Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians, and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and indisputable.
There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements about trail impact.
The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of government. There are many trails in National Parks and National Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to > reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians, > and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and > indisputable.
> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes > than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers > and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by > "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other > users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements > about trail impact.
> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of > government. There are many trails in National Parks and National > Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers. Duh.
>Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to >reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians, >and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and >indisputable.
>There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes >than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers >and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by >"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other >users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements >about trail impact.
>The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of >government. There are many trails in National Parks and National >Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. -- 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.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
<gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote: >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians, >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and >> indisputable.
>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements >> about trail impact.
>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers. >Duh.
Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.
>E.P.
-- 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.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
> >Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to > >reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians, > >and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and > >indisputable.
> >There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes > >than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers > >and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by > >"being their first" as if that was justification for banning other > >users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements > >about trail impact.
> >The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of > >government. There are many trails in National Parks and National > >Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing > literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On May 13, 3:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: > >> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how > >> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
> >> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to > >> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians, > >> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and > >> indisputable.
> >> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes > >> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers > >> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by > >> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other > >> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements > >> about trail impact.
> >> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of > >> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National > >> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
> >Obviously, the studies and the overview were done by mountain bikers. > >Duh.
> Yes, but more importantly, they don't tell the truth.
Funny that you didn't quote a single thing that they lied about.
Ed Pirrero wrote: > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> >> wrote:
>>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians. >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html" >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians, >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and >>> indisputable. >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements >>> about trail impact. >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers. >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
> I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
> What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
> E.P.
Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this newsgroup where he has stated this).
M. Halliwell wrote: > Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain > biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of > his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this > newsgroup where he has stated this).
What's very telling is that after all these years of mountain biking being in existence, there hasn't been a single study that has shown any more impact from mountain bikes than from other trail users. Yeah, you'll sometimes hear hikers complain about mountain bikers, but it's only because they don't like other trail users, and they also complain about equestrians (I know I do!). The difference is that horses really do tear up trails, while mountain bikes have similar or less impact than hikers. You know that if anyone had any proof that mountain bikes were more destructive than other trail users that they'd have published some sort of peer-reviewed study, but this hasn't happened.
In March, I was in Taipei for Taipei Cycle (the biggest bicycle trade show), and into the exhibit hall rides some old dude on a DaHon folding bicycle. I'm talking to him, and I see his name tag, OMG, it' Joe Breeze, one of the inventors of mountain biking. He had borrowed a DaHon from Josh Hon (son of the founder of DaHon), and ridden quite a distance across Taipei from a his hotel (a hotel I had laughed about earlier in the week, because the name is "One Star Hotel)."
> Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On May 16, 9:38 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:50:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how > >>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians. > >>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html" > >>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to > >>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians, > >>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and > >>> indisputable. > >>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes > >>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers > >>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by > >>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other > >>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements > >>> about trail impact. > >>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of > >>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National > >>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers. > >> Very funny. This is not original research, just a review of existing > >> literature -- papers that I already debunked years ago:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
> > I only see the Cessford paper in common. Maybe you could point out > > the places where you mention any of the others, because you don't > > actually list them in your bibliography. Leaving aside the claim of > > "debunking", which could be considered as LOL funny.
> > What's very funny is you having anything to say about a literature > > review or original research. I don't notice any publications of yours > > on the topic of MTBing in any peer-reviewed journal.
> > E.P.
> Oh but Ed...don'tcha know that Mikey is the *only* expert on mountain > biking impacts...he has *no* peers so there can't be any peer reviews of > his work. (if you doubt this, then look at his past claims to this > newsgroup where he has stated this).
Yeah, I've laughed at that before.
Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research. Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the environmentalist movement.
Of course, this assumes that his goal is to do anything but promote MTBing. Over the years, more people have gotten out and ridden bikes on the trails in pure spite of his commentary than have ever been influenced against MTBing by his diatribes.
One of the best things about his constant trolling is the move to forum-based MTB content. I prefer the forums to usenet, and he can't participate there without getting his posts deleted. He can go right on ahead and should to a nearly-empty room here - works for me. :)
