PhD making them expert on that as well.
>
> How come more people do not get the Omni PhD (tm) like you did, making
> them expert in everything?
>
> Your PhD as used now seems to be nothing more than an attempt at
> intimidation. It certainly is not relevant to your crusade.
>
> You have gone from the statistical approach you apparently used for
> your PhD, to now just KNOWING the TRUTH about everything.
This is exactly why I do not believe Mr Vandeman has a Ph.D in
psychology. Statistics is the basis of most psychology, especially at
the time Mr V. was supposedly studying when behaviourist psychology was
at the fore. Anyone who had studied psychology to the level Mr V. claims
to have done would live and breathe the accepted statistical practices
and methods of interpretation.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote in message <tsbc81do3pc7ka9av...@4ax.com>:
>.Now some of us argue because, like any other bigot, his hate-speech
>.should not go unchallenged.
>Proving that you can't learn from your mistakes.
So you say. But thus far you seem to be rather a long way behind on
points...
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
di
> .replying to him is just entertainment and something to do when not much
> else
> .is going on. No sensible person would ever take him seriously enough
> to
> .argue with him in an effort to change anything.
>
> Then what are you doing? Idiot.
> ===
I'm certainly not trying to change your mind about anything, like I said
earlier you're entertainment. A toy to wind up and see what your reaction
will be when you reply, but unfortunately it's usually always the same,
"Liar", "Idiot", "Duh". I really don't want to see you become a sensible
person, the way you are now makes you one of mountain biking's best assets
because people can see what a radical environmentalist "want-to-be" is
really like. Keep being a jerk, I enjoy rattling your cage from time to
time.
BarryNL
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:27:21 -0400, pmhilton <pmhi...@mfx.net> wrote:
>
>
>>jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
>>>ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
>>>
>>
>>Apparently not one single thing.
>>
>>Pete H
>
>
> If you look at the topic of his PhD dissertation, he did not exactly
> push forward the boundaries of human knowledge then, either.
>
> Food taste preferences of different ethnic groups?
But has anyone actually verified that Mr V. really did this study and
actually does hold a Ph.D? In psychology? I'm further surprised that
this would even be considered a valid topic for a Ph.D in psychology. I
suppose if the focus was on how culture influences taste preference then
this could be a social science issue but it's still on the very borders
of psychology.
di
"BarryNL" <not...@coffeeshops.nl> wrote in message
news:42867953$0$64519$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
?
>
> But has anyone actually verified that Mr V. really did this study and
> actually does hold a Ph.D? In psychology? I'm further surprised that this
> would even be considered a valid topic for a Ph.D in psychology. I suppose
> if the focus was on how culture influences taste preference then this
> could be a social science issue but it's still on the very borders of
> psychology.
PhD = Phucking Dork, (Mike's only degree)
Gary S.
wrote:
>Gary S. wrote:
>
>> If you look at the topic of his PhD dissertation, he did not exactly
>> push forward the boundaries of human knowledge then, either.
>>
>> Food taste preferences of different ethnic groups?
>
>But has anyone actually verified that Mr V. really did this study and
>actually does hold a Ph.D? In psychology? I'm further surprised that
>this would even be considered a valid topic for a Ph.D in psychology. I
>suppose if the focus was on how culture influences taste preference then
>this could be a social science issue but it's still on the very borders
>of psychology.
This has been looked up before by several people as incredulous as you
are, that a PhD would be awarded to such a person with such poor
scientific reasoning.
Vandeman, Michael Joseph, 1943-
Highest degree: PhD in psychology, 1973
Degree granted by: University of California at Los Angeles PhD
DISSERTATION, at UCLA
"Chemical description of food taste preferences among Black-,
Japanese-, and Mexican-Americans derived by means of nonmetric
multidimensional scaling".
But he has worked for a number of years as a Systems Analyst for
PacBell.
di
"Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
news:un4d81td0cd71svo4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:19:35 +0200, BarryNL <not...@coffeeshops.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>Gary S. wrote:
>>
>
> Vandeman, Michael Joseph, 1943-
> Highest degree: PhD in psychology, 1973
> Degree granted by: University of California at Los Angeles PhD
> DISSERTATION, at UCLA
> "Chemical description of food taste preferences among Black-,
> Japanese-, and Mexican-Americans derived by means of nonmetric
> multidimensional scaling".
Looks like another professional student to avoid the Vietnam Draft, just
stay in school long enough until they had to give him some kind of degree.
Mike Vandeman
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:36:36 +0200, BarryNL <not...@coffeeshops.nl>
.wrote:
.>
.> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:32:42 GMT, The Gist <not...@valid.net>
.wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give
.it the
.> .> .attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am
.starting
.> .> .a new thread.
.> .> .Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of
.study.
.> .> .(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
.> .> .research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a
.single
.> .> .paper of any sort which has been published in any academic
.peer-reviewed
.> .> .journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
.> .> .scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
.> .> .unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
.
.> .> .appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
.> .> .Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply
.to this
.> .> .post all of your papers which have been published in
.peer-reviewed
.> .> .journals from any field.
.> .>
.> .> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in
.peer-reviewed
.> .> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I
.doubt it.
.> .
.> .I think that tells us everything we need to know. For a real
.academic it
.> .would have been so easy to just throw in half a dozen references and
.win
.> .this argument, making "The Gist" look stupid. The fact that you
.cannot
.> .do this means I think we can assume you have no academic record of
.any
.> .kind, until some evidence to the contrary emerges.
.> .
.> .By the way, I don't have a Ph.D in psychology but I have actually
.> .studied psychology at university and I'm still waiting for a
.response
.> .from you on some of the psychological issues I raised in earlier
.posts.
.> .Unless you provide some evidence of psychological knowledge, I think
.we
.> .can assume your Ph.D is non-existant as well, "Mr" Vandeman.
.>
.> Did you say something?
.
.Yeah, he said "Provide as a reply to this
.post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
.journals from any field."
Why? That has NOTHING to do with its validity. But, hey, thanks for
demonstrating your TOTAL ignorance of science.
.Put up or shut up.
Mike Vandeman
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:mlbc815epgq56grr1...@4ax.com...
.> On Sat, 14 May 2005 10:48:26 GMT, "Mark" <mbtr...@blueyonder.co.uk>
.wrote:
.>
.> .
.> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.> .news:fgna8152jggpddrsg...@4ax.com...
.> .> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:32:42 GMT, The Gist <not...@valid.net> wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
.> .> .attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am
.starting
.> .> .a new thread.
.> .> .Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of
.study.
.> .> .(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
.> .> .research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
.> .> .paper of any sort which has been published in any academic
.peer-reviewed
.> .> .journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
.> .> .scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
.> .> .unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
.> .> .appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
.> .> .Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to
.this
.> .> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
.> .> .journals from any field.
.> .>
.> .> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in
.peer-reviewed
.> .> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt
.it.
.> .> ===
.> .> 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
.> .
.> .Very interesting.
.> .
.> .You are suggesting unless someone has done the thing they talk about,
.they
.> .cannot have a valid opinion on it?
.> .
.> .How , then, can you claim to be the worlds expert on mountain biking?
.> .
.> .Unless you are a mountain biker of course......
.> .
.>
.> I rode a mountain bike once. That was enough. See my web site.
.> ===
.> 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
.
.By that reasoning then, with your superhuman powers of deduction and
.information assimilation, you could take one aspirin and be able to
.formulate a cure for cancer.
You have totally failed to provide a single quote from my papers about mountain
biking that's not true.
Mike Vandeman
.Look, its as simple as this about mike, he likes to feel more important
.than he is, and that people are interested in his opinion, no matter
.how absurd, poorly thought out or loudly yelled. Every time some body
.replies to his goading, it makes him feel important and like somebody
.gives a damn about his opinion. just stop paying him any attention what
.so ever. It works with my two year old and both of my dogs, should work
.on him.
Very funny. I could care less whether you respond or not. Either you try to
refute me and fail, or you don't even try. What difference does it
make?????????????? NONE.
Mike Vandeman
.On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:01:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote:
.
.>On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:40:35 -0300, "jtaylor"
.><jta...@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote:
.>
.>.The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
.>.ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
.>
.>I never claimed to be a scientist. DUH!
.>
.Yes, you have. Many, many times.
.
.Anyone in the world could go to Google Groups, and look for messages
.from you with the words science or scientist. Plenty of PROOF there,
.in your own words, which I have not, cannot possibly filter or alter
.in any way.
But somehow you are incapable of providing even ONE instance, proving you a
LIAR.
.Were you LYING then, or are you LYING now?
.
.And what is throwing around a PhD supposed to mean in a completely
.unrelated field?
Psychology is VERY relevant to mountain biking addiction. DUH!
.Happy trails,
.Gary (net.yogi.bear)
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:04:17 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote in message <tsbc81do3pc7ka9av...@4ax.com>:
.
.>.Now some of us argue because, like any other bigot, his hate-speech
.>.should not go unchallenged.
.
.>Proving that you can't learn from your mistakes.
.
.So you say. But thus far you seem to be rather a long way behind on
.points...
Very funny.
.Guy
Mike Vandeman
.On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:58:00 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote:
.
.>On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:14:47 -0700, "GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
.>
.>.Mikey - you're the one making all these claims for expertise. Therefore, it
.>.is incumbent upon you to establish your bona fides.
.>
.>I already did: Ph.D.
.>
.And nothing since then? That was about 30 years ago. Real scientists
.continue to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and advance their
.knowledge with new information. Real scientists stay with their field
.of expertise, and do not spout off on every other topic with a claim
.of their PhD making them expert on that as well.
What do YOU know about "real scientists"? Don't make us laugh.
.How come more people do not get the Omni PhD (tm) like you did, making
.them expert in everything?
.
.Your PhD as used now seems to be nothing more than an attempt at
.intimidation. It certainly is not relevant to your crusade.
.
.You have gone from the statistical approach you apparently used for
.your PhD, to now just KNOWING the TRUTH about everything.
.
.Happy trails,
.Gary (net.yogi.bear)
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.The Gist wrote:
.
.> This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
.> attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
.> a new thread.
.
.It doesn't take very much energy for me to find something better to do
.than feed this troll.
But obviously MORE energy than YOU have.....
He's been spewing his nonsense for years (a friend
.warned me of "Mike Venom-man" who knows how long ago?), and apparently
.won't go away on his own, but to encourage him further seems a total
.waste of all resources involved. Killfiles and delete keys are good
.things.
.
.Rick
Mike Vandeman
.Gary S. wrote:
.> On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:58:00 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.> wrote:
.>
.>
.>>On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:14:47 -0700, "GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
.>>
.>>.Mikey - you're the one making all these claims for expertise. Therefore, it
.>>.is incumbent upon you to establish your bona fides.
.>>
.>>I already did: Ph.D.
.>>
.>
.> And nothing since then? That was about 30 years ago. Real scientists
.> continue to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and advance their
.> knowledge with new information. Real scientists stay with their field
.> of expertise, and do not spout off on every other topic with a claim
.> of their PhD making them expert on that as well.
.>
.> How come more people do not get the Omni PhD (tm) like you did, making
.> them expert in everything?
.>
.> Your PhD as used now seems to be nothing more than an attempt at
.> intimidation. It certainly is not relevant to your crusade.
.>
.> You have gone from the statistical approach you apparently used for
.> your PhD, to now just KNOWING the TRUTH about everything.
.
.This is exactly why I do not believe Mr Vandeman has a Ph.D in
.psychology. Statistics is the basis of most psychology, especially at
.the time Mr V. was supposedly studying when behaviourist psychology was
.at the fore. Anyone who had studied psychology to the level Mr V. claims
.to have done would live and breathe the accepted statistical practices
.and methods of interpretation.
BS. My MA is in math, which is the BASIS of statistics.
Mike Vandeman
.On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:27:21 -0400, pmhilton <pmhi...@mfx.net> wrote:
.
.>jtaylor wrote:
.>
.>>The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
.>>ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
.>>
.>Apparently not one single thing.
.>
.>Pete H
.
.If you look at the topic of his PhD dissertation, he did not exactly
.push forward the boundaries of human knowledge then, either.
.
.Food taste preferences of different ethnic groups?
Proving that you have no idea what it was about.
.Happy trails,
.Gary (net.yogi.bear)
Sohn
"pmhilton" <pmhi...@mfx.net> wrote in message
news:42865E92...@mfx.net...
