ANOTHER Mountain Biker Dies!

[Mike Vandeman]

Evolution in action!

Mike


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6370004/Bike-race-victim-competing-with-son

Bike race victim competing with son

SHANE COWLISHAW
Last updated 05:00 06/02/2012

A Wellington man who died of a heart attack during a mountainbike race
was taking part in the event with his son.

James Craig, 53, was in the early stages of the Port Nicholson Poneke/
College Sport Wellington Mountain Bike Championships at the
Wainuiomata Mountain Bike Park when he stopped after feeling dizzy,
then collapsed.

Another competitor stopped and attempted to resuscitate Mr Craig, but
was unsuccessful.

Race organiser Mark Renall said Mr Craig's teenage son, Oliver, was
competing in the junior section.

"I didn't know what he [Oliver] looked like ... it was terrible but I
found him and just told him, 'I've got terrible news, you're father's
died."'

It had been known that Mr Craig had a heart condition but it was
terrible he had died while exercising, Mr Renall said.

"Most of the time mountain biking keeps you fit, but there's always
that one in a 1000 chance."

Family friend Ian Paintin said Mr Craig, who worked in kitchen joinery
and lived in Wellington, had suffered a heart attack about 10 years
ago but since then had taken his second chance and improved his health
through exercise.

With two young children and a wife, he realised he would not get far
in his unfit state and embraced mountain biking.

"Jim was a guy who was really trying to get the best out of life ... I
suspect if he hadn't turned his life around this would have happened a
lot earlier. It's a risk you take. "

[Rick Hopkins]

On Feb 5, 9:18 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Evolution in action!
>
> Mike
>

> http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6370004/Bike-race-victim-co...

I assume you have a point - an individual with a heart condition
undertakes a strenuous activity and succumbs to a cardiac event. Sad
but predictable. He would have suffered a heart attack if he had been
road cycling, running, hiking, speed skating, inline skating, snow
shoeing, nordic skiing, soccer, basketball, tennis, badminton,
handball, swimming, having sex, etc. Any of these activities plus
dozens more stress the heart and those individuals with heart
conditions pay the price if they do not undertake said activity with
the oversight of a doctor - ask the guys that died in the various
marathons around the country each year. Or the numerous weekend
warriors - a couple of years ago at Sharks Ice in San Jose two guys
died playing hockey the same night from cardiac events. They end up
with a few heart attacks each year (not always resulting in deaths,
but some do). So what is your point - mt biking is no more a culprit
for weekend warriors suffering heart attacks then any other strenuous
sport. The take home message, if you are middle aged and unsure of
your fitness and heart health, get checked out before doing any
activity that elevates the HR. Or are you suggesting everyone become
a couch-potato and stalk news group sites like you.

[Mike Vandeman]

> a couch-potato and stalk news group sites like you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

All of what you are saying is pure speculation -- what passes for
thought among mountain bikers. The point is that mountain biking is
touted as "healthful", when it's not. Those claims don't take into
consideration the large probability that you will be seriously injured
or DIE. For 261+ examples, see http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm.

On the other hand, most people who hike NEVER have any injury or heart
attack. Walking provides better exercise with far less danger --
something that mountain bikers keep trying to sweep under the rug.

[Rick Hopkins]

> or DIE. For 261+ examples, seehttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm.

>
> On the other hand, most people who hike NEVER have any injury or heart
> attack. Walking provides better exercise with far less danger --
> something that mountain bikers keep trying to sweep under the rug.

Pure speculation regarding a cardiac event. That is truly laughable.
The entire medical profession disagrees with you as it relates to the
increased likelihood of a cardiac event. See some of the exerts
below. It is rather technical and likely too much for your tiny
brain, but in plain English, what it concludes is that individuals
that have heart conditions are more susceptible to to cardiac
incidents when engaging in strenuous exercises - the type of exercise
is not particularly germane for this analysis (are you at risk of a
heart attack or not), simply does it elevate heart rate and stress the
heart - they use jogging as the standard to determine the minimum
amount of work load. It also concludes that healthy individuals with
no genetic predisposition to heart disease or evidence of heart
disease, reduce their low risk even lower by regular exercise that
stresses the heart. They also conclude that those individuals that
have some risk or are in poor shape, to only undertake activity under
the supervision of their doctor, and by doing so even they will
eventually reduce their risk of a cardiac event. So healthy
individuals (such as myself - 58 years old, no family history of heart
disease, 172 lbs, 6'3" 9.5 to 10% body fat, engage in 9 to 14 hrs of
aerobic activity per week including speed skating, cycling, running,
hiking and dryland training, plus 4 to 6 hrs of strength training and
stretching) who continue to engage in activities that put a load on
the heart (I regular push my HR between 170 to 180 for a few minutes
at a time each week and easily maintain 150-155 on 30 to 60 minute
climbs) are extremely unlikely to suffer a cardiac event while
exercising. Individuals of poor fitness and/or history of heart
disease put themselves at increased risk, unless they cautiously
approach a regular exercise program set up by their doctor. Ask Jim
Fixx the runner who is best know for writing The Complete Book of
Running, who died of a heart attack while running - he had a previous
diagnosed heart condition and he mistakenly thought running would cure
it. Healthy runners, cyclist (road and mt), skaters, cross country
skiers, etc. maintain their risk of a heart event as very low if they
continue their activity.

AHA Scientific Statement

Exercise and Acute Cardiovascular Events
Placing the Risks Into Perspective: A Scientific Statement From the
American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity,
and Metabolism and the Council on Clinical Cardiology

In Collaboration With the American College of Sports Medicine;
Paul D. Thompson, MD, FAHA, Co-Chair;
Barry A. Franklin, PhD, FAHA, Co-Chair;
Gary J. Balady, MD, FAHA;
Steven N. Blair, PED, FAHA;
Domenico Corrado, MD, PhD;
N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, FAHA;
Janet E. Fulton, PhD;
Neil F. Gordon, MD, PhD, MPH;
William L. Haskell, PhD, FAHA;
Mark S. Link, MD;
Barry J. Maron, MD;
Murray A. Mittleman, MD, FAHA;
Antonio Pelliccia, MD;
Nanette K. Wenger, MD, FAHA;
Stefan N. Willich, MD, FAHA;
Fernando Costa, MD, FAHA

a few exerts:

High-Risk Activities

Few systematic studies have identified high-risk activities, again
because of the rarity of exercise-related cardiovascular events. In
general, the risk of any vigorous physical activity is an interaction
of the exercise per se and the individual’s physical fitness because
identical physical tasks evoke lower cardiac demands in physically fit
subjects than in unfit persons. Snow shoveling has repeatedly been
associated with increased cardiovascular events,44,45 probably because
it can elicit higher rate-pressure products than does treadmill
exercise testing,46 because it is often performed out of necessity by
unfit individuals, and because some cardiac patients develop angina at
lower rate-pressure products, suggesting a coronary vasoconstrictor
response, during exercise in cold temperatures.47


Strategies to Reduce Exercise-Related Cardiovascular Events

No strategies have been adequately studied to evaluate their ability
to reduce exercise-related acute cardiovascular events. Physicians
should not overestimate the risks of exercise because the benefits of
habitual physical activity substantially outweigh the risks. From
observational studies,4 it appears that one of the most important
defenses against exercise-related cardiovascular events in adults is
to maintain physical fitness via regular physical activity because a
disproportionate number of exercise events occur in the least
physically active subjects performing unaccustomed vigorous physical
activity.5,6,32 Several strategies to reduce events appear prudent
although unproven. These include the following: preparticipation
screening, excluding high-risk patients from some activities,
reporting and evaluating prodromal symptoms, preparing fitness
personnel and facilities for cardiovascular emergencies, and
recommending prudent exercise programs. Each of these is discussed
below.
Preparticipation Screening
Young Athletes

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends cardiovascular
screening for high school and college athletes before athletic
participation and at 2- to 4-year intervals.48,49 The examination
should include a personal and family history and a physical
examination focused on detecting conditions associated with exercise-
related events.48 The AHA does not recommend routine, additional
noninvasive testing such as a routine ECG. The omission of routine
noninvasive testing is controversial because the Study Group on Sports
Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology has recommended that
routine ECGs be obtained on all athletes as part of a preparticipation
evaluation.50

The European recommendation is based largely on an observational study
performed in the Veneto region of Italy.51 Italy has mandated the
preparticipation screening of athletes, including an ECG, since 1982.
The annual incidence of sudden death among athletes 12 to 35 years of
age decreased 89% with screening, from 3.6 deaths to 0.4 deaths per
100 000 athletes. There was no change in deaths among nonathletes,
which suggests that screening mediated the decrease. These results
provide the best evidence to date in support of the preparticipation
screening of athletes but have several limitations.52 The study did
not directly compare the screening and nonscreening of athletes but
was a population-based, observational study. Other changes in the
management of the athletes could have contributed to the improvement.
In addition, the study did not directly compare screening performed
with and without an ECG. Finally, there could be small differences in
the screened and comparison populations because the athletes were
screened at the Padua Center for Sports Medicine, whereas the
comparison population consisted of subjects from the larger Veneto
region.
Healthy Adults

Although no data from controlled trials are available to guide the use
of exercise testing in asymptomatic adults without known or suspected
CAD before beginning an exercise training program, the writing groups
from the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/AHA Guidelines on
Exercise Testing53 and the American College of Sports Medicine
(ACSM)54 have addressed this important issue by consensus. Although
each group provides slightly different specific recommendations (see
Table 4), the main theme of these recommendations is unified and
clear: Individuals who appear to be at greater risk of having
underlying CAD should be considered for exercise testing before
beginning a vigorous (≥60% V̇o2 reserve) exercise training program
(where V̇o2 reserve=percent intensity×[V̇o2 peak−V̇o2 rest]+V̇o2
rest). This is particularly evident in that both groups recommend
exercise testing before exercise training for patients with diabetes
mellitus. In contrast, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
states that insufficient evidence exists to determine the benefits and
harm of exercise stress testing before exercise programs.55
View this table:

In this window
In a new window

TABLE 4. ACC/AHA, ACSM, and USPSTF Recommendations for Exercise
Testing Before Exercise Training

A major limitation of exercise testing is that “positive” exercise
test results require the presence of a flow-limiting coronary lesion,
whereas most acute cardiac events in previously asymptomatic subjects
are due to vulnerable plaque disruption. Consequently, an exercise
stress test with or without imaging can be normal despite the presence
of coronary plaque that may rupture. This requires that health
professionals evaluate the entire atherosclerotic risk profile in
patients when advising on the feasibility of a vigorous exercise
program.


