Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased Human Recreation -- Hopkins' Folly
Mike Vandeman
extrapolated to other public lands where mountain bikers are not confined to
designated trails and may surprize sheep in novel situations."...
Also, they compared apples and oranges, because they compared researchers
DELIBERATELY approaching the sheep with mountain bikers staying on the road. So
this study has no applicability ro real situations, where hikers may stay on the
road or mountain bikers may get off their bikes and approach the sheep to get a
better look. There's nothing stopping the mountain bikers from doing that!
I wonder why mountain bikers are afraid to tell the truth.... (That's a
rhetorical question. It's obvious that mountain bikers are afraid that if they
told the truth, they would be banned from all trails.)
===
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.)
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> I wonder why Mr. Hopkins "forgot" about this part: "These results should not be
> extrapolated to other public lands where mountain bikers are not confined to
> designated trails and may surprize sheep in novel situations."...
>
> Also, they compared apples and oranges, because they compared researchers
> DELIBERATELY approaching the sheep with mountain bikers staying on the road. So
> this study has no applicability ro real situations, where hikers may stay on the
> road or mountain bikers may get off their bikes and approach the sheep to get a
> better look. There's nothing stopping the mountain bikers from doing that!
>
> I wonder why mountain bikers are afraid to tell the truth.... (That's a
> rhetorical question. It's obvious that mountain bikers are afraid that if they
> told the truth, they would be banned from all trails.)
Now what the hell are you babbling about? By your own definitions, mt bikers are
interested in only one thing... going fast and being reckless. So why would they
stop to look at sheep? By your own definitions, mt bikers are uniterested in nature
so they wouldn't stop to look. Hikers, on the other hand, being virtuous and lovers
of nature, may be inclined to wander off trail and look at sheep. You contradict
your own definitions to, yet again, point a finger at cyclists. Pick one and stay
with it. Either we're uninterested in nature and blast through trails or we like
creatures of nature and want to look at them and ride in a manner that makes that
possible.
Besides, you have quoted from studies that have stated the results should not be
applied in general to other areas, so why can't this guy?
If you say you haven't and call me a liar... I'll look it up in the posts and
repost it with references and dates. It won't be hard... you just did it recently.
>
> ===
> 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.)
btw... how's that working out for you? More roads, bigger vehicles, ATV sales are
up, SUV sales are booming to the point that Lexus, Mercedes and BMW have super
luxury models, the timber industry has access to more areas, roads are being built
and widened so more people can drive to watch people drive (auto and motorcycle
racing).
No wonder... if you use the same type of argument tactics against autos and roads
that you use "fighting" mt bikes, I'm surprised there is anything green left in the
continental USA.
Yeah... that's what I thought. You completely alienate anyone or group who may be
inclined to help because you will not compromise on the concept of "multi-use".
Shared access for the purpose of off-road cycling in parks and forests designated as
"multi-use" is acceptable. It's been proven. It's been done. It works.
Duh.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> I wonder why Mr. Hopkins "forgot" about this part: "These results should not be
.> extrapolated to other public lands where mountain bikers are not confined to
.> designated trails and may surprize sheep in novel situations."...
.>
.> Also, they compared apples and oranges, because they compared researchers
.> DELIBERATELY approaching the sheep with mountain bikers staying on the road. So
.> this study has no applicability ro real situations, where hikers may stay on the
.> road or mountain bikers may get off their bikes and approach the sheep to get a
.> better look. There's nothing stopping the mountain bikers from doing that!
.>
.> I wonder why mountain bikers are afraid to tell the truth.... (That's a
.> rhetorical question. It's obvious that mountain bikers are afraid that if they
.> told the truth, they would be banned from all trails.)
.
.Now what the hell are you babbling about? By your own definitions, mt bikers are
.interested in only one thing... going fast and being reckless. So why would they
.stop to look at sheep?
I never said that. You are LYING, as usual. Mountain bikers CLAIM to be
interested in wildlife and the environment. They claim to be environmentalists.
Besides, what's to stop them from getting off their bike to look at the sheep?
NOTHING.
By your own definitions, mt bikers are uniterested in nature
.so they wouldn't stop to look. Hikers, on the other hand, being virtuous and lovers
.of nature, may be inclined to wander off trail and look at sheep. You contradict
.your own definitions to, yet again, point a finger at cyclists. Pick one and stay
.with it. Either we're uninterested in nature and blast through trails or we like
.creatures of nature and want to look at them and ride in a manner that makes that
.possible.
Most of you aren't the least bit interested in nature, and don't care about
protecting it, but there's nothing to stop you from getting off your bike out of
simple curiosity.
.Besides, you have quoted from studies that have stated the results should not be
.applied in general to other areas, so why can't this guy?
The AUTHORS sad it's not generalizable. Mr. Hopkins conveniently ignored that.
.If you say you haven't and call me a liar... I'll look it up in the posts and
.repost it with references and dates. It won't be hard... you just did it recently.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do you, obviously.