Possibly, Mike has a condition that he can't control
http://users.wpi.edu/~trek/aspergers.html
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html
Cyli
Think of the school. It's not a small school, but Mikey may have made
himself as well known there as he has here. In that case, which would
you rather have? Mike with a degree and gone or Mike hanging around?
He could probably have written a one pager on the use of crayons by
preschoolers and been granted the degree and the goodbye.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: cyl...@gmail.com.invalid (strip the .invalid to email)
rick
"Cyli" <cyl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:baad81t2okbh715bp...@4ax.com...
Same reason that 'Bob' jumped in front of that car.....
ray
point , by actually responding and telling me how much you dont care
hee hee. how dumb are you? Bye now
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote in message <gj9d819o1lh3q9udf...@4ax.com>:
>.So you say. But thus far you seem to be rather a long way behind on
>.points...
>Very funny.
It is. What's even funnier is you keep coming back for more!
But then, like the bear said, you're not here for the hunting at all,
are you?
Mark
.> .> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
.> .> .journals from any field.
.> .>
.> .> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in
.peer-reviewed
.> .> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt
.it.
> .> .You are suggesting unless someone has done the thing they talk about,
I dont have to provide any information about your 'papers'.
You , in this thread, have said someone cannot have a valid opinion on
something they have not done themselves.
You have also admitted you havent mountain biked.
Therfore, by YOUR own logic, anything you say on this subject is invalid.
they are your words Mike, not mine.
BarryNL
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:27:21 -0400, pmhilton <pmhi...@mfx.net> wrote:
>
>
>>jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The guy makes all these claims to be a scientist and he hasn't published
>>>ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal?
>>>
>>
>>Apparently not one single thing.
>>
>>Pete H
>
>
> If you look at the topic of his PhD dissertation, he did not exactly
> push forward the boundaries of human knowledge then, either.
>
> Food taste preferences of different ethnic groups?
Hmm, sounds a bit like Mike was investigating a genetic basis for taste
preferences - an idea dangerously close to eugenics. Still, I guess
that's the favourite pseudoscience of every bigot so I can see why Mike
would find it appealing.
Marty
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message >Very funny.
>
> It is. What's even funnier is you keep coming back for more!
>
> But then, like the bear said, you're not here for the hunting at all,
> are you?
Ding ding ding.... give man a teddy bear. Guy, you have just broken the
code.
Marty
Fole Haafstra
with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his ideas, say so.
These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very insecure
people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel good about
yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
Mike Vandeman
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:9b9d81tnpu2nk372i...@4ax.com...
..> .> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
..> .> .journals from any field.
..> .>
..> .> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in
..peer-reviewed
..> .> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt
..it.
.
.> .> .You are suggesting unless someone has done the thing they talk about,
.> .they
.> .> .cannot have a valid opinion on it?
.> .> .
.> .> .How , then, can you claim to be the worlds expert on mountain biking?
.> .> .
.> .> .Unless you are a mountain biker of course......
.> .> .
.> .>
.> .> I rode a mountain bike once. That was enough. See my web site.
.> .> ===
.> .> 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
.> .
.> .By that reasoning then, with your superhuman powers of deduction and
.> .information assimilation, you could take one aspirin and be able to
.> .formulate a cure for cancer.
.>
.> You have totally failed to provide a single quote from my papers about
.mountain
.> biking that's not true.
.> ===
.> 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 dont have to provide any information about your 'papers'.
.
.You , in this thread, have said someone cannot have a valid opinion on
.something they have not done themselves.
I never said that, as you well know. YOU said that.
.You have also admitted you havent mountain biked.
.
.Therfore, by YOUR own logic, anything you say on this subject is invalid.
.
.they are your words Mike, not mine.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human being
.with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his ideas, say so.
.These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very insecure
.people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel good about
.yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by changing the
subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by mountain biking.
But you are wrong about lack of intelligence as the root cause. It is lack of
MORALS -- wanting to mountain bike REGARDLESS of its effect on wildlife and
other people.
In any case, you are very astute. I was wondering how long it would take for
someone to tell the truth.
Bill Sornson
Liar! Hypocrite! DUH!!!
bic...@charter.net
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
<noneavailable?@esam.fi>
> wrote:
>
> .You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human
being
> .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his ideas,
say so.
> .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very
insecure
> .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel
good about
> .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
>
> You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by
changing the
> subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by mountain
biking.
Mike, you better re-read that last part. "Truly intelligent people
never resort to such nonsense." He's describing what you do, FOOL!
Just zis Guy, you know?
<4287496d$0$28846$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>:
>You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human being
>with the right to speak his mind.
Up to a point. He has exactly the same right to troll this group as
Don Black has to troll a Jewish group with hate speech about the
"Jewish conspiracy". Yes, he has a right to say it, but it remains
bigotry, and should not be left unchallenged.
Fole Haafstra
<bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1116168298.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wrong.
I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with unending,
hate-filled rhetoric.
Bill Sornson
We only tell the truth about his selfish, destructive trolling.
Duh! Idiot! Hypocrite! Liar!
Just zis Guy, you know?
<noneavailable?@esam.fi> wrote in message
<4287968a$0$28811$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>:
>I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with unending,
>hate-filled rhetoric.
That's a little harsh. You get occasional hate-filled rhetoric
against Vandeman, but most of those types rapidly lose interest.
Vandeman, on the other hand, has been unremittingly posting
hate-filled rhetoric against mountain bikers for *years*. Do you not
consider that worthy of comment? Or at least as mitigation?
Pretty much all of what Vandeman gets would come to anybody who
engaged in such relentless trolling.
You need to check the Vandeman FAQ:
http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32
bic...@charter.net
Right.
> I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with unending,
> hate-filled rhetoric.
I know exactly what you were talking about, however, it's the exact
same method Vandeman uses and thus your description fits Mike too.
The same people you are chastising have the same right to speak their
minds like Mike does. They are human too. They have been putting up
with his spew for years. Why haven't you given Mike this same speech?
No need to answer, it's right here for all to see, the right to speak
ones mind only works one way for your kind. The hypocrisy is
overwhelming.
ray
he is essentially egocentric and gets his jollies from abusing other
peoples opinions,subjecting them to his, frankly ill informed and hate
filled rhetoric,just to get some one to respond to him. we are
perfectly within our legal and moral rights to reply in kind.
"Judge not lest ye shall be judged" or some such, I seem to remember
my father telling me, mind you he also told me never to drink in a bar
with plastic windows, but that's a separate issue altogether. I can
only assume mike was bullied as a child and he insists on taking it
out on us all now, as no one who has to share a workplace or home with
him can be bothered to listen to his bizarre and defective world view
and further validate his opinion of himself, other than that, I think
he's a great guy.
pmhilton
>I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with unending,
>hate-filled rhetoric.
>
You're coming to the defense of someone whose ad hominem attacks could
fill large volumes?
Mike Vandeman
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
.<noneavailable?@esam.fi>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human
.being
.> .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his ideas,
.say so.
.> .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very
.insecure
.> .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel
.good about
.> .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
.>
.> You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by
.changing the
.> subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by mountain
.biking.
.
.Mike, you better re-read that last part. "Truly intelligent people
.never resort to such nonsense." He's describing what you do, FOOL!
As I just said, you'd rather talk about ME, whom you know nothing about, than
about the subject of the newsgroup: mountain bike-caused environmental damage. A
sure sign of a LIAR.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.
.<bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
.news:1116168298.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.>
.> Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> > On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
.> <noneavailable?@esam.fi>
.> > wrote:
.> >
.> > .You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human
.> being
.> > .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his ideas,
.> say so.
.> > .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very
.> insecure
.> > .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel
.> good about
.> > .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
.> >
.> > You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by
.> changing the
.> > subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by mountain
.> biking.
.>
.> Mike, you better re-read that last part. "Truly intelligent people
.> never resort to such nonsense." He's describing what you do, FOOL!
.
.Wrong.
.I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with unending,
.hate-filled rhetoric.
Next, I predict, they will be attacking YOU. They don't like people who tell the
truth....
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:41:57 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
.<noneavailable?@esam.fi> wrote in message
.<4287968a$0$28811$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>:
.
.>I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with unending,
.>hate-filled rhetoric.
.
.That's a little harsh. You get occasional hate-filled rhetoric
.against Vandeman, but most of those types rapidly lose interest.
.Vandeman, on the other hand, has been unremittingly posting
.hate-filled rhetoric against mountain bikers for *years*. Do you not
.consider that worthy of comment? Or at least as mitigation?
.
.Pretty much all of what Vandeman gets would come to anybody who
.engaged in such relentless trolling.
There is no such thing as "trolling". That's simply what mountain bikers call
anyone who tells the truth about theri selfish, destructive sport.
.You need to check the Vandeman FAQ:
.http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32
That's nothing but lies and obfuscation. Mountain bikers will do anything to
avoid talking about the REAL subject of their newsgroup -- the environmental
damage that mountain biking does.
.Guy
Mike Vandeman
."Fole", the reason mike engenders such "hate filled rhetoric" is that
.he is essentially egocentric and gets his jollies from abusing other
.peoples opinions,subjecting them to his, frankly ill informed and hate
.filled rhetoric,just to get some one to respond to him. we are
.perfectly within our legal and moral rights to reply in kind.
."Judge not lest ye shall be judged" or some such, I seem to remember
.my father telling me, mind you he also told me never to drink in a bar
.with plastic windows, but that's a separate issue altogether. I can
.only assume mike was bullied as a child and he insists on taking it
.out on us all now, as no one who has to share a workplace or home with
.him can be bothered to listen to his bizarre and defective world view
.and further validate his opinion of himself, other than that, I think
.he's a great guy.
All lies. All I do is tell the truth about mountain biking. That's why mountain
bikers respond with ad hominem: they are incapable of defending their selfish,
destructive sport with reason or facts (and they are afraid to admit that that
is IMPOSSIBLE).
Mike Vandeman
.
.Fole Haafstra wrote:
.> <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
.> news:1116168298.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.> >
.> > Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> > > On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
.> > <noneavailable?@esam.fi>
.> > > wrote:
.> > >
.> > > .You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a
.human
.> > being
.> > > .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his
.ideas,
.> > say so.
.> > > .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like
.very
.> > insecure
.> > > .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can
.feel
.> > good about
.> > > .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such
.nonsense.
.> > >
.> > > You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by
.> > changing the
.> > > subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by
.mountain
.> > biking.
.> >
.> > Mike, you better re-read that last part. "Truly intelligent people
.> > never resort to such nonsense." He's describing what you do, FOOL!
.>
.> Wrong.
.
.Right.
.
.> I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with unending,
.> hate-filled rhetoric.
.
.I know exactly what you were talking about, however, it's the exact
.same method Vandeman uses and thus your description fits Mike too.
.
.The same people you are chastising have the same right to speak their
.minds like Mike does. They are human too. They have been putting up
.with his spew for years. Why haven't you given Mike this same speech?
.No need to answer, it's right here for all to see, the right to speak
.ones mind only works one way for your kind. The hypocrisy is
.overwhelming.
Just as I predicted, anyone who tels the truth in this newsgroup will get
personally attacked by the mountain bikers. ANYTHING to avoid talking about the
damage that mountain biking does!
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
.<noneavailable?@esam.fi> wrote in message
.<4287496d$0$28846$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>:
.
.>You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human being
.>with the right to speak his mind.
.
.Up to a point. He has exactly the same right to troll this group
Define "troll".
as
.Don Black has to troll a Jewish group with hate speech about the
."Jewish conspiracy". Yes, he has a right to say it, but it remains
.bigotry, and should not be left unchallenged.
.
.Guy
bic...@charter.net
Here's my prediction:
"He doesn't have any."
My prediction is in response to:
"Provide as a reply to this post all of your papers which have been
published in peer-reviewed journals from any field."
Mike will say ANYTHING to avoid talking about the papers because he has
none. NONE!
GaryG
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:18:53 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<u...@ftc.gov>
> wrote:
>
> .On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
> .<noneavailable?@esam.fi> wrote in message
> .<4287496d$0$28846$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>:
> .
> .>You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human
being
> .>with the right to speak his mind.
> .
> .Up to a point. He has exactly the same right to troll this group
>
> Define "troll".
v.,n.
1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To
utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames; or, the post itself.
2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1;
regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
To see an example of a troll, look in the mirror.