Recommending Prudent Exercise Programs

Ostensibly healthy adults without known cardiac disease should be
encouraged to develop gradually progressive exercise regimens. Because
the least fit individuals are at greatest risk for exercise-related
events, gradually progressive programs should theoretically increase
fitness and reduce acute CAD events without excessive risk. Patients
with known cardiac disease also should be counseled to include at
least 5 minutes each of warm-up and cool-down in their exercise
training sessions to reduce the likelihood of inducing cardiac
ischemia with sudden, intense physical effort62,63 and to avoid the
decrease in central blood volume that can occur with the abrupt
cessation of physical activity. Patients with cardiovascular disease
who are interested in participating in competitive sports should be
evaluated and advised in accordance with the 36th Bethesda Conference
guidelines.56 Physically inactive individuals and patients with known
cardiovascular disease should avoid strenuous, unaccustomed exercise
in both excessively cold and hot environmental conditions. Vigorous
exercise in the cold such as snow shoveling has repeatedly been
associated with acute cardiovascular events,44,45,64 and hot, humid
environments require an increased heart rate response to handle the
increased thermal load.65 Increased altitude reduces oxygen
availability and augments the cardiorespiratory and hemodynamic
responses to a given submaximal work rate, thereby increasing cardiac
demands. Individuals exercising at altitudes of >1500 m should limit
the intensity of their exercise until acclimatized.54,66

The long and short of is, if you are healthy continue to exercise (and
yes mt biking is no more or less strenuous from a heart perceptive
then triathlons, road cycling, speed skating, cross country skiing,
inline skating, tennis, soccer, basketball, swimming running, etc.),
however, if you have a heart condition, then work with your doctor and
maybe you may need to stay away from the more strenuous sports. So in
conclusion, mt biking does not put people at greater risk (or lesser)
of a cardiac event then the myriad of other sports that are equally
strenuous. That is not speculation and is presently well accepted in
the medical profession.

Enjoy,

Rick

[Bob Berger]

In article <642d856b-b241-480c...@ow3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Rick Hopkins says...
>
>On Feb 7, 9:24=C2=A0am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

>> All of what you are saying is pure speculation -- what passes for
>> thought among mountain bikers. The point is that mountain biking is
>> touted as "healthful", when it's not. Those claims don't take into
>> consideration the large probability that you will be seriously injured

>> or DIE. For 261+ examples, seehttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.ht=

>of the exercise per se and the individual=E2=80=99s physical fitness becaus=

>beginning a vigorous (=E2=89=A560% V=CC=87o2 reserve) exercise training pro=
>gram
>(where V=CC=87o2 reserve=3Dpercent intensity=C3=97[V=CC=87o2 peak=E2=88=92V=
>=CC=87o2 rest]+V=CC=87o2

>rest). This is particularly evident in that both groups recommend
>exercise testing before exercise training for patients with diabetes
>mellitus. In contrast, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
>states that insufficient evidence exists to determine the benefits and
>harm of exercise stress testing before exercise programs.55
>View this table:
>
> In this window
> In a new window
>
>TABLE 4. ACC/AHA, ACSM, and USPSTF Recommendations for Exercise
>Testing Before Exercise Training
>

>A major limitation of exercise testing is that =E2=80=9Cpositive=E2=80=9D e=

Rick: Will you PLEASE stop cluttering up this thread with facts.

[Mike Vandeman]

> The European recommendation is based largely on an observational study ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

As usual, your comments have nothing to do with my statement, which
remains valid: mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous than hiking --

something that mountain bikers keep trying to sweep under the rug

(note: my comments are not restricted to heart attacks!). Not too many
hikers ram their heads into trees, break bones,or turn themselves into
paraplegics and quadriplegics, as mountain bikers do.... DUH!

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike your reading and writing comprehension is poor and I must say,
disingenuous. I summarize this discussion: You posted an article
regarding a gentlemen who had a previous heart condition and died of a
heart attack while mt biking - he did not injure himself or die due to
crashing. - your post was and I quote "Evolution in Action!" Now as
this gentlemen died from a heart attack and did not die from crashing,
I noted that the the strenuous nature of mt biking puts this gentlemen
(or others like him) at no more risk then any other sport that also
puts similar loads on the heart. I indicated (and I am supported by
the medical literature) that sports like running, road cycling, speed
skating, inline skating, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, swimming,
basketball, soccer, tennis, etc. also result in increased workload to
the heart and individuals with pre-existing conditions would want to
take on these activities under the supervision of their doctor. Those
of us who do not have a family history of heart disease, no evidence
of heart disease and are relatively fit, will find that our risk of
suffering a cardiac incident is remarkably low and therefore
regardless of what of the aforementioned activities we engage in
(including mt. biking) we are not expected to suffer a heart attack,
and need not modify our activity/training to anticipate one. I
reiterate, your original post (i.e., the article you cited) and my
subsequent response focused on a single issue - comparing cardiac
events amongst the various strenuous sports. Healthy adults are at
extremely low risk of a cardiac event during all strenuous sports
including mt. biking. This was simply regarding heart health and
sports - if you have other issues, it was not a part of these original
posts and your attempt to shift the discussion is because you realized
you were simply wrong to make this a heart issue.

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message
news:0991bc0f-4e56-4cba...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 7, 1:49 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Why are you posting the whole damn mess just to make your non-point? Don't
you know how to edit a post?

We are comparing mountain biking to hiking only. You can hike all day long
and never have to worry about your freaking heart. In fact, taking a long
walk is good for your heart.

One other seldom noted fact you seem to have missed. Very many mountain
bikers are basically middle aged couch potatoes who only occasionally get
off their dead asses. Mountain biking for such jackasses is indeed dangerous
for their hearts as well as for other areas of their anatomies. Screw the
dumb bastards all the way to hell and back! If they want to traverse a
trail, let them do it walking, Wheels are for roads.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Bob Berger" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:jgs2v...@drn.newsguy.com...
[...]

> Rick: Will you PLEASE stop cluttering up this thread with facts.

None of you confounded mountain bikers would know a fact if it jumped up and
bit you in your dumb asses.

Trails are for hikers, roads are for bikers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is
a poor fucked-up bastard!

[Rick Hopkins]

On Feb 7, 6:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Bob Berger" <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

Yawn, Ed, when you actually say something intelligent and relevant I
am sure the world will actually end. Are your meds giving out that
you cannot keep your attention span together long enough to read? No,
Mike posted a article on a gentlemen who died while mt. biking
implying strenuous exercise associated with mt. biking is bad, the
medical profession disagrees with you and Mike. If you are a healthy
adult, regular strenuous exercise is good for your heart health - even
more than simply strolling through the forest, which in its own right
is enjoyable for many different reasons. I made no value judgement as
to mt. biking good or bad, simply your heart has no idea whether it is
being "trained" or stressed while doing any number of back country
activities such as trail running, cross country skiing, snow shoeing,
and long distance power hiking. I assume you look on these extreme
sports type with disdain as they are not walking through the forest
with their walker. Most hikes I undertake are 10 plus miles and many
push 20 miles usually at high elevation (the Sierra, I own a house at
6400 ft and go up from there) with extreme elevation gain. You may
haul your over weight ass at a snails pace so your heart rate does not
get above 75 bpm, but I and most of my hiking friends push ourselves.
Maybe you hang out at the pub keeping your belly large, but I hang out
with a largely uber fit crowd of hikers, runners (I have a couple of
friends who are part of the ultra marathon crowd, 50 to 100 mile back
country runs), cyclist (most road cyclist, but some mt. bikers),
triatholoners, skaters who all crave (admitted addicted) to aerobic
activities 4 to 6 times a week. I just got back from a 2 hr dryland
training (for skating) where we did these 15 minute drills that you
feel like you want to throw up afterwards - this will greatly improve
our skating fitness and we thrive on the pain. So I guess you and Mike
will now lobby to keep all of those crazed uber fit trail users off
the trails now. Oh Minnesota, the great state where Santorium just
won the Republican caucus. Tell you what you stay in Minnesota, you
fit the nut cases there.

Enjoy, Rick

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message

news:0ae15229-0e2f-4791...@lr19g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 7, 6:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Bob Berger" <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jgs2v...@drn.newsguy.com...
> [...]
>
> > Rick: Will you PLEASE stop cluttering up this thread with facts.
>
> None of you confounded mountain bikers would know a fact if it jumped up
> and
> bit you in your dumb asses.
>
> Trails are for hikers, roads are for bikers. Anyone who thinks otherwise
> is
> a poor fucked-up bastard!

>> Yawn, Ed, when you actually say something intelligent and relevant I
am sure the world will actually end. Are your meds giving out that
you cannot keep your attention span together long enough to read? No,

Mike posted a [an] article on a gentlemen who died while mt. biking

implying strenuous exercise associated with mt. biking is bad, the
medical profession disagrees with you and Mike. If you are a healthy
adult, regular strenuous exercise is good for your heart health - even
more than simply strolling through the forest, which in its own right
is enjoyable for many different reasons.

Both Mr. Vandeman and I are saying you are as wrong as your medical experts.
Mountain biking is actually quite strenuous as it is a stop and go type of
activity. There is hardly anything more strenuous than trying climb a steep
grade on a bicycle. It will get the heart going like crazy. Then you will
get an adrenaline rush trying to go down a steep grade. It is something that
only athletes should be doing. Ever notice how many middle age men in fact
do suffer heart attacks while mountain biking? That hardly ever happens with
regular road cycling.

>> I made no value judgement as
to mt. biking good or bad, simply your heart has no idea whether it is
being "trained" or stressed while doing any number of back country
activities such as trail running, cross country skiing, snow shoeing,
and long distance power hiking. I assume you look on these extreme
sports type with disdain as they are not walking through the forest
with their walker.

The activities you list are not extreme, but they are not for the average
guy either. You have to be in good physical condition to do any of them.
Mountain bikers are notoriously not in good condition. They think they can
cycle on mountain trails the same as they do on city streets.

By the way long distance "power hiking" has got to be another form of
insanity, but at least it does not violate the wilderness ethic. Why the
hell don't you read Thoreau and get some smarts!

>> Most hikes I undertake are 10 plus miles and many
push 20 miles usually at high elevation (the Sierra, I own a house at
6400 ft and go up from there) with extreme elevation gain. You may
haul your over weight ass at a snails pace so your heart rate does not
get above 75 bpm, but I and most of my hiking friends push ourselves.
Maybe you hang out at the pub keeping your belly large, but I hang out
with a largely uber fit crowd of hikers, runners (I have a couple of
friends who are part of the ultra marathon crowd, 50 to 100 mile back
country runs), cyclist (most road cyclist, but some mt. bikers),
triatholoners, skaters who all crave (admitted addicted) to aerobic
activities 4 to 6 times a week. I just got back from a 2 hr dryland
training (for skating) where we did these 15 minute drills that you
feel like you want to throw up afterwards - this will greatly improve
our skating fitness and we thrive on the pain.