.> 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.)
.
.btw... how's that working out for you? More roads, bigger vehicles, ATV sales are
.up, SUV sales are booming to the point that Lexus, Mercedes and BMW have super
.luxury models, the timber industry has access to more areas, roads are being built
.and widened so more people can drive to watch people drive (auto and motorcycle
.racing).
.No wonder... if you use the same type of argument tactics against autos and roads
.that you use "fighting" mt bikes, I'm surprised there is anything green left in the
.continental USA.
Better than what YOU do, which is NOTHING.
.Yeah... that's what I thought. You completely alienate anyone or group who may be
.inclined to help because you will not compromise on the concept of "multi-use".
.Shared access for the purpose of off-road cycling in parks and forests designated as
."multi-use" is acceptable. It's been proven. It's been done. It works.
.Duh.
Yeah, after most of the other trail users have been driven off. Right.
===
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.)
gazzer
> NOTHING.
Mountain bikers that are interested enough in nature to stop and look
at a sheep don't contradict the "mountain bikers are too busy riding
to be interested in nature" argument because when they stop and look ,
they get off their bike and so cease to be mountain bikers.
LOL , you silly fucker.
cheers
G
Steve Curtiss
Mike Vandeman wrote:
And there is never anything stopping hikers from doing it. Yet they are not targeted in
your scope. And you generalize all your statements on mt bikers "aren't the least bit
interested in nature, and don't care about protecting it" based on your opinion and bias.
Everything is truth when mt bikers are at fault. Everything is "junk science" and lies
when mt bikers are shown to be no more hazardous to trails and wildlife than other trail
users.
>
> .Besides, you have quoted from studies that have stated the results should not be
> .applied in general to other areas, so why can't this guy?
>
> The AUTHORS sad it's not generalizable. Mr. Hopkins conveniently ignored that.
Wow... just like you do so often...
>
>
> .If you say you haven't and call me a liar... I'll look it up in the posts and
> .repost it with references and dates. It won't be hard... you just did it recently.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do you, obviously.
I'm talking about how you pull bits and pieces from articles or studies to "back up" your
claims while ignoring the rest of the context. And how you refer to articles or studies
as blanket truth when the studies maintain they are centered on specific persons, areas
or groups. For instance, your application of the results of how dangerous mt biking is
based on a study of a small group (San Diego Cyclo-Vets) when the author stated it should
not be considered applicable to all groups or cyclists. (just one example...)
>
>
> .> 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.)
> .
> .btw... how's that working out for you? More roads, bigger vehicles, ATV sales are
> .up, SUV sales are booming to the point that Lexus, Mercedes and BMW have super
> .luxury models, the timber industry has access to more areas, roads are being built
> .and widened so more people can drive to watch people drive (auto and motorcycle
> .racing).
> .No wonder... if you use the same type of argument tactics against autos and roads
> .that you use "fighting" mt bikes, I'm surprised there is anything green left in the
> .continental USA.
>
> Better than what YOU do, which is NOTHING.
You have no idea what I do. Just because I don't hold myself up in a self righteous pose
proclaiming my deeds does not mean I am idle. Most of your ilk give a good talk, but have
no substance to carry it.
>
>
> .Yeah... that's what I thought. You completely alienate anyone or group who may be
> .inclined to help because you will not compromise on the concept of "multi-use".
> .Shared access for the purpose of off-road cycling in parks and forests designated as
> ."multi-use" is acceptable. It's been proven. It's been done. It works.
> .Duh.
>
> Yeah, after most of the other trail users have been driven off. Right.
The sad thing is... you actually believe that.
Duh.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.
.
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:15:05 -0400, Steve Curtiss <stevec...@yahoo.com>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .
.> .
.> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .
.> .> I wonder why Mr. Hopkins "forgot" about this part: "These results should not be
.> .> extrapolated to other public lands where mountain bikers are not confined to
.> .> designated trails and may surprize sheep in novel situations."...
.> .>
.> .> Also, they compared apples and oranges, because they compared researchers
.> .> DELIBERATELY approaching the sheep with mountain bikers staying on the road. So
.> .> this study has no applicability ro real situations, where hikers may stay on the
.> .> road or mountain bikers may get off their bikes and approach the sheep to get a
.> .> better look. There's nothing stopping the mountain bikers from doing that!
.> .>
.> .> I wonder why mountain bikers are afraid to tell the truth.... (That's a
.> .> rhetorical question. It's obvious that mountain bikers are afraid that if they
.> .> told the truth, they would be banned from all trails.)
.> .
.> .Now what the hell are you babbling about? By your own definitions, mt bikers are
.> .interested in only one thing... going fast and being reckless. So why would they
.> .stop to look at sheep?
.>
.> I never said that. You are LYING, as usual. Mountain bikers CLAIM to be
.> interested in wildlife and the environment. They claim to be environmentalists.
.> Besides, what's to stop them from getting off their bike to look at the sheep?