GG
GaryG
> On 15 May 2005 13:00:15 -0700, "ray" <ray....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> ."Fole", the reason mike engenders such "hate filled rhetoric" is that
> .he is essentially egocentric and gets his jollies from abusing other
> .peoples opinions,subjecting them to his, frankly ill informed and hate
> .filled rhetoric,just to get some one to respond to him. we are
> .perfectly within our legal and moral rights to reply in kind.
> ."Judge not lest ye shall be judged" or some such, I seem to remember
> .my father telling me, mind you he also told me never to drink in a bar
> .with plastic windows, but that's a separate issue altogether. I can
> .only assume mike was bullied as a child and he insists on taking it
> .out on us all now, as no one who has to share a workplace or home with
> .him can be bothered to listen to his bizarre and defective world view
> .and further validate his opinion of himself, other than that, I think
> .he's a great guy.
>
> All lies. All I do is tell the truth about mountain biking. That's why
mountain
> bikers respond with ad hominem: they are incapable of defending their
selfish,
> destructive sport with reason or facts (and they are afraid to admit that
that
> is IMPOSSIBLE).
Yes, yes, yes..."all" mountain bikers are liars, and only Vandy-man tells
the "truth". Vandy-man is the one true prophet, fighting against the forces
of evil and darkness. Or, maybe you're just a whack-job...
Have you ever sought out professional help, Mike? Your life seems a
pathetic waste of bandwidth, and you certainly don't seem like a person who
experiences much joy in it.
GG
Cyli
>You bashers better do some serious soul searching.
Tell us how, oh mighty advisor?
>Vandy is a human being
>with the right to speak his mind.
Yeah, but he does it so often. And it's such a limited mind...
>If you don't agree with his ideas, say so.
I once agreed with him on a point. He ignored me.
>These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very insecure
>people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel good about
>yourself.
Not me. I occasionally give him crap because he's a freakin'
nuisance. I do not kill deer flies that bite me just so that I can
feel superior. I kill them because they've annoyed me.
> Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
>
Okay. Then I'm not truly intelligent. Or I have a occasional urge to
swat an annoying creature. Or both.
Of course truly intelligent people would never bother to read more
than 4 or 5 posts in VanDeman thread. Leaves us both out in the cold
there, dunnit?
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: cyl...@gmail.com.invalid (strip the .invalid to email)
Castaway
I haven't read any of Mike Vanderman's articles, nor do I care about
the issue of mountain biking. So this probably makes me an expert. I
seems clear to me by my non-psychology background, that Mike is
suppressing a traumatic childhood experience. He probably received what
he thought was a mountain bike for Christmas one year. Probably when he
was twelve. Because he had always had trouble making friends, he
thought this would finally be his big break. He would finally make some
great mountain-biker mates and the chicks would love him. The trouble
is that when he turned up at the mountain biking course, everybody
laughed at him. It turns out he was riding a girls bike. The pink
streamers and pony pictures on the seat should have given this away I
guess. In shame he returned home, vowing to rid the world of humanity
and especially those nasty mountain-biker freaks. Hence the real agenda
behind his crusade: "I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is
off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?" Well the only way
you can really help Mike is to start a collection so that he can get
the psychological help he needs and rid himself of those traumatic,
repressed, childhood memories. You mean mountain-bikers have only got
yourselves to blame.
Fole Haafstra
mountain biking. I've seen the destruction of many trails by many means and
mountain bikers rank near the top. Boot shodden hikers are at the bottom.
The fight isn't about what is, but what people want.
BarryNL
Unfortunately, Mr Vandeman is not really concerned with the damage done
by mountain biking. He is only interested in trying to stir up trouble
in newsgroups. If he truly cared about trying to minimise the damage
done by mountain biking he would put his energies into encouraging the
construction of maintained and managed trails instead of throwing a
hissy fit and demanding mountain biking is banned altogether. He would
also admit that the damage done by mountain biking is trivial compared
to the damage done by the energy, chemical and building industries. The
fact that he shows no interest in fighting these industries shows how
shallow his environmental concern really is.
You should really be careful about the company you keep, Fole.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>All I do is tell the truth about mountain biking.
Well, that's not strictly honest is it? What you do is to tell a
carefully selected subset of the truth about mountain biking, while
ignoring identical truths about other activities. So you tell the
truth about mountain biking in the same way that the Klan tells the
truth about black people.
And the subjects of your bigotry, mountain bikers, react exactly as
black people do to bigotry spouted against them.
You have never demonstrated that the reaction of mountain bikers to
your sustained trolling is anything other than the normal reaction of
any group subjected to a years-long campaign of bigotry and
distortion.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>.Pretty much all of what Vandeman gets would come to anybody who
>.engaged in such relentless trolling.
>There is no such thing as "trolling". That's simply what mountain bikers call
>anyone who tells the truth about theri selfish, destructive sport.
Demonstrate with examples any other group who have been subjected to a
campaign of bigotry as long and as copious as yours against mountain
bikers, who have not reacted by calling it trolling. You fail, as
always, to demonstrate relevant difference.
And in any case, you LIE. These groups are full of people telling the
truth about mountain biking and getting no such reaction. All sorts
of truths, like what kit is good, where there are good rides and so
on. Just because they are not peddling the carefully selected subset
of the truth that you prefer does not mean that they are not telling
the truth.
And many of us in these groups don't deny that mountain biking, like
any other recreational use, has an impact on the environment. But
most of us do not seek to assuage our guilt at partaking in a damaging
activity by projecting that guilt onto another group, as you do. As
we all know, you engage in a damaging activity yourself; you have
arbitrarily decided that the threshold of damage /you/ are prepared to
countenance is such as to allow /your/ preferred activity but not
another; but this view seems to be idiosyncratic. No reputable source
I can find counts mountain biking as a threat over and above any other
recreational use. It is not, like off-road motor vehicle use and
wilderness camping, frequently cited as a particular concern.
All these are truths, just not the specific niche truths you peddle.
The reality is that you tell the truth about mountain biking the way
the Klan tell the truth about black people: you are a bigot.
>.You need to check the Vandeman FAQ:
>.http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32
>That's nothing but lies and obfuscation.
Lies and obfuscation? Detail which statements in it are false. I
think it bends over backwards to be fair to you. God knows why, since
you never extend the same courtesy to your chosen hate group.
>Mountain bikers will do anything to
>avoid talking about the REAL subject of their newsgroup -- the environmental
>damage that mountain biking does.
I think you will find that the real subject of their newsgroup is not
as you claim (i.e you LIED) - if it were, it would be called something
like alt.mountain-biking.environmental-damage. Feel free to raise an
RFD; if you guaranteed to restrict your participation to that group I
believe it would be carried by acclamation.
As to "doing anything to avoid talking about it" - you have no
evidence for that claim, since it is several years since you even
attempted a rational discussion on the subject, and you are a known
bigot anyway. It is quite possible that your years of sustained
trolling have indeed more or less killed any possibility of a rational
debate on the subject, but to prove this would require someone to
start a thread in which we could guarantee that you would not inject
your bigotry. If you're prepared to guarantee to observe only and not
participate, I don't mind starting that thread as an experiment. You
could fill the time by trying the experiment I suggested earlier,
trolling other recreational newsgroups to measure whether the response
to your trolling and bigotry is characteristic of mountain bikers, as
you claim, or whether it is a general behaviour. Since you are
supposedly a psychologist these kinds of experiments should be right
up your street.
Actually I suspect that some people who would have been inclined to be
sympathetic and supportive of measures to reduce the impact of
mountain biking in wilderness areas have decided not to solely on the
basis of your hate campaign. But I have no proof of that other than a
few vague comments here and there. So perhaps that's another
hypothesis we could test.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>.>You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human being
>.>with the right to speak his mind.
>.Up to a point. He has exactly the same right to troll this group
>Define "troll".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Pleased to be of service.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Mark
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:07:00 GMT, "Mark" <mbtr...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> .news:9b9d81tnpu2nk372i...@4ax.com...
> ..> .> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
> ..> .> .journals from any field.
> ..> .>
> ..> .> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in
> ..peer-reviewed
> ..> .> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I
doubt
> ..it.
> .
> .> .> .You are suggesting unless someone has done the thing they talk
about,
> .> .they
> .> .> .cannot have a valid opinion on it?
> .> .> .
> .> .> .How , then, can you claim to be the worlds expert on mountain
biking?
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Unless you are a mountain biker of course......
> .> .> .
> .> .>
> .> .> I rode a mountain bike once. That was enough. See my web site.
> .> .By that reasoning then, with your superhuman powers of deduction and
> .> .information assimilation, you could take one aspirin and be able to
> .> .formulate a cure for cancer.
> .>
> .> You have totally failed to provide a single quote from my papers about
> .mountain
> .> biking that's not true.
> .I dont have to provide any information about your 'papers'.
> .
> .You , in this thread, have said someone cannot have a valid opinion on
> .something they have not done themselves.
>
> I never said that, as you well know. YOU said that.
>
> .You have also admitted you havent mountain biked.
> .
> .Therfore, by YOUR own logic, anything you say on this subject is invalid.
> .
> .they are your words Mike, not mine.
> .
No , again, you resort to refuting your own statement.
The first thing you said in this thread, if the guy hadnt published any
papers of his own, he wasnt fit to comment on your papers.
i.e. if you havent done it, your opinion is invalid.
That, sir, is exactly what you posted.
Perhaps you should reread , as again, I put to you , by your own arguments,
your opinions on mountain biking, including your very own claim to be the
worlds number one expert on mountain biking, are totally invalidated if you
have no experience in the subject.
Here you admitted to not having experienced mountain biking, apart from one
ride (and again I put it to you, if riding a bike once enables you to gather
enough information to become the worlds primary expert on the subject, use
that talent for the good of the human race, read a book on human anatomy
once and formulate the cure for cancer), then , by your own argument , put
forth in this thread, your opinions and thoeries on mountain biking are all
invalid.
Mountain biking does have an environmental impact, there is no doubt, just
as hiking, horse riding , golfing and pretty much every other human
activity, what you fail to do is highlight why you target mountain biking
above any other of those activities.
Mountain biking is a subset of one cause of environment degredation, human
leisure activities.That group includes hiking, horse riding , off road
motoring, the over expansion of golf resorts and many others, to target one
, you must, by your own standards of environmental concern, target all that
group.
The fact you fail to do exactly that, and not only fail to target all the
groups , but actively participate in at least one other subset of this group
of activities that cause environment degredation, points you out , not as an
environmentalist, but as a bigot.
JP
I've been running trails for years and my experience negates yours.
Bikers and runners the least, campers, horses the most. Hikers more
towards the middle.
This fight is about a self proclaimed expert trolling a newsgroup.
Jeff Strickland
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:32:42 GMT, The Gist <not...@valid.net> wrote:
>
> .This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
> .attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
> .a new thread.
> .Vandeman claims to be an expert in not one but several fields of study.
> .(See his boasts at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mjv1.htm). My
> .research(admittedly cursory) reveals that he has not authored a single
> .paper of any sort which has been published in any academic peer-reviewed
> .journal. For all intents and purposes he seems to be a failed
> .scientist(possibly due to mental defect) as based on his very
> .unscientific and poorly written screeds the only outlet for which
> .appears to be usenet groups and his personal web page.
> .Please, Dr. Vandeman, correct me if I wrong. Provide as a reply to this
> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
>
> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in peer-reviewed
> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I doubt it.
As I recall, you are the only one that makes claims of being published. You
know MY real name, and I make no claims of being peer-reviewed, but I would
also like to which peer reviewed journals you have been published in.
Jeff Strickland
> .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his ideas, say
so.
> .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very
insecure
> .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel good
about
> .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
>
> You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by changing
the
> subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by mountain
biking.
>
Assuming you to be right, and each and every mile of bike route is an
environemntal wasteland, IF we could reverse the trend we would save less
than 0.04% of the environment from this kind of destruction. Hardly a
worthwhile effort when so many other significantly greater threats to the
environment exist.
> But you are wrong about lack of intelligence as the root cause. It is lack
of
> MORALS -- wanting to mountain bike REGARDLESS of its effect on wildlife
and
> other people.
>
> In any case, you are very astute. I was wondering how long it would take
for
> someone to tell the truth.
We were wondering the same thing of you.
Jeff Strickland
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:10:02 -0700, Rick Courtright
<rcour...@iname.com>
> wrote:
>
> .The Gist wrote:
> .