You and your buddies are all crazy as a Minnesota loon. But you do describe
how fit you have to be to mountain bike. 99% of all mountain bikers will not
have anything approaching your level of fitness. For someone like you to
encourage mountain biking marks you as little better than a murderer in my
book.

By the way, you and your type often come up short and meet with untimely
deaths due to thinking you know more than you do. If I were you, I would go
careful. We humans are extremely fragile you know!

>> So I guess you and Mike
will now lobby to keep all of those crazed uber fit trail users off
the trails now.

No, we have both given up on that. The mountain bike craze will wear itself
out eventually. I think there is already less and less of it. Nature is for
esthetes like myself who can appreciate it, not for testosterone driven
barbarians like you. Are there no gymnasiums where you live?

>> Oh Minnesota, the great state where Santorium just

won the Republican caucus. Tell you what [,] you stay in Minnesota, you

fit the nut cases there.

Minnesota is indeed one of the most fucked-up states in the Union. We
normaly always go Dem with asshole liberals like you. Frankly it would not
surprise me in the least if that fool Hussein Obama, would win the state
once again. Yes, that is just how fucked-up we are! The role call is
horrendous ... Humphrey, E. McCarthy, Mondale, McGovern (SD), the list just
goes on and on.

Santorum would be a huge improvement on Hussein Obama, but I prefer Gingrich
myself. I think he is an ass kicker just like I am. Since the brains of
liberals are in their dumb asses, a good ass kicker is a necessity.

[Mike Vandeman]

> Enjoy, Rick- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You continue to miss the point, apparently deliberately. Mountain
bikers claim that mountain biking is a healthful activity. But they
fail to mention that it OFTEN results in a serious injury or even
DEATH. That proves that their estimate of healthfulness is too high.
In fact, it's dishonest to present the positive and ignore the
negative. It's like the ads you see on TV for drugs. They talk about
the benefits, and then say the side effects include "possible
fatality" (they are required to say that, or they wouldn't). Mountain
bikers aren't even that honest. Nor are you. In this newsgroup, only
Ed and I tell the truth. QED Get it now? You left out the information
from doctors about how dangerous mountain biking is. They are honest;
you are NOT.

[Rick Hopkins]

Gotha!

You and Ed score extremely high on the narcissistic scale and seem to
be infatuated with each other. Instead of discussing issues, if some
offers another opinion, you reflectively call people mt bikers and
liars - meaning you lost the argument. Instead of labeling someone a
mt. biker, let's evaluate whether or not most people would consider me
one or not. We know you have a very low threshold, someone merely has
to have once owned a mt. bike to be a mt. biker in your world - a
world populated by only you and Ed I might add.

I just did a quick query of my training dairy (Polar ProTrainer) and
in 2011, I engaged in (or more accurately recorded heart rate
information) 358 activities. There were many days where I would do 2
or 3 activities in a day, for example, snow shoe in the morning, ski
mid-morning to the afternoon and then skate in the evening; or I might
road ride, skate and than dryland train on the same day - each a
distinct activity that lasted 1 or more hrs. The breakdown in order of
frequency is 121 road cycling events (from 1 to 8 hr efforts), 102
speed skating events (1 to 3 hr efforts), 31 days hiking (1 to 12 hr
efforts; did not back pack last year, 1st time in many years), 31
dryland/gym efforts (1 to 3 hr), 21 trail runs (1 to 2 hr), 20 snow
shoeing efforts (1 to 4 hrs), 17 days skiing (2 to 8 hrs), 12 inline
skate efforts (0.5 to 2 hrs - just picked these up late summer took
some getting use to the boots), 3 mt. bike events (1, 1 and 4 hr
efforts). I did not throw in a couple of kayak days in Lake Tahoe or
some other excursions like walking miles in Manhattan with my daughter
during the Christmas break. 34% and 28% of my effort was on a road
bike and speed skating, respectively. In other words, these two
activities made up 62% of those activities I recorded. Eight tenths
of 1 percent was spent mt. biking. Hiking, trail running and snow
shoeing made up 96% of my time in the back country with the 3 mt bike
rides I did accounted for 4%. So now we can talk facts and decide what
best characterizes my activity. Most folks (except maybe 2 people on
the planet) would say I am a road cyclist and speed skater, and an
outdoor enthusiast. I am sure you an Ed will show just how biased an
uninteresting you are (you are more like Michelle Bachnann and Rick
Santorium then I suspect you would want to be considered) would label
me a mt. biker.

All sports have inherent risk. Some more then others. Mt. biking
falls in the middle. Orthopedic doctors from Barton Health Clinic in
Tahoe and Kaiser in the Bay Area and a OS from Arizona (I have done a
number of 100 mile road rides with him over the years) who own a major
sport clinic in Arizona (oh, and none of the 4 drs. I talked to mt.
bike) rank skiing (by leaps and bounds over other sports), football
(concussions are a big deal these days), soccer, and running as their
big four. They get smattering of basketball, cyclist (road and mt)
and other active sports. They all consider the net health benefits of
mt. biking outweigh the risk of injury. Death are not uncommon in
skiing (several across the country each year) and between 600 to 700
road cyclist are killed each year by cars. Football is primarily a US
Sport: From 1931 to 2006, the National Center for Catastrophic Sport
Injury Research has reported 1,006 direct and 683 indirect fatalities
resulting from participation in all organized football (professional,
college, high school, and sandlot) in the US.[6]; the yearly number of
indirect fatalities has remained near 9.0 per year. I personally have
known 5 people killed by cars while road cycling (dozens seriously
hurt), 3 people killed backcountry skiing, 1 person kayacking, 3
people drowning while swimming (across a lake), 3 people died while
hiking in the back country (mostly due to the elements but one slipped
off a cliff - check out the books on deaths in Yosemite and
Yellowstone - lots of hikers have died in those parks, i.e., slipping
off hiking up to half dome), 2 mountaineering and from mt. biking.
Now these were not al friends but include brief acquaintances.

For my own part, as you see I am extremely active and the four most
serious injuries I have ever suffered (all have happened in the last 4
yrs); I fractured my patella skiing April 2010 required surgery, back
on my road bike with 10 weeks and the skiis 8 months later; modest
strain to my right ACL 3 years ago while backpacking (needed PT and
rest for 3 months); slight strain to my left ACL while skating 4 years
ago (rest 1 month) and knocked off my road bike while descending Mt
Wilson in Southern California by a stray dog, did not see a doctor but
had miles of road rash - off the bike for 3 weeks. I have never
injured by self while on a mt. bike, but admittedly do not ride mt.
bikes all that often these days. I have had two friends who broke an
arm and leg while mt. biking and am aware of several scraps and
bruises, but that is about it. In my world, based on the large pool
of active people I hang with, mt. biking is not without risk, but road
cycling is clearly the most dangerous and lethal with skiing second
(in terms of mortality while doing). I know a couple of folks who
have shifted exclusively to mt. bike because cars simply scare the
shit out of them. They focus on the climbs and simply cruise on
descents so I do not expect them to be seriously hurt as most mt.
bikers don't get hurt. OBTW, other than a strained ACL skating, while
I have not sought medical assistance, slamming into a padding wall at
20mph while skating can and does hurt.

I am well informed and choose to take on sports with some low risks
because I simply enjoy them - in the end, I am much happier, extremely
fit (my main goal for the year is the Markeville Death Ride, a 129
mile road ride climbing 5 Sierra Passes for over 15,000 ft of climbing
- I will be hitting speeds in excess of 50mph on the descents) and
admit I am addicted to the rush from regularly pushing my HR in the
red-zone (for me that is above 175 bpm).

If you choose to lead a calmer life, great for you, but dowdy old men
(like you and Ed) should not judge those of us who seek out intense
activities such as road cycling (very dangerous compared to mt.
biking) and skating.

Enjoy

rick

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message

news:857a5217-ef71-4b0c...@n8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 8, 8:03 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> You continue to miss the point, apparently deliberately. Mountain
> bikers claim that mountain biking is a healthful activity. But they
> fail to mention that it OFTEN results in a serious injury or even
> DEATH. That proves that their estimate of healthfulness is too high.
> In fact, it's dishonest to present the positive and ignore the
> negative. It's like the ads you see on TV for drugs. They talk about
> the benefits, and then say the side effects include "possible
> fatality" (they are required to say that, or they wouldn't). Mountain
> bikers aren't even that honest. Nor are you. In this newsgroup, only
> Ed and I tell the truth. QED Get it now? You left out the information
> from doctors about how dangerous mountain biking is. They are honest;
> you are NOT.

>> Gotha!

>> You and Ed score extremely high on the narcissistic scale and seem to
be infatuated with each other. Instead of discussing issues, if some
offers another opinion, you reflectively call people mt bikers and
liars - meaning you lost the argument. Instead of labeling someone a
mt. biker, let's evaluate whether or not most people would consider me
one or not. We know you have a very low threshold, someone merely has
to have once owned a mt. bike to be a mt. biker in your world - a
world populated by only you and Ed I might add.

Personal attacks on Ed Dolan the Great will get you nowhere, In fact, I
thrive on personal attacks. After all, it is just another opportunity for me
to kick ass.

All that you do strikes me as crazy, but the one and only thing you do that
violates the ethics of wilderness is your mountain biking. It must never be
done on trails that hikers use. Confine your mountain biking to roads, no
matter how primitive, and I have no objections. After all, crazy folks like
you have rights too!

By the way, Bachman and Santorum are true blue conservatives. I am not that
true blue, but either of them would be at least one million times better
than Hussein Obama.

>> All sports have inherent risk. Some more then others. Mt. biking
falls in the middle. Orthopedic doctors from Barton Health Clinic in
Tahoe and Kaiser in the Bay Area and a OS from Arizona (I have done a
number of 100 mile road rides with him over the years) who own a major
sport clinic in Arizona (oh, and none of the 4 drs. I talked to mt.
bike) rank skiing (by leaps and bounds over other sports), football
(concussions are a big deal these days), soccer, and running as their
big four. They get smattering of basketball, cyclist (road and mt)
and other active sports. They all consider the net health benefits of

mt. biking outweigh the risk of injury.[?] Death are not uncommon in

skiing (several across the country each year) and between 600 to 700

road cyclist are killed each year by cars.[?] Football is primarily a US

Sport: From 1931 to 2006, the National Center for Catastrophic Sport
Injury Research has reported 1,006 direct and 683 indirect fatalities
resulting from participation in all organized football (professional,
college, high school, and sandlot) in the US.[6]; the yearly number of
indirect fatalities has remained near 9.0 per year. I personally have
known 5 people killed by cars while road cycling (dozens seriously
hurt), 3 people killed backcountry skiing, 1 person kayacking, 3
people drowning while swimming (across a lake), 3 people died while
hiking in the back country (mostly due to the elements but one slipped
off a cliff - check out the books on deaths in Yosemite and
Yellowstone - lots of hikers have died in those parks, i.e., slipping
off hiking up to half dome), 2 mountaineering and from mt. biking.
Now these were not al friends but include brief acquaintances.