.> NOTHING.
.>
.> By your own definitions, mt bikers are uniterested in nature
.> .so they wouldn't stop to look. Hikers, on the other hand, being virtuous and lovers
.> .of nature, may be inclined to wander off trail and look at sheep. You contradict
.> .your own definitions to, yet again, point a finger at cyclists. Pick one and stay
.> .with it. Either we're uninterested in nature and blast through trails or we like
.> .creatures of nature and want to look at them and ride in a manner that makes that
.> .possible.
.>
.> Most of you aren't the least bit interested in nature, and don't care about
.> protecting it, but there's nothing to stop you from getting off your bike out of
.> simple curiosity.
.>
.
.And there is never anything stopping hikers from doing it. Yet they are not targeted in
.your scope.
Yes they are. In every one of my posts: look at my signature!
And you generalize all your statements on mt bikers "aren't the least bit
.interested in nature, and don't care about protecting it" based on your opinion and bias.
.Everything is truth when mt bikers are at fault. Everything is "junk science" and lies
.when mt bikers are shown to be no more hazardous to trails and wildlife than other trail
.users.
The point is that they have NEVER been "shown to be no more hazardous to trails
and wildlife than other trail users".
.> .Besides, you have quoted from studies that have stated the results should not be
.> .applied in general to other areas, so why can't this guy?
.>
.> The AUTHORS sad it's not generalizable. Mr. Hopkins conveniently ignored that.
.
.Wow... just like you do so often...
.
.>
.>
.> .If you say you haven't and call me a liar... I'll look it up in the posts and
.> .repost it with references and dates. It won't be hard... you just did it recently.
.>
.> I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do you, obviously.
.
.I'm talking about how you pull bits and pieces from articles or studies to "back up" your
.claims while ignoring the rest of the context. And how you refer to articles or studies
.as blanket truth when the studies maintain they are centered on specific persons, areas
.or groups. For instance, your application of the results of how dangerous mt biking is
.based on a study of a small group (San Diego Cyclo-Vets) when the author stated it should
.not be considered applicable to all groups or cyclists. (just one example...)
.
.>
.>
.> .> 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.)
.> .
.> .btw... how's that working out for you? More roads, bigger vehicles, ATV sales are
.> .up, SUV sales are booming to the point that Lexus, Mercedes and BMW have super
.> .luxury models, the timber industry has access to more areas, roads are being built
.> .and widened so more people can drive to watch people drive (auto and motorcycle
.> .racing).
.> .No wonder... if you use the same type of argument tactics against autos and roads
.> .that you use "fighting" mt bikes, I'm surprised there is anything green left in the
.> .continental USA.
.>
.> Better than what YOU do, which is NOTHING.
.
.You have no idea what I do. Just because I don't hold myself up in a self righteous pose
.proclaiming my deeds does not mean I am idle. Most of your ilk give a good talk, but have
.no substance to carry it.
SEE? I challenged you, and you came up with ZERO! So I was RIGHT!
.> .Yeah... that's what I thought. You completely alienate anyone or group who may be
.> .inclined to help because you will not compromise on the concept of "multi-use".
.> .Shared access for the purpose of off-road cycling in parks and forests designated as
.> ."multi-use" is acceptable. It's been proven. It's been done. It works.
.> .Duh.
.>
.> Yeah, after most of the other trail users have been driven off. Right.
.
.The sad thing is... you actually believe that.
.Duh.
Because it's true.
Mike Vandeman
.> Besides, what's to stop them from getting off their bike to look at the sheep?
.> NOTHING.
.
.
.Mountain bikers that are interested enough in nature to stop and look
.at a sheep don't contradict the "mountain bikers are too busy riding
.to be interested in nature" argument because when they stop and look ,
.they get off their bike and so cease to be mountain bikers.
So get off and STAY off.
S Curtiss
"Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:t6bf9054mqgbubvfu...@4ax.com...
You challenged me...? Wait... let me stop laughing... That was a good
one. I'm still waiting for you to prove anything to me. Like I said, I have
no need to stand and shout "look what I did!". Why? Because I'm comfortable
in what I do. I've found the loudest voices are the least capable.
You just keep shouting... its good for the laugh.
S Curtiss
> On 3 May 2004 17:59:45 -0700, hongko...@yahoo.com (gazzer) wrote:
>
> .> Besides, what's to stop them from getting off their bike to look at the
sheep?
> .> NOTHING.
> .
> .
> .Mountain bikers that are interested enough in nature to stop and look
> .at a sheep don't contradict the "mountain bikers are too busy riding
> .to be interested in nature" argument because when they stop and look ,
> .they get off their bike and so cease to be mountain bikers.
>
> So get off and STAY off.
No. Multi-use plans include bicycles for purposes of off-road cycling. Trail
systems across the country allow cycling in their designations.
Your narrow view of acceptable excursions into forestland are unacceptable
and are founded in opinions which you argue as fact.