> .> This was first posted at the bottom of an older thread. TO give it the
> .> attention that it deserves and to further expose Vandeman I am starting
> .> a new thread.
> .
> .than feed this troll.
>
> But obviously MORE energy than YOU have.....
>
That doesn't even make sense. For a PhD, you sure say some stupid things.
Gary S.
<spamc...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:jl9d81tjn5l4a0k4v...@4ax.com...
>> But obviously MORE energy than YOU have.....
>>
>That doesn't even make sense. For a PhD, you sure say some stupid things.
>
Or conversely, for an idiot, he occasionally says something that is
not stupid.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Westie
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra" <noneavailable?@esam.fi>
> wrote:
>
> .You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human being
> .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his ideas, say so.
> .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very insecure
> .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel good about
> .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
>
> You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by changing the
> subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by mountain biking.
No. They are changing the subject to "Who is this person? What are his
qualifications for dismissing all other published studies on the
subject? What basis does he have to claim that his scientific "studies"
are valid?"
That's the question. As it turns out, this Mike Vandeman has a very
dated qualification in an area of expertise that would appear to have no
relevance to the environment and the environmental damage that he speaks
so authoritively about. That's in itself is not necessarily a bad thing
if he used a peer-reviewed method and published these papers of his in
peer-reviewed publications. This is where people that DO have the
correct qualifications, experience and knowledge could review and
comment upon his "studies" and validify his work. Until he does that,
anything he says or does is unsubstatiated big talk. Nothing more.
Nothing less.
He is a fraud.
--
Westie
Mike Vandeman
<norfolk...@dev.null> wrote:
.On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:22:15 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote:
.
.>.Pretty much all of what Vandeman gets would come to anybody who
.>.engaged in such relentless trolling.
.
.>There is no such thing as "trolling". That's simply what mountain bikers call
.>anyone who tells the truth about theri selfish, destructive sport.
.
.Demonstrate with examples any other group who have been subjected to a
.campaign of bigotry as long and as copious as yours against mountain
.bikers, who have not reacted by calling it trolling. You fail, as
.always, to demonstrate relevant difference.
.
.And in any case, you LIE. These groups are full of people telling the
.truth about mountain biking and getting no such reaction. All sorts
.of truths, like what kit is good, where there are good rides and so
.on. Just because they are not peddling the carefully selected subset
.of the truth that you prefer does not mean that they are not telling
.the truth.
.
.And many of us in these groups don't deny that mountain biking, like
.any other recreational use, has an impact on the environment.
But they lie about what that impact is.
But
.most of us do not seek to assuage our guilt at partaking in a damaging
.activity by projecting that guilt onto another group, as you do. As
.we all know, you engage in a damaging activity yourself; you have
.arbitrarily decided that the threshold of damage /you/ are prepared to
.countenance is such as to allow /your/ preferred activity but not
.another; but this view seems to be idiosyncratic. No reputable source
.I can find counts mountain biking as a threat over and above any other
.recreational use.
Proving that you either didn't read my paper, or are LYING about it. I gave
exactly such sources.
It is not, like off-road motor vehicle use and
.wilderness camping, frequently cited as a particular concern.
.
.All these are truths, just not the specific niche truths you peddle.
.
.The reality is that you tell the truth about mountain biking the way
.the Klan tell the truth about black people: you are a bigot.
.
.>.You need to check the Vandeman FAQ:
.>.http://bbtc.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32
.
.>That's nothing but lies and obfuscation.
.
.Lies and obfuscation? Detail which statements in it are false. I
.think it bends over backwards to be fair to you. God knows why, since
.you never extend the same courtesy to your chosen hate group.
.
.>Mountain bikers will do anything to
.>avoid talking about the REAL subject of their newsgroup -- the environmental
.>damage that mountain biking does.
.
.I think you will find that the real subject of their newsgroup is not
.as you claim (i.e you LIED) - if it were, it would be called something
.like alt.mountain-biking.environmental-damage. Feel free to raise an
.RFD; if you guaranteed to restrict your participation to that group I
.believe it would be carried by acclamation.
.
.As to "doing anything to avoid talking about it" - you have no
.evidence for that claim, since it is several years since you even
.attempted a rational discussion on the subject,
Liar. I just wrote a paper on exactly that, and published it here.
and you are a known
.bigot anyway. It is quite possible that your years of sustained
.trolling have indeed more or less killed any possibility of a rational
.debate on the subject, but to prove this would require someone to
.start a thread in which we could guarantee that you would not inject
.your bigotry. If you're prepared to guarantee to observe only and not
.participate, I don't mind starting that thread as an experiment. You
.could fill the time by trying the experiment I suggested earlier,
.trolling other recreational newsgroups to measure whether the response
.to your trolling and bigotry is characteristic of mountain bikers, as
.you claim, or whether it is a general behaviour. Since you are
.supposedly a psychologist these kinds of experiments should be right
.up your street.
.
.Actually I suspect that some people who would have been inclined to be
.sympathetic and supportive of measures to reduce the impact of
.mountain biking in wilderness areas have decided not to solely on the
.basis of your hate campaign. But I have no proof of that other than a
.few vague comments here and there. So perhaps that's another
.hypothesis we could test.
Mike Vandeman
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> On 15 May 2005 12:52:56 -0700, bic...@charter.net wrote:
.>
.> .
.> .Fole Haafstra wrote:
.> .> <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
.> .> news:1116168298.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.> .> >
.> .> > Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .> > > On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
.> .> > <noneavailable?@esam.fi>
.> .> > > wrote:
.> .> > >
.> .> > > .You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a
.> .human
.> .> > being
.> .> > > .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his
.> .ideas,
.> .> > say so.
.> .> > > .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like
.> .very
.> .> > insecure
.> .> > > .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can
.> .feel
.> .> > good about
.> .> > > .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such
.> .nonsense.
.> .> > >
.> .> > > You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by
.> .> > changing the
.> .> > > subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by
.> .mountain
.> .> > biking.
.> .> >
.> .> > Mike, you better re-read that last part. "Truly intelligent
.people
.> .> > never resort to such nonsense." He's describing what you do,
.FOOL!
.> .>
.> .> Wrong.
.> .
.> .Right.
.> .
.> .> I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with
.unending,
.> .> hate-filled rhetoric.
.> .
.> .I know exactly what you were talking about, however, it's the exact
.> .same method Vandeman uses and thus your description fits Mike too.
.> .
.> .The same people you are chastising have the same right to speak
.their
.> .minds like Mike does. They are human too. They have been putting up
.> .with his spew for years. Why haven't you given Mike this same
.speech?
.> .No need to answer, it's right here for all to see, the right to
.speak
.> .ones mind only works one way for your kind. The hypocrisy is
.> .overwhelming.
.>
.> Just as I predicted, anyone who tels the truth in this newsgroup will
.get
.> personally attacked by the mountain bikers. ANYTHING to avoid talking
.about the
.> damage that mountain biking does!
.
.Here's my prediction:
.
."He doesn't have any."
.
.My prediction is in response to:
.
."Provide as a reply to this post all of your papers which have been
.published in peer-reviewed journals from any field."
.
.Mike will say ANYTHING to avoid talking about the papers because he has
.none. NONE!
That's off-topic for this newsgroup. Can't you stick to the subject?
Mike Vandeman
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:mgkf81tmq5q4ruee3...@4ax.com...
.> On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:18:53 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
.<u...@ftc.gov>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
.> .<noneavailable?@esam.fi> wrote in message
.> .<4287496d$0$28846$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>:
.> .
.> .>You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human
.being
.> .>with the right to speak his mind.
.> .
.> .Up to a point. He has exactly the same right to troll this group
.>
.> Define "troll".
.
.v.,n.
.1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To
.utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
.responses or flames; or, the post itself.
That's not clear. Also not true. I just tell the truth. That's not "designed to
attract predictable responses".
.2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1;
.regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
.newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
.annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
.the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
.at hand
Another lie. I actually know more about the environmental impact of mountain
biking than anyone else posting here.
- they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
.creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
.characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
.life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
.
.To see an example of a troll, look in the mirror.
.
.GG
.
.
.>
.> as
.> .Don Black has to troll a Jewish group with hate speech about the
.> ."Jewish conspiracy". Yes, he has a right to say it, but it remains
.> .bigotry, and should not be left unchallenged.
.> .
.> .Guy
.>
.> ===
.> 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
.
Mike Vandeman
.
."Fole Haafstra" <noneavailable?@esam.fi> wrote in message
.news:428866b6$0$28841$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
.> The truth is anyone with decent eyesight can view the destruction wrought
.by
.> mountain biking. I've seen the destruction of many trails by many means
.and
.> mountain bikers rank near the top. Boot shodden hikers are at the bottom.
.> The fight isn't about what is, but what people want.
.>
.
.
.I've been running trails for years and my experience negates yours.
.Bikers and runners the least, campers, horses the most. Hikers more
.towards the middle.
The science doesn't support your belief: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
.This fight is about a self proclaimed expert trolling a newsgroup.
Telling relevant truths is not "trolling". You just don't want to admit it.
Mike Vandeman
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:20me81t6ihb4kccjd...@4ax.com...
.> On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:07:00 GMT, "Mark" <mbtr...@blueyonder.co.uk>
.wrote:
.>
.> .
.> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.> .news:9b9d81tnpu2nk372i...@4ax.com...
.> ..> .> .post all of your papers which have been published in peer-reviewed
.> ..> .> .journals from any field.
.> ..> .>
.> ..> .> First tell us your real name and what YOU have published in
.> ..peer-reviewed
.> ..> .> journals. Then maybe you have something to talk about, though I
.doubt
.> ..it.
.> .
.> .> .> .You are suggesting unless someone has done the thing they talk
.about,
.> .> .they
.> .> .> .cannot have a valid opinion on it?
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .How , then, can you claim to be the worlds expert on mountain
.biking?
.> .> .> .
.> .> .> .Unless you are a mountain biker of course......
.> .> .> .
.> .> .>
.> .> .> I rode a mountain bike once. That was enough. See my web site.
.
.> .> .By that reasoning then, with your superhuman powers of deduction and
.> .> .information assimilation, you could take one aspirin and be able to
.> .> .formulate a cure for cancer.
.> .>
.> .> You have totally failed to provide a single quote from my papers about
.> .mountain
.> .> biking that's not true.
.
.> .I dont have to provide any information about your 'papers'.
.> .
.> .You , in this thread, have said someone cannot have a valid opinion on
.> .something they have not done themselves.
.>
.> I never said that, as you well know. YOU said that.
.>
.> .You have also admitted you havent mountain biked.
.> .
.> .Therfore, by YOUR own logic, anything you say on this subject is invalid.
.> .
.> .they are your words Mike, not mine.
.> .
.No , again, you resort to refuting your own statement.
.
.The first thing you said in this thread, if the guy hadnt published any
.papers of his own, he wasnt fit to comment on your papers.
.i.e. if you havent done it, your opinion is invalid.
.
.That, sir, is exactly what you posted.
.Perhaps you should reread , as again, I put to you , by your own arguments,
.your opinions on mountain biking, including your very own claim to be the
.worlds number one expert on mountain biking, are totally invalidated if you
.have no experience in the subject.
.
.Here you admitted to not having experienced mountain biking, apart from one
.ride (and again I put it to you, if riding a bike once enables you to gather
.enough information to become the worlds primary expert on the subject, use
.that talent for the good of the human race, read a book on human anatomy
.once and formulate the cure for cancer), then , by your own argument , put
.forth in this thread, your opinions and thoeries on mountain biking are all
.invalid.
.
.Mountain biking does have an environmental impact, there is no doubt, just
.as hiking, horse riding , golfing and pretty much every other human
.activity, what you fail to do is highlight why you target mountain biking
.above any other of those activities.
.Mountain biking is a subset of one cause of environment degredation, human
.leisure activities.That group includes hiking, horse riding , off road
.motoring, the over expansion of golf resorts and many others, to target one
., you must, by your own standards of environmental concern, target all that
.group.
.
.The fact you fail to do exactly that, and not only fail to target all the
.groups , but actively participate in at least one other subset of this group
.of activities that cause environment degredation, points you out , not as an
.environmentalist, but as a bigot.
It's all there, if you would bother to read it:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
Mike Vandeman
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra" <noneavailable?@esam.fi>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy is a human being
.> .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with his ideas, say so.