All of the above is interesting, but mountain biking is not considered a
dangerous sport by most. It is usually put on a par with hiking. But there
is no comparison! Mountain biking is dangerous and hiking is not. You can
easily hurt and even kill yourself doing quite routine things on a mountain
bike whereas you have to go out of your way to hurt or kill yourself hiking.
What you have done is compared apples to oranges. Anyone with an ounce of
common sense should know what is dangerous and what is not, but common sense
is quite rare these days. Only Mr. Vandeman and I seem to have it on these
forums.

Road cycling can also be dangerous, but it is almost always the result of
being hit by a motor vehicle. It is not inherently dangerous riding on a
road. But even so, common sense must be invoked as some roads are indeed too
dangerous for cyclists.

>> For my own part, as you see I am extremely active and the four most
serious injuries I have ever suffered (all have happened in the last 4
yrs); I fractured my patella skiing April 2010 required surgery, back
on my road bike with 10 weeks and the skiis 8 months later; modest
strain to my right ACL 3 years ago while backpacking (needed PT and
rest for 3 months); slight strain to my left ACL while skating 4 years
ago (rest 1 month) and knocked off my road bike while descending Mt
Wilson in Southern California by a stray dog, did not see a doctor but
had miles of road rash - off the bike for 3 weeks. I have never
injured by self while on a mt. bike, but admittedly do not ride mt.
bikes all that often these days. I have had two friends who broke an
arm and leg while mt. biking and am aware of several scraps and
bruises, but that is about it. In my world, based on the large pool
of active people I hang with, mt. biking is not without risk, but road
cycling is clearly the most dangerous and lethal with skiing second
(in terms of mortality while doing). I know a couple of folks who
have shifted exclusively to mt. bike because cars simply scare the
shit out of them. They focus on the climbs and simply cruise on
descents so I do not expect them to be seriously hurt as most mt.
bikers don't get hurt. OBTW, other than a strained ACL skating, while
I have not sought medical assistance, slamming into a padding wall at
20mph while skating can and does hurt.

You apparently are a risk taker and are willing to take the good with the
bad. I am NOT a risk taker because the bad will always outweigh the good for
me. It is why I had to give up drinking ... a few moments of high does not
make up for days of low.

>> I am well informed and choose to take on sports with some low risks
because I simply enjoy them - in the end, I am much happier, extremely
fit (my main goal for the year is the Markeville Death Ride, a 129
mile road ride climbing 5 Sierra Passes for over 15,000 ft of climbing
- I will be hitting speeds in excess of 50mph on the descents) and
admit I am addicted to the rush from regularly pushing my HR in the
red-zone (for me that is above 175 bpm).

>> If you choose to lead a calmer life, great for you, but dowdy old men
(like you and Ed) should not judge those of us who seek out intense
activities such as road cycling (very dangerous compared to mt.
biking) and skating.

Road cycling can indeed be quite dangerous, but it is invariably due to
traffic situations. Stay off of inappropriate roads and it is quite safe. On
the other hand, traffic situations have nothing to do with the inherent
dangers of mountain biking. It is simply the kind of surfaces you are riding
on that create all the difficulties.

By the way, the one danger I have noted in my life time of road cycling is
that high speed descents are killers. That is usually when and where all the
accidents occur. If you want some excitement why not get into roller
coasters. I will be on the merry-go-round myself.

My main objection to mountain biking is that it conflicts with hiking. I
believe Mr. Vandeman would like to see mountain biking banned from off road
everywhere - period. That is because he is a purist and the world badly
needs types like him. However, I am not a purist. I just want mountain
biking banned from hiking trails. Let them get their own trails far removed
from any hikers. If they want to take risks with life and limb, that is OK
with me. Hells Bells, I hate most everyone anyway!

In any event Rick, it is a pleasure to read a post like yours. It reminds me
of the good old days when Usenet was populated by folks with intelligence.
It is now dominated by fools, scoundrels and blackguards. Why it doesn't die
altogether is a mystery to me.

[Mike Vandeman]

> - I will be hitting speeds in excess ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.

[Rick Hopkins]

Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. If you
had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995. Paper published in medical journal in 2011
completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message

news:33af23a4-ad5c-4ee5...@pq6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> You seem to be good at name-calling, but not much else. You can't even
> follow a conversation. No one labelled you a mountain biker. You
> fantasized that. Reread my last post and reply to it. No more
> longwinded irrelevant off-topic rants, please.

>> Your attention span and reading comprehension is rather poor. If you
had actually read the post you will see I clearly answered your
questions. Oh, and medical research show that mt. bike injuries have
declined 56% since 1995.

I think mountain biking itself has declined by at least that much. Only
dyed-in-the-wool assholes continue to do it.

>> Paper published in medical journal in 2011
completed a long study of mt. bike injuries since 1995 to 2007. The
net result from the medical profession is that the benefits (heart
health - pre-existing conditions should follow drs. advice) of mt.
biking outweigh any risk. So this line of reasoning if simply bogus.
Enjoy, Rick

The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
shit about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.

By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
with you!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 9, 2:23 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Rick Hopkins" <rhopk...@loainc.com> wrote in message

PRECISELY! People who defend mountain biking are even stupider than
the mountain bikers. Well, at least they aren't dumb enough to
actually risk their life & limb by DOING it.... Mountain bikers are
one of the lowest forms of human life -- if it can even be called
"human".

[Rick Hopkins]

On Feb 9, 2:23 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Rick Hopkins" <rhopk...@loainc.com> wrote in message

Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make shit up to fit
your tiny little world. You guys remind me of when Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". I
take evidence based approaches. If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk. I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers. You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). You and Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message

news:be3105c3-2b7e-4094...@b10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 9, 2:23 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:

[,,,]

> The only bogus character here is you. The medical profession does not know
> shit about anything other than their specialties. What they know least of
> all is what it takes to be fit and healthy. Your extreme sport regimen is
> for idiots. You will come to grief with it sooner or later, but since you
> are such a dunderhead, you will have to learn that the hard way.
>
> By the way, whether you mountain bike much or not is not the point. You
> defend it which is the same thing in my book. Therefore ... to the Devil
> with you!

>> Yeah why rely on experts when you and Mike just make shit up to fit
your tiny little world. You guys remind me of when Don Quixote quips
in the musical "Man of La Mancha" "facts are the enemy of truth". I
take evidence based approaches. If you dislike mt bikes in nature,
fine make your case, but relying on clearly deficient arguments makes
you two look stupider and stupider. The clear consensus in the
medial profession (which are the experts on this not you two numnuts)
is that mt. biking has modest risk associated with it, and the health
benefits outweigh the risk.

I have already told you that the medical experts do not know shit about
anything other than their specialties. As for facts, you have yours and I
have mine, although I have a healthy contempt for facts whereas you seem to
worship them. The best facts I know of are all the reports that Mr. Vandeman
posts to these newsgroups of mountain bikers regularly hurting and killing
themselves by trying to ride their fucking mountain bikes on hiking trails.

>> I put you folks debating this point in
the same bucket of climate change deniers and creationist - you have a
preconceived notion and god forbid if anyone provides evidence which
disproves your preconceptions - instead of discarding poor arguments
and honing your opposition on evidence, you name call and attack those
who proffer contrary information as liars and mt. bikers.

You need to look to yourself - an extreme sports nut who thinks life
revolves around being fit and healthy above all else. Where the hell did you
ever get that idea? You are all brawn and no brain. You will surely come to
a bad end if you keep it up! I suggest you read some books about wilderness
values. Start with Thoreau and end with E. Albee.

>> You are no
better then the anti-science crowd which controls the Republican Party
these days. So no Ed, this is not a defense of mt biking, but one
that clearly exposes your line of reasoning that mt biking is so
dangerous it outweighs the health benefits (contrary to the opinion of
the experts that are trained to judge the relationship of health
benefit vs risk). You and Mike seems to be infatuated this notion
which is clearly deficient and wildly inconsistent with an evidence-
based approach. But lacking facts has never stopped you two before
and doubt it will now. Enjoy

Rick, you do not have one ounce of common sense. By posting to these groups
you are in fact defending mountain biking. Mr. Vandeman and I know it to be
destructive both of the trails and of the folks who do it. Further, it is a
desecration of natural values of which you seemingly know nothing.There is
no health benefit if you fall and break something, most especially if you
fall and break spinal nerves. There has got to be something seriously wrong
with the way your brain works.

God damn fucking liberal Dems and Hussein Obama are destroying this nation.
Even though I am an atheist I do not necessarily believe science is going to
save us from ourselves either. If folks want to believe in God and
Creationism and Global Warming, whether they be Dems or Repubs, I could care
less. The one thing I know for sure is that the god damn fucking liberal
Dems and Hussein Obama are as ignorant of human nature as it is possible to
get. Fuck'em all the way to Hell and back!

[Rick Hopkins]

On Feb 9, 6:49 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Rick Hopkins" <rhopk...@loainc.com> wrote in message

Well Ed, based on your above uneducated rant, you have sadly proven my
point. I guess being ignorant works for you - that is why the country
is collapsing on it self because people like you identify ignorance as
common sense. Tragic

Rick

[Mike Vandeman]

> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific
conferences. You haven't given a single citation to support your
contention. For example, how EXACTLY do you balance serious injury and
death against the alleged health benefits of mountain biking? What
WEIGHT, for example, to give a death? It can't be done, except
subjectively, so your conclusion is BS. That's like the m=land
managers who claim to be able to "BALANCE" recreation with
conservation. What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
to be a professional.

[Mike Vandeman]

> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are nothing but hot air. How many SCIENTIFIC PAPERS have you
written on the subject of mountain biking? NONE, I suspect. And worse,
you aren't HONEST. You would be laughed out of the scientific
conferences where I give my papers, because there's nothing behind
your words but hot air. NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC CITATION!.

[Shraga]

On Feb 10, 3:13 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> BS. I'm the world expert on the harm that mountain biking does, and I
> have given papers on the subject at a couple dozen scientific

> conferences. <snip>

> What a joke! You are nothing but an amateur pretending
> to be a professional.

You have presented "papers" related to the harm that mountain biking
does at 24 conferences, huh?

Name the conferences. If you can't, then you are obviously lying
again.

Don't bother responding with anything other than a list of 24
conferences.

[Shraga]

On Feb 10, 3:17 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> You are nothing but hot air. How many SCIENTIFIC PAPERS have you
> written on the subject of mountain biking? NONE, I suspect. And worse,
> you aren't HONEST. You would be laughed out of the scientific
> conferences where I give my papers, because there's nothing behind
> your words but hot air. NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC CITATION!.

How many SCIENTIFIC PAPERS have you published in refereed journals on
the subject? NONE, I suspect.