.> .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look like very insecure
.> .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you can feel good about
.> .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such nonsense.
.>
.> You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up, by changing the
.> subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by mountain biking.
.
.No. They are changing the subject to "Who is this person? What are his
.qualifications for dismissing all other published studies on the
.subject? What basis does he have to claim that his scientific "studies"
.are valid?"
.
.That's the question. As it turns out, this Mike Vandeman has a very
.dated qualification in an area of expertise that would appear to have no
.relevance to the environment and the environmental damage that he speaks
.so authoritively about. That's in itself is not necessarily a bad thing
.if he used a peer-reviewed method and published these papers of his in
.peer-reviewed publications. This is where people that DO have the
.correct qualifications, experience and knowledge could review and
.comment upon his "studies" and validify his work. Until he does that,
.anything he says or does is unsubstatiated big talk. Nothing more.
.Nothing less.
Truth isn't restricted to "peer-reviewed journals" (not that you even READ
them). In the case of mountain biking, the best papers on the subject are all on
my web site -- a fact you just can't stand.
.He is a fraud.
bic...@charter.net
The subject is "Vandeman a fraud and professional failure" so I am
right on topic.
Like I said, you will say ANYTHING to avoid talking about the papers
because you have none. NONE!
GaryG
You tell only the bigoted subset of the truth that your delusions, paranoia
and obsessions permit you to see.
> .2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1;
> .regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
> .newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
> .annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
> .the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
> .at hand
>
> Another lie. I actually know more about the environmental impact of
mountain
> biking than anyone else posting here.
You're a deluded whack-job, Mike. If you truly think that you alone know
the "truth", and that all mountain bikers are "liars", then you clearly need
help for your mental issues. The fact that you continue to troll, year
after year after year, is yet more evidence as to your mental state. Please
seek out professional help...life's too short to waste it all on such an
insignificant issue as mountain biking.
GG
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>.And many of us in these groups don't deny that mountain biking, like
>.any other recreational use, has an impact on the environment.
>But they lie about what that impact is.
Not as far as I can tell. Arguably, given that no credible body seems
to agree with your analysis that mountain bikers are some kind of
environmental Antichrist, you are the one lying about the
environmental impact.
>.No reputable source
>.I can find counts mountain biking as a threat over and above any other
>.recreational use.
>Proving that you either didn't read my paper, or are LYING about it. I gave
>exactly such sources.
But you did not define your inclusion criteria, so we do not know what
sources you excluded. I am sure that 100% of the papers which say
mountain biking causes damage agree that mountain biking causes damage
- but that does not mean it is considered by any to cause damage over
and above any comparable recreational activity. As far as I can tell
you are the only one who thinks that. I suppose there may be a few
other anti-biking zealots out there, like your friends the horse
riders, but it looks to me as if those trying to elevate mountain
biking to some kind of environmental bogeyman status are doing so for
strictly selfish reasons. Certainly none of the wilderness protection
agencies seem to consider mountain biking a threat over and above any
other recreational activity.
>.As to "doing anything to avoid talking about it" - you have no
>.evidence for that claim, since it is several years since you even
>.attempted a rational discussion on the subject,
>Liar. I just wrote a paper on exactly that, and published it here.
No, you published a literature review without selection criteria.
That is completely worthless, for reasons you have been given multiple
times. Without selection criteria we cannot know if your bigotry has
skewed the selection of publications. Given its inclusion of two
papers by a known bigot which have not been published in a
peer-reviewed journal, that looks quite likely.
Mark
I see no independent evidence there that mountain biking is inherently more
destructive than any other human leisure activity in that group.
I would also love to see your scientific data that shows mountain biking as
more destructive than off road motoring, or indeed horseback riding, neither
of which you persue at all.
As for Hiking, whatever your personal opinion, the scientific world is
divided on the level of destruction , there are reports stating it is vastly
less than other activities, there are others that state it is on par.Your
personal preference is to go with the 'vastly less' school of thought
because it is your chosen activity.I , personally, do both, I have seen
deliberately destructive hikers, I have seen very careful and considerate
mountain bikers, and visa versa.
The destructive people are scum,there is no doubt, regardless of whether
thay are wearing boots or cleats, your problem is being unable to seperate a
type of person from the activity they happen to be doing at the time.
However, whichever data is correct , and I am not nor pretend to be a
scientist so cannot take one side over another, there is also the fact the
number of hikers in the world outnumber the number of bikers, horse riders
and off road motorists combined by maginitudes of thousands, so regardless
of damage per individual performing each activity, taken as a worldwide
destructive force, Hiking is, in fact, the biggest cause of wilderness
degredation within the group of human leisure activities.
Now again, I say to you, why pick on one subset of destructive leisure
activities? If you are as concerned about our habitat as you say, why are
you not fighting them all?
The starnge thing is you havent even started with the most destructive,
either globally (hiking) or per individual(I dont have figures, but one
would guess that would be either off road motoring or the over expansion of
golfing resorts), but just arbitarily on mountain biking.
I may have beleived you to be fighting the just cause had I seen you attack
horse riding, golfing or off road motoring with such vigour, however,
excluding more harmful activities from your crusade leads only to one
conclusion,
A bigot hiding under a green flag.
ray
"I would also love to see your scientific data that shows mountain
biking as
more destructive than off road motoring, or indeed horseback riding,
neither
of which you persue at all."
motoring off roading is definitely more destructive of the environment
than mountain biking. How do I know? er.... Cos I do a bit of both.
That's my personal proof that mountain biking is not more damaging than
off roading. If Mike is not happy with that, he can lie down and I'll
drive my mountain bike over his head then my land rover over his head,
and he can figure out for himself which does the most damage to his
head, then we've got some nice, clear empirical evidence. I'm sure
that's a solution everyone on the list could be very happy with. I know
I would be
Mike Romain
ROTFLMAO!
Jeff, in another part of this thread, he considers the drivel he posts
here and on his website as 'publishing' and that is all he has done.
He is a fraud!
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Mike Vandeman
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> On 15 May 2005 16:34:54 -0700, bic...@charter.net wrote:
.>
.> .
.> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .> On 15 May 2005 12:52:56 -0700, bic...@charter.net wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .
.> .> .Fole Haafstra wrote:
.> .> .> <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
.> .> .> news:1116168298.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.> .> .> >
.> .> .> > Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .> .> > > On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:54 -0400, "Fole Haafstra"
.> .> .> > <noneavailable?@esam.fi>
.> .> .> > > wrote:
.> .> .> > >
.> .> .> > > .You bashers better do some serious soul searching. Vandy
.is a
.> .> .human
.> .> .> > being
.> .> .> > > .with the right to speak his mind. If you don't agree with
.his
.> .> .ideas,
.> .> .> > say so.
.> .> .> > > .These endless attacks on him simply make all of you look
.like
.> .> .very
.> .> .> > insecure
.> .> .> > > .people with a consuming need to bash someone else so you
.can
.> .> .feel
.> .> .> > good about
.> .> .> > > .yourself. Truly intelligent people never resort to such
.> .> .nonsense.
.> .> .> > >
.> .> .> > > You are absolutely right. What they are trying to cover up,
.by
.> .> .> > changing the
.> .> .> > > subject to Mike Vandeman, is the environmental harm done by
.> .> .mountain
.> .> .> > biking.
.> .> .> >
.> .> .> > Mike, you better re-read that last part. "Truly intelligent
.> .people
.> .> .> > never resort to such nonsense." He's describing what you do,
.> .FOOL!
.> .> .>
.> .> .> Wrong.
.> .> .
.> .> .Right.
.> .> .
.> .> .> I was talking about those who have targeted Vandeman with
.> .unending,
.> .> .> hate-filled rhetoric.
.> .> .
.> .> .I know exactly what you were talking about, however, it's the
.exact
.> .> .same method Vandeman uses and thus your description fits Mike
.too.
.> .> .
.> .> .The same people you are chastising have the same right to speak
.> .their
.> .> .minds like Mike does. They are human too. They have been putting
.up
.> .> .with his spew for years. Why haven't you given Mike this same
.> .speech?
.> .> .No need to answer, it's right here for all to see, the right to
.> .speak
.> .> .ones mind only works one way for your kind. The hypocrisy is
.> .> .overwhelming.
.> .>
.> .> Just as I predicted, anyone who tels the truth in this newsgroup
.will
.> .get
.> .> personally attacked by the mountain bikers. ANYTHING to avoid
.talking
.> .about the
.> .> damage that mountain biking does!
.> .
.> .Here's my prediction:
.> .
.> ."He doesn't have any."
.> .
.> .My prediction is in response to:
.> .
.> ."Provide as a reply to this post all of your papers which have been
.> .published in peer-reviewed journals from any field."
.> .
.> .Mike will say ANYTHING to avoid talking about the papers because he
.has
.> .none. NONE!
.>
.> That's off-topic for this newsgroup. Can't you stick to the subject?
.
.The subject is "Vandeman a fraud and professional failure" so I am
.right on topic.
The subject of the newsgroup is mountain biking, as you well know, liar.
.Like I said, you will say ANYTHING to avoid talking about the papers
.because you have none. NONE!
No, because it's IRRELEVANT. Even if I have peer-reviewed papers, you would
simply find a different excuse to ignore them. DUH!
Mike Vandeman
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:guni81t55p0lnaknu...@4ax.com...
.>
.> It's all there, if you would bother to read it:
.> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
.
.
.
.I see no independent evidence there that mountain biking is inherently more
.destructive than any other human leisure activity in that group.
Only because you haven't bothered to READ it.
.I would also love to see your scientific data that shows mountain biking as
.more destructive than off road motoring, or indeed horseback riding, neither
.of which you persue at all.
It's in my paper.
.As for Hiking, whatever your personal opinion, the scientific world is
.divided on the level of destruction , there are reports stating it is vastly
.less than other activities, there are others that state it is on par.
The latter are not scientific, as my paper shows.
Your
.personal preference is to go with the 'vastly less' school of thought
.because it is your chosen activity.I , personally, do both, I have seen
.deliberately destructive hikers, I have seen very careful and considerate
.mountain bikers, and visa versa.
.
.The destructive people are scum,there is no doubt, regardless of whether
.thay are wearing boots or cleats, your problem is being unable to seperate a
.type of person from the activity they happen to be doing at the time.
I do. It'smountain BIKING I oppose.
.However, whichever data is correct , and I am not nor pretend to be a
.scientist so cannot take one side over another, there is also the fact the
.number of hikers in the world outnumber the number of bikers, horse riders
.and off road motorists combined by maginitudes of thousands, so regardless
.of damage per individual performing each activity, taken as a worldwide
.destructive force, Hiking is, in fact, the biggest cause of wilderness
.degredation within the group of human leisure activities.
.
.Now again, I say to you, why pick on one subset of destructive leisure
.activities? If you are as concerned about our habitat as you say, why are
.you not fighting them all?
I am, as you would know, if you bothered to read my web site, or even my
signature.
.The starnge thing is you havent even started with the most destructive,
.either globally (hiking) or per individual(I dont have figures, but one
.would guess that would be either off road motoring or the over expansion of
.golfing resorts), but just arbitarily on mountain biking.
.
.I may have beleived you to be fighting the just cause had I seen you attack
.horse riding, golfing or off road motoring with such vigour, however,
.excluding more harmful activities from your crusade leads only to one
.conclusion,
.
.A bigot hiding under a green flag.
Or a scientific specialist, whose specialty of expertise is mountain biking.
Mike Vandeman
<norfolk...@dev.null> wrote:
.On Tue, 17 May 2005 02:56:31 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote:
.
.>.And many of us in these groups don't deny that mountain biking, like
.>.any other recreational use, has an impact on the environment.
.
.>But they lie about what that impact is.
.
.Not as far as I can tell. Arguably, given that no credible body seems
.to agree with your analysis that mountain bikers are some kind of
.environmental Antichrist, you are the one lying about the
.environmental impact.
.
.>.No reputable source
.>.I can find counts mountain biking as a threat over and above any other
.>.recreational use.
.
.>Proving that you either didn't read my paper, or are LYING about it. I gave
.>exactly such sources.
.
.But you did not define your inclusion criteria, so we do not know what
.sources you excluded. I am sure that 100% of the papers which say
.mountain biking causes damage agree that mountain biking causes damage
.- but that does not mean it is considered by any to cause damage over
.and above any comparable recreational activity. As far as I can tell
.you are the only one who thinks that.
BS. See below, for example.
I suppose there may be a few
.other anti-biking zealots out there, like your friends the horse
.riders, but it looks to me as if those trying to elevate mountain
.biking to some kind of environmental bogeyman status are doing so for
.strictly selfish reasons. Certainly none of the wilderness protection
.agencies seem to consider mountain biking a threat over and above any
.other recreational activity.
.
.>.As to "doing anything to avoid talking about it" - you have no
.>.evidence for that claim, since it is several years since you even
.>.attempted a rational discussion on the subject,
.
.>Liar. I just wrote a paper on exactly that, and published it here.
.
.No, you published a literature review without selection criteria.
Liar. There was no selection. I reviewed ALL the scientific literature on the
subject, as you well know.
.That is completely worthless, for reasons you have been given multiple
.times. Without selection criteria we cannot know if your bigotry has
.skewed the selection of publications. Given its inclusion of two
.papers by a known bigot which have not been published in a
.peer-reviewed journal, that looks quite likely.
.
.Guy
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK
Michael J. Wisdom Research Wildlife Biologist
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station
Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory
1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, Oregon 97850
Phone (541-962-6532), fax (541-962-6504), Email mwi...@fs.fed.us
Alan A. Ager
Operations Research Analyst
USDA Forest Service Umatilla National Forest
2517 Hailey Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone (541-278-3740) fax (541-278-3730)
Email aa...@fs.fed.us
Haiganoush K. Preisler
Statistician
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station
800 Buchanan St., Albany, CA 94710
Phone (510-559-6484), fax (510-559-6440)
Email hpre...@fs.fed.us
Norman J. Cimon
Systems Analyst
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station
Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory
1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, Oregon 97850
Phone (541-962-6551), fax (541-962-6504)
Email nci...@fs.fed.us
Bruce K. Johnson
Starkey Project Leader
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory
1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, Oregon 97850
Phone (541-962-6556), fax (541-962-6504) Email john...@eou.edu
Suggested Citation:
Wisdom, M. J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects
of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in press. Wisdom
et al. 2
Effects of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk
Michael J. Wisdom
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station
La Grande, Oregon
Alan A. Ager
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest
Pendleton, Oregon
Haiganoush K. Preisler
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station
Berkeley, California
Norman J. Cimon
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station
La Grande, Oregon
Bruce K. Johnson
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
La Grande
Introduction
Off-road recreation is increasing rapidly in the United States,
especially on public lands (Havlick 2002, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service 2004). An expansive network of roads provides easy access
to many public lands, which facilitates off-road uses in the form of
all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), horses, mountain bikes, and foot traffic.
No research, however, has evaluated effects of these off-road activities
on vertebrate species in a comparative and experimental manner (see
review by Gaines et al. 2003). One recent study (Taylor and Knight
2003a) evaluated bison (Bison bison), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana),
and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) responses to mountain biking and
hiking. This study, however, did not include ATV or horseback riding,
nor did it include experimental controls needed to assess cause-effect
relations.
To address these knowledge gaps, we initiated a manipulative, landscape
experiment in 2002 to measure effects of off-road recreation on mule
deer and elk (Cervus elaphus), two charismatic species of keen
recreational, social, and economic interest across western North
America. Our objectives were to (1) document cause-effect relations of
ATV, horseback, mountain bike, and hiking activities on deer and elk,
using these off-road activities as experimental treatments and periods
of no human activity as experimental controls; (2) measure effects with
response variables that index changes in animal or population
performance, such as movement rates, flight responses, resource
selection, spatial distributions, and use of foraging versus security
areas; (3) use these response variables to estimate the energetic and
nutritional costs associated with each activity and the resultant
effects on deer and elk survival; and (4) interpret results for
recreation management.
Our research began in 2002 and ends in 2004. In this paper, we present
findings from 2002 to address parts of objectives 1, 2, and 4. We
specifically focus on changes in movement rates and flight responses of
mule deer and elk in relation to the off-road activities, as compared to
periods of no human activity. We then describe potential uses of the
results for recreation management.
We present findings from our first year of study because of the urgent
need for timely management information to address the rapid growth in
off-road recreation (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
2004). For example, ATV use on public lands has increased seven-fold
during Wisdom et al. 3
the past 20 years, and many conservation groups are calling for
widespread restrictions on ATV travel (U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service 2004). Yet no studies have evaluated the role of ATVs
compared to other off-road activities, such as mountain biking and
horseback riding, which also are increasing rapidly. Without
comprehensive studies of ATV effects in relation to other recreation,
the debate over ATV is likely to intensify. Our study was designed to
measure a variety of ungulate responses to address this debate, such
that results can be used to identify compatible mixes of different
off-road recreational opportunities in relation to deer and elk
management.
Throughout our paper, we refer to off-road recreation, both motorized
and non-motorized, as that occurring on trails, primitive (unpaved)
roads, or areas without trails or roads. This definition complements the
term "off-highway vehicle (OHV) use," which refers to motorized vehicle
use on any surface beyond highways (U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service 2004), but which does not include other forms of
non-winter recreation that typically occur on primitive roads and
trails, such as hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking.
Study Area and Technologies
We conducted our research at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range
(Starkey, Figure 1) in northeast Oregon, a facility equipped to evaluate
real-time and landscape-level responses of deer and elk to human
activities under controlled experimentation (Rowland et al. 1997, Wisdom
et al. 2004a). The facility encompasses spring, summer, and fall ranges
typical of those used by mule deer and elk in the western United States.
Timber harvest, livestock grazing, motorized traffic, hunting, camping
and other public uses of Starkey also are managed like those on National
Forests in the western United States, thus providing a large inference
space for research findings (Rowland et al. 1997, Wisdom et al. 2004a).
An essential research component at Starkey is the ungulate-proof
enclosure, one of the largest in the world, which allows scientists to
evaluate ungulate responses to human activities over large areas and
under controlled conditions (Bryant et al. 1993, Rowland et al. 1997).
Another key technology is the automated tracking system (ATS), which can
generate up to one animal location every 20 seconds, 24 hours a day,
from April through December each year (Rowland et al. 1997, Kie et al.
2004). Additional technologies include maps and databases of more than
100 environmental variables to relate animal movements to the landscape
experiments, and supporting methods and software to analyze these data
(Rowland et al. 1997, 1998).
Implementing the Recreation Treatments
To meet our objectives, a network of off-road transects was established
and run in 2002, using ATV, horseback, mountain bike, and hiking
activities as experimental treatments in the 3,590-acre (1,453-ha)
northeast study area (Figure 1). Approximately 20 miles (32 km) of
transects were established (Figure 1), over which ATV, horseback,
mountain bike, and foot traffic was experimentally applied from
mid-April through October. Locations of each transect were established
with Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Figure 1). Transects were
located on flat or moderate terrain typically used by off-road
activities. Primitive roadbeds, like those often established by off-road
vehicles (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2004), were
included in the transects. Use of roadbeds and trails to implement human
activities is referred to as a "tangential" experimental approach
because animals are not targeted directly by the activities (Taylor and
Knight 2003b). This is in contrast to a direct experimental approach,
such as testing the reaction of nesting birds to designed encounters
with humans at nest sites.
A sufficient number and length of transects were established to
encompass all portions of the northeast study area (Figure 1). Each
off-road activity was run on a given transect twice daily, once in the
morning and once in the afternoon, during a 5-day period; this daily
frequency of activity corresponds to traffic frequency on Starkey roads
that produced an avoidance response by elk in earlier research (Wisdom
1998, Wisdom et al. 2004b). Wisdom et al. 4
A particular activity for a given morning or afternoon was completed by
one to three people who rode ATVs ("four-wheelers" or "quads"), mountain
bikes, or horses, or hiked as a group. On most days, group size
consisted of two people moving as a pair; that is, by two people hiking
or each riding ATVs, mountain bikes, or horses. A group size of two,
with a range of one to three people, often is typical for these
recreation activities in non-wilderness portions of National Forests
(personal communication, D. Barrett, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest).
Group size can vary substantially, however, with larger groups of 5-10
ATV riders or horseback riders, for instance. We had neither the
resources nor the experimental options to include these larger groups as
treatments in our study. Moreover, group size of mountain bikers and
hikers often does not approach 5-10 people, and we wanted to maintain
approximately the same group size across all four activities. A group
size of two people, with a range of one to three people, provided this
consistency.
For ATV travel, a pair of riders could easily cover the 20 miles (32 km)
of transects during a given morning or afternoon. A pair of mountain
bike riders, however, could cover about 50 percent of the 20 miles (32
km) in a morning or afternoon. Horseback riders and hikers could cover
about 30 percent. Because we wanted to standardize the experiment by the
same number of transect runs or "passes" (twice daily) among all four
off-road activities, two different groups of mountain bikers, and three
groups of horseback riders or hikers, were used to obtain complete
coverage of transects for a given morning or afternoon. For mountain
biking, the transects were divided in half, with each of the two groups
assigned to ride a different half of the 20 miles (32 km) in a morning
or afternoon. Similarly, three groups of horseback riders or hikers,
each assigned to hike a different third of the transect length, were
used for each morning and afternoon to obtain complete coverage of
transects.
Each of the four off-road activities was implemented under an
"interrupted" movement design, where humans were allowed to momentarily
stop to view animals for less than 1 minute when animals were observed.
This is in contrast to a "continuous" movement design, where human
activities are not delayed or stopped when animals are observed (Taylor
and Knight 2003b).
Each 5-day period of off-road activity was followed by a 9-day control
period, during which no human activities occurred in the study area.
This pattern was followed from mid-April through October, resulting in
three replicates of each of the four off-road activities. Each 5-day
replicate of an off-road activity thus was paired with a 9-day control
period that immediately followed the replicate. Only one type of
off-road activity (ATV, horseback, mountain bike, or hiking) occurred on
transects during a given 5-day replicate. The chronological order of
each off-road activity, in terms of which activity occurred during the
first 5-day replicate in late April, versus the next 5-day replicate in
early May, and so on, was randomly chosen.
Throughout the experiment, all human entry beyond the four off-road
activities, including administrative use of roads, was prohibited to
eliminate the confounding effects of other human activities with animal
response to the off-road activities. Consequently, human activities such
as timber harvest, road traffic, camping, and hunting did not occur
during the study because of their confounding effects.
Measuring Animal Responses
To monitor animal responses, 12 female mule deer and 12 female elk were
radio-collared among a larger population of approximately 25 female deer
and 100 female elk present in the northeast study area in early April.
Movements of these radio-collared animals were monitored with the ATS
(Rowland et al. 1997). During periods of off-road activity, locations of
each radio-collard deer or elk were generated at approximately 10-minute
intervals. Locations of humans engaged in each off-road activity were
generated at approximately 1-minute intervals, using GPS units carried
by one of the persons in each group of hikers or riders of ATVs, horses,
or mountain bikes. Use of the automated telemetry system to track animal
movements, combined with the use of GPS units to track human movements,
provided real-time, unbiased estimates of the distances between each
ungulate and group of humans.
Our method of estimating distances between ungulates and humans
contrasts strongly with the use of direct observation, using
rangefinders or other devices, to measure distances. Direct observation
as Wisdom et al. 5
a means of estimating distances between ungulates and humans is likely
to be biased by the proportion of deer or elk whose reactions to human
activities cannot be observed because such reactions are different than
those of animals that can be observed. For example, some animals may run
from human activity at distances beyond the view of observers, while
other animals may react at close distances to, and in view of,
observers. This bias in observed distances would result in
underestimation of the true distance at which animals react to the human
activity. In other cases, animals may flee from humans at close
distances, but not be viewed because such animals seek dense cover
during flight; this bias would result in overestimation of distances. We
avoided such biases with the use of our automated telemetry system and
GPS units to continuously monitor the movements of ungulates and humans
throughout our study.
We also located radio-collared animals during the 9-day periods of no
human activity, or control period. Approximately two locations of each
radio-collared animal were obtained every hour during control periods,
to establish baseline information about areas of deer and elk use,
habitat selection, movement rates, and flight responses in the absence
of human activities. For this paper, we analyzed two types of animal
reactions: (1) movement rate and (2) probability of flight response. We
evaluated movement rate and probability of flight response because both
can ultimately be used to estimate the energetic costs of animal
reactions to off-road activities (see Conclusions and Interpretations).