Any jackass with a computer can find a conference to accept an
abstract. You seem to have deluded yourself into believing that your
ability to shop for conferences with sufficiently low standards makes
you some kind of "authority."

Why don't you publish in an actual SCIENTIFIC journal?

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike, you have published no peered reviewed scientific articles on the
subject in any credible journal (Ecology, Con Bio, J. Animal Ecology,
J Wildlife Mgt, etc.). Some of your talks are not official talks and
some are at feel good conferences where abstract rejection is near
zero. - at the SCB talk in Sj a few years ago, during the break (I
assume your abstract was rejected because it was was fantasy - oh btw
I gave a rather well received talked on using sophisticated spatial
models to identify suitable habitats and landscape linkages in a
40,000 Km2 landscape in SoCal for the cougar) - you on the other hand,
badgered the monitor to let you speak during the break to the handful
of people who were simply hanging around. She later told us over beers
she was hijacked and was completely pissed off by you. In fact a
highly respected international conservation biologist leaned over to
where I and my colleagues were sitting and quipped " my god he has
just sucked all of the science out of the room" - and he did not mean
that as a compliment. So you are the world authority only in your
mind. You and Ed have been completely ineffective and have had
absolutely no influence on land use decisions relating to mt. bikes.

I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked in
a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. Kind of like a bad soap
opera. I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying.
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to
ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

Take care, Rick

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message

news:1685c948-39aa-4685...@9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 9, 6:49 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:

[...]

> God damn fucking liberal Dems and Hussein Obama are destroying this
> nation.
> Even though I am an atheist I do not necessarily believe science is going
> to
> save us from ourselves either. If folks want to believe in God and
> Creationism and Global Warming, whether they be Dems or Repubs, I could
> care
> less. The one thing I know for sure is that the god damn fucking liberal
> Dems and Hussein Obama are as ignorant of human nature as it is possible
> to
> get. Fuck'em all the way to Hell and back!

>> Well Ed, based on your above uneducated rant, you have sadly proven my
point. I guess being ignorant works for you - that is why the country
is collapsing on it self because people like you identify ignorance as
common sense. Tragic

Review this thread. You were the one who brought politics into the
discussion.

The country is collapsing because of overspending by both Dems and Repubs. I
am hoping that once we get a true Conservative in the White House that the
overspending will cease. Apparently, a 16 trillion dollar national debt does
not bother Liberal Dems and Hussein Obama.

[Mike Vandeman]

> Take care, Rick- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry to disappoint you: Vandeman, Michael J. (mjv...@pacbell.net),
2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In
Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B.
Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and
Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also
available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
speak to replace someone who didn't show up. I gave the same paper I
have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement. I know
that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular. Are
you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing.
You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math.

[Rick Hopkins]

> Sorry to disappoint you: Vandeman, Michael J. (mjva...@pacbell.net),

> 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In
> Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B.
> Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and
> Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also

> available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

>
> I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
> speak to replace someone who didn't show up. I gave the same paper I
> have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
> whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement. I know
> that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
> cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
> found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular. Are
> you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
> they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing.
> You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
> any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
> don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math.

It was a break and the moderator disagrees and felt totally hijacked
by you. there was no scheduled paper at that time. Face it your
abstract was rejected and you found another way to speak to a handful
of us who were hanging around waiting for the session to start again.
As to modeling, I suggest you read the high end journals to find out
just how stupid and silly you are - you are not connected to anything
important. Face it you are an expert only in your own mind (and Ed's
balls).

Take care, I have now bored of you. It posting dozens of time to a
small audience makes you feel important keep at it. Have a nice life
and try and stay out of jail.

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message

news:624b2385-feba-495e...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 10, 12:13 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

As a former university librarian who had to read those damn scientific
journals I can tell you that I am not enamored of any of them. Academicians
are forced to publish all sorts of nonsense in order to retain status and
prestige in their careers. Most of it is nothing but foolishness and
unreadable.

There is actually quite an active community who hate mountain biking and who
have had and are having an effect on land managers. I think you will see
more and more closures to mountain biking in the future as a result of the
activities of Mr. Vandeman. I will admit I am just an onlooker.

>> I have not been on news groups for months and out of boredom peaked

>> [peeked] in

a few days ago and imagine my surprise when I noted nothing has
changed and 80% of the post were you and Ed. Kind of like a bad soap
opera. I was only mildly surprised to find out you were arrested
sometime ago and had to do a little digging to find out what that was
all about. You speak to an audience of 12, news groups are dying.
Facebook, specific bike forums (they monitor and throw malcontents
off), etc, have replaced news groups - you guys are dinosaurs.

I agree with you that Usenet newsgroups are either dead or dying. I have
been ranting against unmoderated newsgroups for years, yet I do not like to
be moderated by fools which is invariably the case with moderated
newsgroups. Facebook is for mindless social chatter and specific bike forums
on websites are for those who like to be bored to death by conventional
blather. I say post free or die ... even though I must admit it doesn't work
very well.

Your problem is that you dislike being disagreed with and you would killfile
anyone for that reason alone. Unlike you, I thrive on disagreement and it
doesn't bother me how heated the discussion gets. I will make my points and
I allow my opponent to make his points. Being fair in that regard is all
that counts with me.

>> Enjoy speaking to a small crowd, I doubt I will run into you again,
unless of course you break into another meeting in a disingenuous
manner. And thank god I will never run into Ed as he seems way to

[too] ignorant to have anything remotely approaching a conversation.

You know nothing of how mountain bikers communicate their messages on Usenet
cycling forums. They mostly threaten and bully, but I have done them better
in those departments. Mr. Vandeman is a gentleman and a scholar. I am
neither. You have to get to the level of whoever it is you are communicating
with. Otherwise you end up frustrated by their boorishness.

You do not fall into the typical mountain biker category. If you did, all
you would be doing by now is name calling - something that I am also quite
expert at!

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message

news:6fcb96f7-44fe-497e...@vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 10, 1:05 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

You need to check your own balls if you can find them. I think you have
supplanted them with your brain in that location instead. In any event,
allusions to the groin are always helpful as it tells me what kind of an
asshole you are. I now know exactly how to treat you in all subsequent
communications. Welcome to my world!

>> Take care, I have [am] now bored of [with] you. It [If] posting dozens

>> of time to a
small audience makes you feel important keep at it. Have a nice life

and try and [to] stay out of jail.

Your solicitation for anyone's welfare but your own rings false. We all know
you are a fitness freak who has no regard for nature. Indeed, how could you.
You rush through it at top speed without regard to anything but your own
heart rate. Tell me Rick, were you born stupid or did you have to work at
it?

[Mike Vandeman]

> and try and stay out of jail.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Typical! Depart when you find that your disguise (as a scientist) no
longer fools anyone.

Either you (probably) or she is lying. I asked her if I could give my
paper then, because the scheduled person didn't show up. She agreed!
Then in the middle of it, she changed her mind and said she was going
to have a break instead, and refused to explain why, either then or
later. There seems to be a rash of dishonest alleged "scientists"
around the subject of mountain biking, as though they can't be
objective when it's their sport. I feel sorry for any student who has
to deal with you.

[Rick Hopkins]

You first claimed it was official you were taking the place of a
cancelled talk, then now you admit that I was correct. Please tell
the group what I know to be true, you submitted an abstract to give a
talk and it was rejected by the official committee; you then
bamboozled your way into unofficially trying to give a talk, when the
moderator realized she had been had and you were a nut case, she
stopped you - I was there and witnessed the whole thing; your
ramblings were viewed by those of us in the room as unintelligible and
pointless. The scientists with whom you are trying to align yourself
- (so the group can understand this was the international conference
of the Society of Conservation Biology - the top conservation
scientist in the world mind you), did not want to be associated with
you as you have nothing to offer us. You are not an expert in any
conservation field as you have conducted not one minute of original
research. You expertise is only found deeply embedded in your own
mind. You are simply irrelevant and reduced to posting ad naseum to a
small news group.

Enjoy, Rick

[Mike Vandeman]

You are a liar (just like everyone else who mountain bikes)! I never
said any such thing.

you were taking the place of a
> cancelled talk,

Yes, she agreed to have me give my talk then.

then now you admit that I was correct.  Please tell
> the group what I know to be true, you submitted an abstract to give a
> talk and it was rejected by the official committee; you then
> bamboozled your way into unofficially trying to give a talk, when  the
> moderator realized she had been had and you were a nut case,

BS. I have given the exact same talk at SCB conferences before,
starting at Columbia University in 2004. No one else has ever had a
single objection to it. She agreed to let me present my paper, then
changed her mind when she didn't like my conclusions. Or something
like that. She refused to say why, leading me to conclude, logically,
that she can't defend her actions openly.

she
> stopped you - I was there and witnessed the whole thing; your
> ramblings were viewed by those of us in the room as unintelligible and
> pointless.

You must be pretty stupid, if you can't understand my talk. No one
else has ever said that (except mountain bikers -- what a
coincidence!).

 The scientists with whom you are trying to align yourself
> - (so the group can understand this was the international conference
> of the Society of Conservation Biology - the top conservation
> scientist in the world mind you), did not want to be associated with
> you as you have nothing to offer us.  You are not an expert in any
> conservation field

I'm the world expert on mountain biking impacts, which is well known.
Can you name even ONE person who knows more about the subject than I
do, AND IS HONEST? Most of the researchers are themselves mountain
bikers, and produce nothing but biased "research" intended to justify
their sport. If you knew anything about the sport and research on it,
you would know that.

as you have conducted not one minute of original
> research.

So what? It's not my profession. But I am qualified to judge the
research of others, most of which is worthless and biased, due to the
researcher trying to justify mountain biking. If you knew anything
about the subject, you would know that.

[Mike Vandeman]

You, on the other hand, are here for a more noble purpose, right?
Which is? ...

[Edward Dolan]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:jm9dj79ggc0982ack...@4ax.com...
[...]> You mean that on at least 24 occasions, you have ranted to a bunch of
> your fellow conspirators, probably over a considerable quantity of
> alcohol.
>
> I think you'll find that doesn't quite qualify as "peer review".

The only conspirators I know about are mountain bikers who are all without
any exceptions LIARS and DISHONEST. Mr. Vandeman sure knows how to tell it
like it is. I would add that they are also assholes and shitheads who
deserve whatever injuries they bring on themselves in pursuit of their
insanely stupid sport. When they manage to kill themselves riding their
bikes on hiking trails, I rejoice. Just one less fool in the world. Or as
the Great Michael Vandeman would say ... evolution in action. Fuck'em all to
Hell I say!

[Mike Vandeman]

Just for grins, I wonder if you can find anything SPECIFIC that is
wrong with my paper? http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. I doubt it.
You have amply proven that you are nothing but hot air. I'm sure you
will try to wriggle out of this.