Estimating Movement Rates
We defined movement rate as the speed of animal movement (yards
moved/minute), as estimated hourly, 24 hours per day, for a given
species, treatment, and control period. We calculated the speed of
animal movement for each radio-collared deer or elk for each pair of
successive locations; that is, the horizontal distance between two
successive locations divided by the elapsed time between locations (Ager
et al. 2003). Each measurement of animal speed for a given
radio-collared animal was assigned to the time recorded for the first
location of each pair of animal locations used in the calculation.
Only successive locations with consistent elapsed times were included in
the calculation of movement rates to eliminate the bias of excessively
short and long elapsed times. Short elapsed times (less than 5 minutes)
between locations falsely inflate the movement rate because of random
location errors in the ATS over such short time periods (Findholt et al.
1996, 2002). Long elapsed times (e.g., greater than 35 minutes) between
locations allow animals to move back and forth between the documented
locations, thus biasing the estimate of movement rate downward (Ager et
al. 2003).
To estimate overall patterns of movement rates for each species, rates
calculated for each individual radio-collared animal were averaged among
all animals, for mule deer and for elk, by hourly interval, for each
off-road treatment and the paired control period that immediately
followed that treatment. For this analysis, we minimized random
variation by summarizing results across each 5-day treatment and across
each subsequent 9-day control. We did this after exploratory plots of
data provided no evidence of change in movement rates of animals from
day one through day five of each treatment period, or for day one
through nine of each control period, as examined on an hourly basis. We
then pooled hourly results for each species across the three replicates
of each off-road activity, and across control periods, after finding no
evidence of differences in like replicates across time, or in control
periods across time.
Estimating Probabilities of a Flight Response
We used a stimulus response model to estimate the probability of a
flight response by a deer or elk with changing distance between each
animal and off-road activity. We defined a flight response as the speed
of animal movement, or movement rate, that exceeded the 95th percentile
of all deer or elk speeds calculated for each hour from data collected
during the control periods. Specifically, a flight response was any
animal movement for a given hour of day that exceeded the 95th
percentile of all deer or elk speeds calculated for that same hour of
day during the paired 9-day control period that immediately followed a
given 5-day period of off-road activity. Thus by definition, when no
stimulus was present (no human Wisdom et al. 6
activity), a deer or elk would register a response (i.e., travel at
speeds greater than the 95th percentile of all deer or elk speeds for
that hour during the control period) 5 percent of the time.
Probabilities of response were estimated using logistic regression
within the generalized additive model framework (Hastie and Tibshirani
1990).
Each estimated probability of a flight response for a given
radio-collared animal was linked to the estimated distance between that
animal and each group of humans conducting an off-road activity, thus
allowing an examination of how probabilities changed with distance
between animals and humans. As with our analyses of movement rates, we
pooled the probability data for each species across the three replicates
of each off-road activity, and across control periods. We pooled data
after initial analyses showed that results for deer and elk were similar
across the three replicates of each off-road activity, and across all
control periods.
Movement Rates of Elk
Movement rates of elk were substantially higher during periods of all
four off-road activities as compared to periods of no human activity
(Figure 2). Responses of elk to the morning and afternoon runs were
clearly evident, with the most pronounced increase in movement rates
observed during the hours when each off-road activity occurred (Figure
2). For example, our morning pass on transects began between 0830 and
0930 Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), and highest movement rates for elk
occurred in the hours immediately after, from 0900-1100, during all four
activities (Figure 2). Moreover, lunch break for participants in the
experiment occurred at or near noon, and movement rates for elk dipped
to their lowest level at noon during all activities. Finally, we resumed
each activity at 1230-1300 PDT, and movement rates for elk substantially
increased immediately after (Figure 2).
Movement rates were substantially higher for elk during the morning pass
compared to the afternoon pass for all four activities (Figure 2).
Movement rates of elk during the afternoon pass, however, stayed well
above the rates observed during the periods of no human activity
(control period, Figure 2). Movement rates during the afternoon pass
declined after 1500 PDT, when afternoon activities ended.
For the morning pass, movement rates of elk were highest during ATV
riding, second-highest during mountain bike riding, and lowest during
hiking and horseback riding (Figure 2). Movement rates of elk also
stayed higher, over a longer period, during the afternoon ATV run,
compared to lower rates during afternoon horseback riding, mountain bike
riding, and hiking. Peak movement rates of elk during the morning pass
were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/minute [19 m/min]), followed by
mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute [16 m/min]) and horseback riding
and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute [14 m/min]). For the afternoon
run, movement rates of elk again were highest during ATV riding (13
yards/minute [12 m/min]), followed by horseback riding (about 11
yards/minute [10 m/min]) and hiking and mountain bike riding (about 10
yards/minute [9 m/min]).
By contrast, peak movement rates of elk during the control periods did
not exceed 9 yards/minute (8 m/min). Moreover, peak movement rates
during the control periods stayed below 8 yards/minute (7 m/min) during
daylight hours of 0800-1500, the comparable period of each day when
off-road treatments were implemented.
Interestingly, movement rates of elk also were higher than control
periods at times encompassing sunrise and sunset for the days in which
an off-road activity occurred, even though humans were not present at
these times of day (Figure 2). These higher movement rates near sunrise
and sunset suggest that elk were displaced from preferred security and
foraging areas as a result of flight behavior during the daytime
off-road activities. In particular, movement rates of elk at or near
sunrise and sunset were higher during the 5-day treatments of mountain
bike and ATV activity (Figure 2). This finding will be studied in detail
in future analyses. Wisdom et al. 7
Flight Responses of Elk
The estimated probability of elk flight from a human disturbance was
highly dependent on distance. When elk and humans were close to one
another, the maximum probability of a flight response was approximately
0.65 during ATV, mountain bike, and hiking activity, and about 0.55
during horseback riding (Figure 3). Higher probabilities of flight
response occurred during ATV and mountain bike activity, in contrast to
lower probabilities observed during hiking and horseback riding (Table
1). Probability of a flight response declined most rapidly during
hiking, with little effect when hikers were beyond 550 yards (500 m)
from an elk. By contrast, higher probabilities of elk flight continued
beyond 820 yards (750 m) from horseback riders, and 1,640 yards (1,500
m) from mountain bike and ATV riders (Figure 3).
Movement Rates of Deer
In contrast to elk, mule deer showed less change in movement rates
during the four off-road activities compared to the control periods
(Figure 4). During the period of day from 0800 to1500 when off-road
activities occurred, movement rates of deer during ATV riding were
similar to rates during control periods. By contrast, daytime movement
rates of deer were higher, as compared to control periods, during
mountain bike riding, horseback riding, and hiking, especially in the
morning (Figure 4).
Interestingly, the increased movement rates observed for elk near
sunrise and sunset also were evident for mule deer. Movement rates at
these times were particularly high during all four activities as well as
during the control periods, suggesting that these times were peak
foraging periods (Ager et al. 2003).
Flight Responses of Deer
Estimated probabilities of flight response for mule deer were similar
among all four activities versus control periods (Table 1, Figure 5).
These probabilities were nearly identical among all four activities and
not significantly different than the null probability of 0.05 set for
control periods, suggesting that deer were not exhibiting the same
tendency for flight as shown by elk in relation to off-road activities
(Table 1).
Conclusions and Interpretations
Elk
Movement rates and probabilities of flight response for elk were
substantially higher during all four off-road activities compared to
control periods of no human activity. Consequently, off-road
recreational activities like those evaluated in our study appear to have
a substantial effect on elk behavior. The energetic costs associated
with these treatments deserve further analysis to assess potential
effects on elk survival. For example, if the additional energy required
to flee from an off-road activity reduces the percent body fat of elk
below 9 percent as animals enter the winter period, the probability of
surviving the winter is extremely low (Cook et al. 2004). Animal energy
budgets also may be adversely affected by the loss of foraging
opportunities while responding to off-road activities, both from
increased movements, and from displacement from foraging habitat. These
potential effects will be evaluated as part of future analyses.
Our results from 2002 also show clear differences in elk responses to
the four off-road activities. Elk reactions were more pronounced during
ATV and mountain bike riding, and less so during horseback riding and
hiking. Both movement rates and probabilities of flight responses were
higher for ATV and mountain bike riding than for horseback riding and
hiking. Wisdom et al. 8
Interestingly, the maximum probability of flight was approximately 0.65
for the treatments, meaning that about 35 percent of the time elk did
not exhibit a flight response when close to an off-road activity. Most
likely the response depends on local topography, cover, and other
factors that we have not yet analyzed as part of our flight response
model. Future work will include terrain and vegetation measures as
covariates in the probability models to examine whether these effects
can be detected and quantified (per recommendations and discussion by
Taylor and Knight 2003b).
It is important to note that designing our study to maintain the same
number of daily passes on transects among all four activities required
most effort for hiking and horseback riding, and least effort for ATV
riding. Specifically, to accomplish two runs per day required three
groups of hikers or horseback riders (with each group hiking
approximately 33 percent of transect length), but only one group of ATV
riders. By contrast, accomplishing two runs per day required two groups
of mountain bikers (with each group covering approximately 50 percent of
transect length).
Our results for elk might be different had we designed the study to test
animal response to an equal number of groups, or equal density, of
people engaged in the four off-road activities (i.e., the same number of
groups of people engaged in each activity, regardless of the number of
passes that could be accomplished), rather than testing for effects of
equal saturation of the study area (i.e., two daily passes on transects
for all four activities). In future analyses, we plan to explore the use
of the amount of time spent by each off-road activity as a covariate,
and possibly weight the movement rates and probabilities of flight
response by the inverse of time spent by each of the four off-road
activities. This weighting would help account for differences in effort
required among the four activities to achieve equal saturation of the
study area.
Our results may also change if elk eventually become "habituated" to
some or all of the off-road activities. We will evaluate this
possibility in future analyses by formally testing for replicate and
year effects under a random effects model, with repeated measures taken
on radio-collared animals over time (Kirk 1982). Analyses to test for
animal habituation to the off-road activities will be possible when all
three years of data are collected.
Mule Deer
In contrast to elk, mule deer showed little measurable response to the
off-road treatments. Movement rates increased slightly, however, during
periods of all four-off road activities except ATV riding. Deer may well
be responding to the treatments with fine-scale changes in habitat use,
rather than substantial increases in movement rates and flight
responses.
For example, it is possible that deer may respond to an off-road
activity by seeking dense cover, rather than running from the activity.
If mule deer are spending more time in dense cover, in reaction to any
of the off-road activities, this could result in reduced foraging
opportunities, and a subsequent reduction in opportunities to put on fat
reserves during summer that are needed for winter survival. Such
potential responses will be evaluated as part of future analyses.
Utility of Response Variables
Taylor and Knight (2003b) defined a variety of terms for measuring
animal responses to human activity. Neither movement rate nor
probability of a flight response was defined, however, because these
types of animal responses apparently have not been measured in past
research. We measured these two responses to human activity because both
variables can ultimately be used to estimate the energetic costs of
animal reactions to human activities. For example, movement rate can be
used as a background index of the rate of animal speed without human
activities, versus periods of human activities, to estimate the
additional energetic costs of increased movement, if any, in relation to
human activities (Ager et al. 2003).
Similarly, the probability of a flight response indicates how likely an
animal is to move at high speed in relation to its distance from a
human. This probability indicates how likely an animal is to run Wisdom
et al. 9
from a human activity, and thereby disrupt the animal's activities
related to energy acquisition (foraging) or energy conservation
(resting). Any movement away from an area in relation to human activity
has the potential disrupt these foraging and resting patterns, and
thereby cost energy (Johnson et al. 2004).
Future analyses will focus on the energetic costs, if any, to mule deer
and elk from exposure to each off-road activity. Additional analyses
also will include estimates of (1) the distance moved by an animal,
given a flight response; (2) the time required for an animal that
exhibits a flight response to return within a specified distance of the
animal's location before the flight; (3) the change in space use by an
animal, during or following periods of human activity, which may suggest
or reflect an animal seeking greater refuge from the human activity, as
compared to background or "null" use of space during periods of no human
activity; and (4) the degree to which animals spend time in forage
areas, gaining energy, versus time spent in non-foraging areas, during
each off-road activity versus control periods.
Implications for Recreation Management
Laws and policies of public land management emphasize multiple resource
uses. Management of timber, grazing, roads, minerals, and wilderness are
examples of traditional uses on lands administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the two largest federal landowners in
the United States. Public land managers now face the additional
challenge of serving a variety of off-road recreational uses that are
increasing rapidly, and that can be difficult to accommodate on the same
land area at the same time (Taylor and Knight 2003a).
New planning approaches are now underway in the Forest Service to
accommodate increasing off-road recreational demands while mitigating
the negative effects on species like elk (U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service 2004). These approaches could consider two related
concepts: (1) off-road use rates and (2) off-road recreational
equivalents. We define off-road use rates as the number of passes per
unit time on a given linear route (primitive road or trail that we
referred to as transects) traveled by an off-road activity. Our results
show that one pass per day by any of the four off-road activities causes
increased movement rates and flight responses by elk.
We define off-road recreational equivalents as the ratio of ATV riders,
mountain bikers, horseback riders, and hikers that results in
approximately the same effect on a given resource, given the same
off-road use rate. In the case of elk, movement rates and probabilities
of flight were highest during ATV riding and lowest during horseback
riding and hiking. These effects were a result of one group of ATV
riders, two groups of mountain bikers, and three groups of horseback
riders or hikers required to complete one pass on the transects each
morning or afternoon. Consequently, the stronger effects posed by ATV
riding, combined with differences in the number of groups required of
each activity to achieve one pass on the transects, suggest that
recreational equivalents would exceed three groups of horseback riders
or hikers to every group of ATV riders, and exceed two groups of
mountain bike riders to every group of ATV riders.
While the formal methods of calculating the specific recreational
equivalents could be a subject of lengthy debate, the idea that
different levels of each off-road activity are required to approximate
the same effect on a given resource is logical and defensible.
Accordingly, off-road use rates and recreational equivalents could be
tested as potential concepts in helping allocate recreational activities
within and across watersheds on a given National Forest or BLM Field
Office. These concepts may be particularly relevant when derived from a
combination of response variables or resource uses. For example, effects
of each off-road activity on water quality, soil productivity, invasion
of exotic plants, and species sensitive to human activities could be
considered in deriving use rates and recreational equivalents.
Such an approach would demand a substantial increase in research on
effects of off-road activities. For management of elk, results from our
study will be most useful when estimates of the energetic costs, if any,
are derived for each of the four off-road activities in terms of use
rates and recreational equivalents. Energetic costs to elk from one pass
per day on a given linear route traveled by a Wisdom et al. 10
given off-road activity could be estimated, and the equivalent energetic
costs, given the same use rates, could be estimated among all off-road
activities.
Although these details are not yet available, managers could begin to
consider holistic management strategies for all off-road activities
based on our current findings. Some watersheds might feature
opportunities for ATV or mountain bike riding, for example, while other
watersheds might focus on opportunities for horseback riding or hiking.
Importantly, the watersheds identified for horseback riding or hiking
could accommodate a substantially higher number of groups engaged in
these off-road activities before realizing the same effects on elk as
would be expected in watersheds where ATV or mountain bike riding are
featured. This type of holistic management of different mixes of all
off-road activities contrasts with management approaches that focus on a
single off-road activity, without consideration of all off-road uses and
the cumulative effects from all activities.
Other strategies for watershed planning might simply focus on
restricting each recreational activity to specified trails or roads. In
this case, our results suggest that the effectiveness of such a strategy
would depend on how much area is affected by the network of trails or
roads allowed for use. If the linear distance of trails or roads open to
recreation is small relative to the total area of the watershed, the
effect on elk is likely to be minor or negligible. If the linear
distance is large relative to the size of the watershed, the negative
effect on elk could increase substantially. The specific effects could
be analyzed in the same manner as outlined for estimating effects of
motorized road traffic on elk, as done with "distance band" models
(Rowland et al. 2004).
Effective and defensible strategies to meet off-road recreation demands,
while also mitigating negative resource effects, are likely to require a
substantial increase in budgets of public land agencies for research,
management, and monitoring of these activities. Managers currently have
little knowledge with which to develop effective strategies in
partnership with the many public recreation users. Without such
knowledge, the debate about off-road recreation is likely to intensify,
with few scientifically based options for resolution in relation to
mitigating potential negative effects on species like elk that are
sensitive to human activities.
Acknowledgments
J. Boyd, A. Christensen, B. Dick, M. Rowland, R. Sparrowe, and M. Vavra
provided helpful reviews of our paper. The Oregon Department of Parks
and Recreation and the Pacific Northwest Research Station of U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service provided funding. K. Munday and
B. Dick coordinated fieldwork among 33 people who implemented the
off-road activities. The ATV Grant Allocation Advisory Committee of
Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation, particularly N. Arbogast, P.
Harris, T. Hart, J. Barrell, and R. Parmelee, provided valuable
discussions about study designs most relevant to recreation management
on public lands.
Literature Cited
Ager, A. A., B. K. Johnson, J. W. Kern, and J. G. Kie. 2003. Daily and
seasonal movements and habitat use by female Rocky Mountain elk and mule
deer. Journal of Mammalogy 84:1076-1088.
Bryant, L. D., J. W. Thomas, and M. M. Rowland. 1993. Techniques to
construct New Zealand elk-proof fence. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-313, Portland, Oregon.
Cook, J. G., B. K. Johnson, R. C. Cook, R. A. Riggs, T. DelCurto, L. D.
Bryant, and L. L. Irwin. 2004. Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and
parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife
Monographs 155:1-61.
Findholt, S. L., B. K. Johnson, L. D. Bryant, and J. W. Thomas. 1996.
Corrections for position bias of a LORAN-C radio-telemetry system using
DGPS. Northwest Science 70:273-280. Wisdom et al. 11
Findholt, S. L., B. K. Johnson, L. L. McDonald, J. W. Kern, A. A. Ager,
R. J. Stussy, and L. D. Bryant. 2002. Estimating habitat use from error
associated with radiotelemetry positions. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper PNW-RP-555, Portland,
Oregon.
Hastie, T., and R. Tibshirani. 1990. Generalized Additive Models. New
York: Chapman and Hall.
Havlick, D. G. 2002. No place distant: roads and motorized recreation on
America's public lands. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gaines, W. L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the
cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on
the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-586,
Portland, Oregon.
Johnson, B. K., A. A. Ager, J. H. Noyes, and N. J. Cimon. 2004. Elk and
mule deer responses to variation in hunting pressure. Transactions of
the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in
press.
Kie, J. G., A. A. Ager, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson, P. K. Coe, S. L.
Findholt, M. M. Rowland, M. J. Wisdom, and M. Vavra. 2004. The Starkey
Database: Spatial-environmental relations of North American elk, mule
deer, and cattle at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource
Conference 69: in press.
Kirk, R. E. 1982. Experimental design. Second edition. Pacific Grove,
California: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Rowland, M. M., L. D. Bryant, B. K. Johnson, J. H. Noyes, M. J. Wisdom,
and J. W. Thomas. 1997. The Starkey Project: History, facilities, and
data collections methods for ungulate research. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-396,
Portland, Oregon.
Rowland, M. M., P. C. Coe, R. J. Stussy, A. A. Ager, N. J. Cimon, B. K.
Johnson, and M. J. Wisdom. 1998. The Starkey habitat data base for
ungulate research: Construction, documentation, and use. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-430,
Portland, Oregon.
Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and M. A. Penninger. 2004.
Effects of roads on elk: Implications for management in forested
ecosystems. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resource Conference 69: in press.
Taylor, A. R., and R. L. Knight. 2003a. Wildlife responses to recreation
and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963.
Taylor, A.R., and R. L. Knight. 2003b. Behavioral responses of wildlife
to human activity: terminology and methods. Wildlife Society Bulletin
31:1263-1271.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2004. Managing the
National Forest System: Great issues and great divisions. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service report, January 21, 2004, on
file at Pacific Northwest Research Station, La Grande, Oregon.
Wisdom, M. J. 1998. Assessing life-stage importance and resource
selection for conservation of selected vertebrates. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Idaho, Moscow.
Wisdom, M. J., M. M. Rowland, B. K. Johnson, and B. Dick. 2004a.
Overview of the Starkey Project: Mule deer and elk research for
management benefits. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resource Conference 69: in press.
Wisdom, M. J., N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson, E. O. Garton, and J. W.
Thomas. 2004b. Spatial partitioning by mule deer and elk in relation to
traffic. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resource Conference 69: in press. Wisdom et al. 12
Table 1. Estimated probabilities (and approximate 95 percent Confidence
Limits) of a flight response by elk and mule deer as a function of
distance between animals and humans riding all-terrain vehicles (ATV),
mountain bikes (BIKE), horses (HORSE), or hiking (HIKE). On average
there were 128 deer or elk locations obtained during a given day of each
off-road activity (treatment periods). During periods of no human
activity (control periods), the null probability of a flight response is
0.05 (see text). Thus, any values >0.05 reflect an increased probability
of a flight response in relation an off-road activity.
Distance1 ATV BIKE HORSE HIKE
100 meters (109 yards) from elk 0.62 (0.52-0.73) 0.58
(0.46-0.68) 0.50 (0.40-0.59) 0.52 (0.42-0.64)
500 meters (545 yards) from elk 0.43 (0.36-0.49) 0.31
(0.26-0.35) 0.22 (0.19-0.26) 0.15 (0.12-0.18)
1000 meters (1090 yards) from elk 0.25 (0.20-0.30) 0.13
(0.10-0.16) 0.07 (0.05-0.08) 0.06 (0.04-0.08)
All distances from elk 0.19 (0.17-0.21) 0.14 (0.12-0.16)
0.11 (0.09-0.12) 0.08 (0.07-0.10)
100 meters (109 yards) from deer 0.06 (0.01-0.11) 0.08
(0.02-0.14) 0.11 (0.03-0.19) 0.10 (0.04-0.17)
500 yards (545 yards) from deer 0.05 (0.02-0.07) 0.07
(0.04-0.10) 0.05 (0.03-0.07) 0.04 (0.02-0.05)
1000 meters (1090 yards) from deer 0.03 (0.01-0.06) 0.06
(0.03-0.08) 0.04 (0.02-0.06) 0.04 (0.02-0.06)
All distances from deer 0.03 (0.02-0.05) 0.05 (0.04-0.07)
0.04 (0.03-0.05) 0.04 (0.03-0.06)
1 Distance between an animal and human during each off-road activity.
Wisdom et al. 13
Figure 1. Boundaries of ungulate-proof enclosures at the Starkey
Experimental Forest and Range in northeast Oregon (bottom left), and
location of transects used for ATV activities in the 3,590-acre
(1,453-ha) northeast study area (upper right), site of the off-road
recreation study. Transects were similar in length and location for
mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding as that shown here for ATV
activities. Wisdom et al. 14
Figure 2. Mean movement rate (speed, meters/minute) of elk, estimated
hourly on a 24-hour basis, Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), during periods
of no human activity (C) versus periods of ATV activity (ATV), hiking
(HIK), mountain bike riding (BIK), and horseback riding (HRS), from
April through October, 2002, in northeast study area of Starkey. Wisdom
et al. 15
Figure 3. Estimated probability (solid line encompassed by dashed lines
of the approximate 95 percent pointwise confidence interval) of a flight
response by elk during 2002 in relation to distance (meters [m]) from
humans riding an ATV, mountain bike, horseback, or hiking. A flight
response is defined as an animal movement with a speed exceeding the
95th percentile of speeds observed during periods of no human activity
(control period). The horizontal dashed line at the bottom of each graph
is the probability of a flight response by elk during periods of no
human activity, and this line represents the background or "null"
condition, above which significant elk response to the off-road
activities exists. Wisdom et al. 16
Figure 4. Mean movement rate (speed, meters/minute) of mule deer,
estimated hourly on a 24-hour basis, Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), during
periods of no human activity (C) versus periods of ATV activity (ATV),
hiking (HIK), mountain bike riding (BIK), and horseback riding (HRS)
during 2002 in northeast study area of Starkey. Wisdom et al. 17
Figure 5. Estimated probability (solid line encompassed by dashed lines
of the approximate 95 percent pointwise confidence interval) of a flight
response by mule deer during 2002 in relation to distance (meters, [m])
from humans riding an ATV, mountain bike, horseback, or hiking. A flight
response is defined as an animal movement with a speed exceeding the
95th percentile of speeds observed during periods of no human activity
(control period). The horizontal dashed line at the bottom of each graph
is the probability of a flight response by deer during periods of no
human activity, and this line represents the background or "null"
condition, above which significant deer response to the off-road
activities exists.