> Take care, Rick

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 11, 9:37 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012

> You mean that on at least 24 occasions, you have ranted to a bunch of
> your fellow conspirators, probably over a considerable quantity of
> alcohol.

Sorry to disappoint you. I don't drink. All of the conferences, and my
talks, were full of scientists. NOT ONE has ever found anything wrong
with my papers. That is plenty of peer review. So is this: Vandeman,
Michael J. (mjv...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking

on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R.
E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156;
expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 11, 9:50 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012

> >Sorry to disappoint you: Vandeman, Michael J. (mjva...@pacbell.net),

> >2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In
> >Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B.
> >Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and
> >Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also

> >available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

>
> >I have never spoken "during a break". The moderator agreed to let me
> >speak to replace someone who didn't show up.
>

> You mean you bullied and browbeat her into it.

Nope. It hardly took any persuading, since the paper has been given
many times before.

> >                                             I gave the same paper I
> >have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
> >whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement.
>

> You mean it was completely ignored.
> Not surprising really.

>
> >                                                               I know
> >that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
> >cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
> >found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular.
>

> Ah, so there is only ONE "paper", which all the scientific
> establishment regard with such contempt that they utterly ignore it.

One is all it took. Debunking mountain biking is child's play.

> >                                                                 Are
> >you saying that the scientists who screen the papers don't know what
> >they are doing? You are the one who doesn't know what you are doing.
> >You may be able to snow people who don't know anything about math, but
> >any mathematician knows that "modelling" papers are BS. Living things
> >don't obey your simple-minded math, or even complicated-minded math.
>

> I think I see your problem.  You don't understand it, so you pretend
> it can be ignored.

I was trained as a mathematician, so I understand that stuff more than
either of you two.

> It's not all that surprising that you end up bitter and twisted when
> people recognise your ignorance and disregard your "science".

I'm not surprized by corrupt mountain biker "scientists". Neither is
anyone else fooled.

You are wasting your time, because it's obvious that someone like you,
who is incapable of giving any specifics, is LYING. Also known as
"BLUFFING".

[Len McGoogle]

Ask how he got to said conferences. He sure as hell didn't hike,
especially to the ones overseas. He took one of the most harmful modes
of transportation, commercial airlines.

[Len McGoogle]

> Michael J. (mjva...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking

> on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R.
> E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of
> Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156;
> expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.
>

How did you get to these conferences?

Awhile back you denied you even attended them, now you boast about it.
Typical convicted criminal, always lying.

[Mike Vandeman]

Prove it, liar.

[Mike Vandeman]

You are full of it, like ALL mountain bikers. You wouldn't know the
truth if it bit you in the ass -- which it does frequently. If you
aren't going to tell the truth, why do you bother posting???

[Edward Dolan]

"Len McGoogle" <kaya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b293797-1968-43bd...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
[,,,]

> Typical convicted criminal, always lying.

You lie about your name always. What's the matter? Afraid to use your real
name. The only lying coward here is you!

[Mike Vandeman]

> wrong with my paper?http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. I doubt it.

> You have amply proven that you are nothing but hot air. I'm sure you
> will try to wriggle out of this.
>
>
>
> > Take care, Rick

Just as I predicted! Dr. Hopkins runs away, rather than admit that he
can't provide any SPECIFICS. He is nothing but HOT AIR and gratuitous
insults. How "scientific"! Idiot.

[Edward Dolan]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message

[...]
> You're a vile thug with delusions of competence.
> Maybe if you spend some time calculating how much oxygen you waste,
> and act to solve that, you may some day aspire to some level of
> mediocrity, if you work hard at it.
> Until then,
> Sod off, before your probation officer finds out you've been
> impersonating something other than the petty wankstain you are.

>> You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
>> You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish
>> foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless
>> crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You
>> cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup
>> pratting
>> naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted
>> fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.

[Edward Dolan]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
[...]

>> So go and complain to your parole officer that people keep recognising
> you for what you are.
> I'm sure he'll point out the teeth marks in your arse for you.
> If you are really lucky, you may get a psychiatric referral.
> If we are really lucky, it will be a committal.

> You twittering, lumpish, susurrant flagellant. You slubbering, spoiled,
> fly-eating grocery bag. You gurgling, tensionless, lesbian pig. You
> badgering, outback, tart codpiece. You are a pirouetting, lubberly,
> squeamish dwarf. You usuring, half-bound, winking porter. You are a
> suckling, postmenopausal, smug yearling. You are a subserving,
> cheese-obsessed, mucoid chemist. You hopping, asthmatic, strangled
> kaiser. You are a staring, disorientated, infested onion. You qrasping,
> half-baked, swimming peasant. You are a chivying, over-decorated, screwy
> shit eater. You are a slumping, foolhardy, dampish pigfish. You
> presupposing, puke-inducing, mop-headed cornflake. You supplicating,
> spotted, sticky g-string. You are a quacking, styptic, tin-canned bum
> boy. You are a puckering, flea-infested, queer yabberer. You
> fanaticising, spurious, horrific salesman. You are a gumming,
> subjugated, raw-boned frau. You are a kowtowing, suffusive, narcoleptic
> flapper. You are less than a moralising, semisolid, cooked-over
> clack-dish. You gulping, beetling, gangling yawner. You are a flapping,
> tormented, swag-bellied faecal impaction. You are an officiating, mingy,
> do-it-yourself hoof.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 12, 12:18 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 11 Feb 2012

> Not, apparently, to reputable conferences.

How would YOU know?! The Society for Conservation Biology happens to
be the premier organization in the world for conservation science. Ask
your mommie to explain the big words for you (all those with more than
one syl-la-ble).

> >> >                                             I gave the same paper I
> >> >have given at a dozen other conferences (none of them "feel good",
> >> >whatever that is), without a single objection or disagreement.
>
> >> You mean it was completely ignored.
> >> Not surprising really.
>
> >> >                                                               I know
> >> >that some so-called "scientists" like you let their personal biases
> >> >cloud their judgment. Nothing new there. No real scientist has ever
> >> >found anything wrong with my paper, which is why it's so popular.
>
> >> Ah, so there is only ONE "paper", which all the scientific
> >> establishment regard with such contempt that they utterly ignore it.
>
> >One is all it took. Debunking mountain biking is child's play.
>

> Well, child is your mental development level (and a spoilt one at
> that), and you are certainly playing.
>
> You just seem to be falling well short of the debunking part.

Given that you NEVER give any specifics, it's obvious that you are
bluffing & lying.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 12, 12:21 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 12 Feb 2012

> 09:07:03 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
> >On Feb 11, 3:18 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> <nothing of any consequence, much like every other day of what it
> likes to regard as it's life>
>
> Sad little wankstain chatting to itself now I see.
> I suppose it's the only way it can pretend it's getting any attention
> at all.

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
pm)."

Even YOU don't think what you are saying is important! So why should
anyone else?!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 12, 12:30 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 11 Feb 2012
> 18:51:47 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to lie:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 11, 5:46 pm, Len McGoogle <kayak4...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On Feb 11, 7:31 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> lied:

>
> >> > On Feb 11, 9:37 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > > Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012

> >> > > 00:13:00 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to lie:

>
> >> > > >On Feb 9, 5:16 pm, Rick Hopkins <rhopk...@loainc.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> On Feb 9, 2:23 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > >> > "Rick Hopkins" <rhopk...@loainc.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > > >> >news:33af23a4-ad5c-4ee5...@pq6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> >> > > >> > On Feb 9, 12:27 am, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> lied:

> So go and complain to your parole officer that people keep recognising
> you for what you are.
> I'm sure he'll point out the teeth marks in your arse for you.
> If you are really lucky, you may get a psychiatric referral.

> If we are really lucky, it will be a committal.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
pm)."

Did you say something? I didn't think so.

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Vandeman" <mike.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d635840-be03-4db6...@ir9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 12, 12:21 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

... the usual shit garbage!
[...]

Michael Vandeman wrote:

> "Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
pm)."

> Even YOU don't think what you are saying is important! So why should
anyone else?!

I did not think that was possible since it is a posting from Google Groups.
I wonder how it is done? I was under the impression that once something is
posted to a Usenet newsgroup, it is there for all eternity.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 12, 7:47 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:0d635840-be03-4db6...@ir9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 12:21 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> ... the usual shit garbage!
> [...]
>
> Michael Vandeman wrote:
> > "Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
>
> This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 19, 12:21
> pm)."
>
> > Even YOU don't think what you are saying is important! So why should
>
> anyone else?!
>
> I did not think that was possible since it is a posting from Google Groups.
> I wonder how it is done?  I was under the impression that once something is
> posted to a Usenet newsgroup, it is there for all eternity.

I thought so, too. I use Google Groups. Perhaps other newsreaders have
more options available, although I have never heard of that one..

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 13, 2:37 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 12 Feb 2012

> Anyone competent would know that you just set the X-No-Archive flag to
> "Yes", although it has to be admitted that the intersection of
> "competent users" and "google groups users" is almost a null set.
> Most properly designed and configured news clients have the option to
> set a default value for this.  It seems Google know their target
> market well enough to realise it's not worth bothering with for them,
> although they seem to have chosen the wrong setting as a default -
> gurgle gropes lusers outpourings are rarely worth considering even in
> the short term, and almost never beyond the time it takes to hit "D".

Thanks. They are probably thinking that -- trashy though it is -- it
gives some information that an advertiser would be interested in,
which is likely true. Personally, knowing that everything I write is a
carefully-considered priceless gem, or I wouldn't waste my time
writing it, I wouldn't be interested in that option. :)

[Rick Hopkins]

No Mike, I did not run away, I have a life and was enjoying a nice
hiatus away from my computer. I do admit you have providing nothing
of substance and this will be my last comment on this subject.

Over 300 years ago, Francis Bacon, the father of modern science noted,
“that the quilt of the senses is either of two sorts, it either
destitutes us or deceives us.” Bacon so wisely observed, that human
biases and perceptions confound our ability to understand the natural
world. It is what lead him to develop a systematic approach that
would to the degree possible, minimize their influence in inferring
patterns in nature. You have conducted absolutely no orginal research
on the subject of what impacts mountain biking (or trail use of any
kind) does or does not have on natural systems. You have however,
offered opinions ad naseum based soley on your biases and
perceptions. Your reviews are consistently silly and whenever you
strive to make a reasoned argument, you sabotage yourself by making an
absolutely idiotic statement – your biases precede you by a country
mile.

You ask me to review your stuff and offer a critique (oh and Mike
finds it necessary to consistently violate proper NG edict by emailing
me privately – emails that are set to go into my spam folder in the
future). I will offer a suitable unbiased review when you submit to
me a paper derived from original research with the intention of
submitting it to a suitable peer-reviewed journal. I suggest you
consider relying on a sampling methodology that is based on a patch-
occupancy framework. I direct you to the book written by the
absolutely brilliant statisticians/ecologists McKenzie, Nichols,
Royale, Pollack, Bailey and Hines. 2006. Occupancy Estimation and
Modeling. Academic Press. These authors so aptly point out that
unless you can estimate detection probability of the relevant species
you cannot unbiasedly infer patterns and dynamics of species
occurrence. As these authors point out, if you visit a sample point
four times, see species A the first time, do not see it the 2nd and
3rd time, and see it the 4th time (1,0,0,1) what can you infer about
occupancy. The 2nd and 3rd time you either didn’t detect the species
because it was absent, or you didn’t detect it because you missed it.
One thing we clearly know is that there is no such thing as a species
detection probability of 1. One cannot make robust inferences about
patterns of occurrence or dynamics an estimate of the underlying
detection probabilities of individual species.

By having a sufficient number of sampling units (relevant to the
species you are studying), relevant co-variates (species do not occur
randomly or uniformly in the environment and thus, various landscape
features, and habitat cover affect a specific species distribution),
and important predictor variables such as trails users, etc. or absent
of said features. This will require you to find a study area, choose
a relevant spatial scale, appropriate species to use to infer affects
of trails and trail users, collaborate with true species experts for
those species you choose to study, and generate a series of “a priori”
hypotheses to evaluate. This is not the only way to conduct unbiased
research on the subject, but probably one of the most robust ways to
infer changes in patterns due to different trail uses. You do that
and I will commit to offering you a fair unbiased review of your
paper. In order to accomplish this sort of work will also require
obtaining grants from government agencies or foundations. Otherwise
do not waste my time with our incessant proselytizing.

I am besieged daily with real issues related to large carnivores and
the constant attack that game agencies, ranchers, and hunters place on
the killing of carnivores across this country (and world wide) in the
name of “management”. Here are just a couple of the 20 to 25 emails I
get a day about the wholesale slaughter of carnivores throughout the
US and not just Alaska. Your issues whether real or imagined are
trivial to what is going on in the name of management of carnivores.
I and other conservation biologist, NGOs will rather focus on those
issues that are immediate and consequences massive – yours are
neither.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tejon-hunting-20120121,0,7251505.story

http://wallowa.com/free/idaho-hunter-shoots-former-imnaha-pack-wolf/article_19b680a2-537c-11e1-850b-0019bb2963f4.html

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=7101.0

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53475319-90/bill-coyotes-utah-bounty.html.csp

Your opinion pieces are passionate and biased. You debate by
attempting to marginalizing those who offer a different interpretation
of your review of the literature and you regularly attack people by
calling them liars and mt. bikers. Your opinions are of little
consequence within the conservation community as you saw how you were
treated during the SCB conference. So fire away, you and Ed will throw
upteen useless insults my way yada yada yada.

As I said before, if acting self-important works for you, go for it. I
choose to work on real issues.

Enjoy, Rick

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message
news:fd448441-d19e-46db...@m3g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
[...]

> Your opinion pieces are passionate and biased. You debate by
attempting to marginalizing those who offer a different interpretation
of your review of the literature and you regularly attack people by
calling them liars and mt. bikers. Your opinions are of little
consequence within the conservation community as you saw how you were
treated during the SCB conference. So fire away, you and Ed will throw
upteen useless insults my way yada yada yada.

> As I said before, if acting self-important works for you, go for it. I
choose to work on real issues.

What good does it do to have some education on a subject if you can't bring
some common sense to it. I do not want mountain biking on hiking trails -
period! Why? Because it is an incompatible use. What is there to know about
this subject that I do not know? Any land manger who thinks both groups can
use this resource without conflict is clearly an idiot. Are you an idiot
too?

Your blather about "real Issues" is neither here nor there. The subject is
mountain biking on hiking trails. The only expert in the world on that
particular subject is Mr. Michael Vandeman. What you have said on that
subject so far is nonsensical.

By the way, I am this world's foremost expert at reading between the lines.
You have directed as many insults at others as anyone I have ever
encountered on Usenet. Just because you don't resort to crude language means
nothing. An insult is an insult. I am just better at it than you because I
have been dealing with mountain bikers longer. A fine tuned insult goes
right over their heads, so I go for their groins instead since that is where
their miniscule brains are located.

[Edward Dolan]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message

news:sj3jj7ld7idcoadpe...@4ax.com...
[...]

> Anyone competent would know that you just set the X-No-Archive flag to
> "Yes", although it has to be admitted that the intersection of
> "competent users" and "google groups users" is almost a null set.
> Most properly designed and configured news clients have the option to
> set a default value for this. It seems Google know their target
> market well enough to realise it's not worth bothering with for them,
> although they seem to have chosen the wrong setting as a default -
> gurgle gropes lusers outpourings are rarely worth considering even in
> the short term, and almost never beyond the time it takes to hit "D".

Nope, that would never work for me since I want my immortal words to live
forever! Think of it, someone a thousand years from now will read my words
of wisdom and wonder ... who was that genius who lived back then!

[Mike Vandeman]

> of ...
>
> read more »

Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did here:

The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People --
A Review of the Literature (http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm)
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
July 3, 2004

"Every recreationist -- whether hiker, biker, horsepacker, or posey
sniffer -- should not begin by asking, 'What's best for ME?' but
rather 'What's best for the bears?'" Tom Butler

"Will we keep some parts of the American landscape natural and wild
and free -- or must every acre be easily accessible to people and
their toys? … Mountain bikes' impacts on the land are large and
getting worse. … The aggressive push of mountain bike organizations to
build ever-growing webs of trails poses serious problems of habitat
fragmentation, increased erosion, and wildlife conflicts.
As interest in extreme riding continues to grow, as trail networks
burgeon, and as new technology makes it possible for ever-more
mountain bicyclists to participate, even the most remote wild
landscapes may become trammeled -- and trampled -- by knobby tires. …
The destruction of wilderness and the fragmentation of habitats and
ecosystems is death by a thousand cuts. Will introduction of mountain
bikes -- and their penetration farther into wilderness -- promote
additional fragmentation and human conflicts with the natural world?
Yes." Brian O'Donnell and Michael Carroll

"Some things are obvious: mountain bikes do more damage to the land
than hikers. To think otherwise ignores the story told by the ground.
Although I have never ridden a mountain bike, I am very familiar with
their impacts. For the last seven years I have regularly run three to
six miles several times a week on a network of trails in the Sandia
Mountain foothills two blocks from my home. … These trails receive use
from walkers, runners, and mountain bikers; they are closed to
motorized vehicles.
Because I'm clumsy, I keep my eyes on the trail in front of me. I run
or walk in all seasons, in all kinds of weather. I have watched the
growing erosion on these trails from mountain bike use. The basic
difference between feet and tires is that tire tracks are continuous
and foot tracks are discontinuous. Water finds that narrow, continuous
tire tracks are a rill in which to flow. Also, because many mountain
bikers are after thrills and speed, their tires cut into the ground.
Slamming on the brakes after zooming downhill, sliding around sharp
corners, and digging in to go uphill: I see the results of this
behavior weekly. …
I regularly see mountain bikers cutting off cross-country, even on
steep slopes, for more of a challenge. They seem blind and deaf to the
damage they cause. Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can cause
damage to wilderness trails. But this is a poor argument to suggest
that we add another source of damage to those trails." Dave Foreman

"Studies show that bike impacts are similar to those of other non-
motorized trail users." Jim Hasenauer (professor of rhetoric and
member of the board of directors of the International Mountain
Bicyclists Association)

Introduction:

I first became interested in the problem of mountain biking in 1994.
I had been studying the impacts of the presence of humans on wildlife,
and had come to the conclusion that there needs to be habitat that is
entirely off-limits to humans, in order that wildlife that is
sensitive to the presence of humans can survive (see Vandeman, 2000).
But what is the best way to minimize the presence of people?
Restricting human access is repugnant, and difficult and expensive to
accomplish. It occurred to me that the best way to reduce the presence
and impacts of humans is to restrict the technologies that they are
allowed to utilize in nature: e.g. prohibit bicycles and other
vehicles (and perhaps even domesticated animals, when used as
vehicles).

Having been a transportation activist for eight years (working on
stopping highway construction), and having a favorable view of my
fellow bicyclists as environmentalists, I turned to them to help me
campaign to keep bicycles out of natural areas. Was I ever surprised!
I discovered that many bicyclists (e.g. many mountain bikers) aren't
environmentalists at all, but are simply people who like to bicycle --
in the case of mountain bikers, many of them just use nature, as a
kind of playground or outdoor gymnasium! (Of course, there are also
hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists who fall into this
category.) To my suggestion to keep bikes off of trails in order to
protect wildlife, they reacted with hostility! (There is a degree of
balkanization among activists, where some transportation activists
ignore the needs of wildlife, and some wildlife activists eschew bikes
and public transit.)

In 1994 I attended a public hearing held by the East Bay Municipal
Utility (water) District to decide whether to allow bikes on their
watershed lands. Mountain bikers were there asking for bike access,
and the Sierra Club was there to retain the right to hike, while
keeping out the bicycles. I said that I had no interest in using the
watershed, but that I wanted to ensure that the wildlife are protected
-- hence, I asked that bikes not be allowed. Afterward, the EBMUD
Board of Directors took a field trip to Marin County, the birthplace
of mountain biking, to see the effects of mountain biking there. While
they were hiking along a narrow trail, a mountain biker came racing
by, swearing at them for not getting out of his way fast enough. That
helped them decide to ban bikes. Today bikes are still restricted to
paved roads, and EBMUD is still one of the public agencies most
protective of wildlife.

It is obvious that mountain biking is harmful to some wildlife and
people. No one, even mountain bikers, tries to deny that. Bikes create
V-shaped ruts in trails, throw dirt to the outside on turns, crush
small plants and animals on and under the trail, facilitate increased
levels of human access into wildlife habitat, and drive other trail
users (many of whom are seeking the tranquility and primitiveness of
natural surroundings) out of the parks. Because land managers were
starting to ban bikes from trails, the mountain bikers decided to try
to shift the battlefield to science, and try to convince people that
mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. But there are two
problems with this approach: (1) it's not true, and (2) it's
irrelevant.

I will examine (1) in a moment. But first, let's look at relevance:
whether or not hiking (or All Terrain Vehicles or urban sprawl or
anything else) is harmful really has no bearing on whether mountain
biking is harmful: they are independent questions. Such a comparison
would only be relevant if one were committed to allowing only one
activity or the other, and wanted to know which is more harmful. In
reality, hiking is always allowed, and the question is whether to add
mountain biking as a permitted activity. In that case, the only
relevant question is: Is mountain biking harmful? Of course, it is.
However, since many people seem interested in the outcome of the
comparison, I will examine the research and try to answer it.

The mountain bikers' other line of research aims to prove that
mountain bikers are just like hikers, implying that they should have
the same privileges as hikers. (Of course, they already have the same
privileges! The exact same rules apply to both groups: both are
allowed to hike everywhere, and neither is allowed to bring a bike
where they aren't allowed.) Using surveys, they have tried to show
that mountain bikers are really environmentalists, lovers of nature,
and deep ecologists. Of course, surveys are notoriously unreliable:
statements of belief don't easily translate into behavior. I'm going
to ignore this research, since I am (and the wildlife are) more
interested in actual impacts, not intentions.

The International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) has done me the
favor of collecting all the research they could find that seemed
favorable to mountain biking. Gary Sprung (2004) summarized it in his
carefully worded essay, "Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking".
Gary says "the empirical studies thus far do not support the notion
that bikes cause more natural resource impact". I will show that this
is not true; in fact, those studies, if their data are interpreted
properly, show the exact opposite: that mountain biking has much
greater impact than hiking! Gary says that we should make "make
rational, non-arbitrary, less political decisions regarding which
groups are allowed on particular routes". This is disingenuous.
Mountain bikers (but not bikes) are already allowed on every trail.

Impacts on Soil (Erosion):

Gary says "No scientific studies show that mountain bikers cause more
wear to trails than other users". He cites Wilson and Seney (1994) and
claims that "hooves and feet erode more than wheels. … Wilson and
Seney found no statistically significant difference between measured
bicycling and hiking effects". He quotes the study: "Horses and hikers
(hooves and feet) made more sediment available than wheels
(motorcycles and off-road bicycles) on prewetted trails" (p.74).

This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that
mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a
number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors
used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment
yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of
each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say
what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good
measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the
very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it
into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected.
In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the
kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third
that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the
measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between
water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail
roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant".

Another problem with the study is that the hikers and mountain bikers
used trails that were significantly different, prior to the
experiment!: "The results from Part A of Table 4 suggest that the
trails used for the five treatment types were not similar in terms of
their sediment yield behavior prior to the treatments. Trail plots
used for hikers were statistically different from one of the other
groups (off-road bicycles) at the .05 level" (p.84). This makes it
even less likely that the hiker-mountain biker comparison is valid.

The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail
users typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several
times as far as hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the
additional impacts due to the mountain bike bringing new people to the
trails that otherwise would not have been there (the same omission is
true of all other studies, except Wisdom et al (2004)). They do say
"Trail use in the last ten years has seen a dramatic increase in off-
road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't incorporate this fact into their
comparison. In addition, there is no recognition of different styles
of riding and their effect on erosion. We don't know if the mountain
bikers rode in representative fashion, or, more likely, rode more
gently, with less skidding, acceleration, braking, and turning. There
was also no recognition that soil displaced sideways (rather than
downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It seems likely that they
underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that
these results are reliable. (Note that the study was partially funded
by IMBA.)

Gary next cited Chiu (Luke...@utas.edu.au) and Kriwoken
(L.K.Kr...@utas.edu.au), claiming that there was "no significant
difference between hiking and biking trail wear". It is apparent he
and the authors misstated the implications of the study. If we assume,
as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per mile
(which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers
have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel
several times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I
have informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements,
which advertise rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles,
and a maximum of 112 miles.)

Besides ignoring distance travelled, there were a number of other
defects in the study. The biking that was compared with hiking was
apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than
normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal
occurrence) were not compared with hikers. Their erosion impacts were
much greater than those of any hikers (judging from the study's graph
labelled "Figure 3"). Bikers' impacts under wet conditions were also
greater than those of the hikers, which probably would have been
statistically significant, if the numbers (of data points) had been
greater. One useful result was that the bikers tended to create a V-
shaped groove, whereas the hikers' impact was spread more evenly
across the trail. They admit that this "could act as a water channel
and increase erosion" (p.356). They also surveyed trail users: "34% of
riders listed excitement/risk as a main reason for visiting [the
park]. This, combined with the 57% of 'other users' who visit for
relaxation, sets up a potential for goal interference, in that a rider
aiming for an exciting/risky experience has the potential to interfere
with a walker aiming to have a relaxing experience." (p.357) This
would also tend to indicate that many bikers travel faster than those
in this study, since they are seeking "excitement" and "risk".

Impacts on Plants:

Gary says "No scientific studies indicate that bicycling causes more
degradation of plants than hiking. Trails are places primarily devoid
of vegetation, so for trail use in the center of existing paths,
impacts to vegetation are not a concern." However this is a concern
for plants that try to establish themselves in the trail, and for
roots that cross the trail and end up being killed or damaged.

He cites Thurston and Reader (2001), claiming that "hiking and
bicycling trample vegetation at equal rates … the impacts of biking
and hiking measured here were not significantly different". Actually,
that is not true. Although overall impacts weren't significantly
different, "soil exposure [was] greater on biking 500 pass lanes than
hiking 500 pass lanes" (p.404). In other words, after 500 passes,
mountain biking began to show significantly greater impacts. Thus
their conclusion, "the impacts of biking and hiking measured here were
not significantly different" (p.405) is unwarranted.

The authors said "Bikers traveled at a moderate speed, usually
allowing bicycles to roll down lanes without pedaling where the slope
would allow." Thus it would appear that the mountain biking that they
measured is not representative: it was unusually slow and didn't
include much opportunity for braking, accelerating, or turning, where
greater impacts would be expected to occur.

The authors also said "Some hikers feel that bikers should be
excluded from existing trails" (p.397). Of course, this is not true.
Hikers are only asking that bikes be excluded, not bikers. On page 407
they admit the "possibility … that mountain bikers simply contribute
further to the overuse of trails". In other words, allowing bikes on
trails allows trail use to increase over what it would be if bikes
weren't allowed. This is probably true, and deserves to be recognized
and researched.

They found that "One year following treatments, neither vegetation
loss nor species loss was significantly greater on treated lanes than
on control lanes" (p.406). They conclude that the recreation impacts
are "short-term", and experience "rapid recovery". This is
unjustified. Killing plants and destroying seeds modifies the gene
pool, and introduces human-caused loss of genetic diversity, and
evolution. Dead plants and lost genetic diversity do not
"recover" (see Vandeman, 2001).

However, the greatest defect of the study and its interpretation is
that is that it doesn't consider the distance that bikers travel. Even
if we accepted their conclusions that impacts per mile are the same,
it would follow that mountain bikers have several times the impact of
hikers, since they are easily able to, and do, travel several times as
far as hikers. Try walking 25 or 50 or 100 miles in a day!

Impacts on Animals:

Gary cites Taylor and Knight (1993), claiming that "hiking and biking
cause [the] same impact to large mammals on Utah island". First, as
noted by Wisdom et al (2004), this study lacked a control group, and
hence can't infer causation. Second, the authors made the same mistake
that all other researchers made: they ignored the different distances
that hikers and bikers travel. I also wonder how realistic it was to
have all recreationists continue past the animals without stopping to
look at them. (All of those researchers also failed to implement blind
measurement and analysis: the researchers were aware, as they were
measuring, which treatment they were testing. Only Wisdom et al were
able to carry out their measurements (electronically) without any
people even being present.)

This is a very informative paper. The authors "examined the responses
of bison …, mule deer …, and pronghorn antelope … to hikers and
mountain bikers … by comparing alert distance, flight distance, and
distance moved" (p.951). They noted, significantly, that "Outdoor
recreation has the potential to disturb wildlife, resulting in
energetic costs, impacts to animals' behavior and fitness, and
avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. … outdoor recreation is the
second leading cause for the decline of federally threatened and
endangered species on public lands" (p.951). They also noted that
"Mountain biking in particular is one of the fastest-growing outdoor
activities, with 43.3 million persons participating at least once in
2000" (p.952). However, they didn't draw on this fact when they
concluded "We found no biological justification for managing mountain
biking any differently than hiking" (p.961).

The authors also surveyed the recreationists, and found that they
"failed to perceive that they were having as great an effect on
wildlife as our biological data indicated. Most recreationists felt
that it was acceptable to approach wildlife at a much closer distance
(mean acceptable distance to approach = 59.0 m) than wildlife in our
experimental trials would typically allow a human to approach (mean
flight distance of all species = 150.6 m). … Of all visitors surveyed,
46%, 53%, and 54%, respectively, felt that bison, deer, and pronghorn
were being negatively affected by recreation on Antelope Island. …
Visitors expressed little support for allowing only one type of
recreational use on island trails, having fewer trails on the island,
for requiring visitors to watch an educational video about the effects
of recreation on wildlife, and for allowing recreation only on the
north (developed) end of the island" (p.957). (Gary Sprung omitted
this information from his summary.)

They noted that the wildlife might habituate to the presence of
humans, but that exactly the opposite happened with the pronghorn:
they "in fact used areas that were significantly farther from trails
than they had prior to the start of recreational use on the island" (p.
961). They also noted: "Because flushing from recreational activity
may come at the cost of energy needed for normal survival, growth, and
reproduction …, and because it may cause animals to avoid otherwise
suitable habitat …, it is important that recreationists understand
that their activities can flush wildlife and may make suitable habitat
unavailable" (p.961). I think that the wealth of such information
provided by the authors makes this paper especially valuable.

They concluded "Our results indicate that there is little difference
in wildlife response to hikers vs. mountain bikers" (p.957). I was
present when Ms. Taylor presented her findings at the Society for
Conservation Biology meeting at the University of Kent, in Canterbury,
England, in July, 2002. I pointed out to her that she wasn't justified
in concluding, as she did, that "hiking and mountain biking have the
same impacts", since she only measured impacts per incident. Since
bikers are able, and typically do, travel several times as far as
hikers, a more proper conclusion would be that bikers have several
times as much impact on wildlife as hikers. That is why I am so
disappointed to find her later concluding in this 2003 paper, "We
found no biological justification for managing mountain biking any
differently than hiking" (p.961). If mountain bikers can travel even
twice as far as hikers, and disturb twice as many animals, I would
think that that is biologically significant! It isn't much help that
she goes on to admit that "because bikers travel faster than hikers,
they may cover more ground in a given time period than hikers, thus
having the opportunity to disturb more wildlife per unit time" (p.
961). She has still drawn an unjustified conclusion, and it is certain
to be frequently quoted (out of context) by mountain bikers, as they
try to lobby for more trail access.

I also wonder about the accuracy of their measurements of distance.
Distance is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially
when animals and recreationists may be hidden from view ("Due to the
inherent errors in triangulating in the steep canyon country, only
ground visual locations were used in the analysis" p.577). Bias may
also have been introduced by the fact that researchers knew, as they
were measuring, which treatment they were measuring.

Sprung next cited Papouchis et al (2001), claiming that "Hikers have
[the] greatest impact on bighorn sheep [in Canyonlands National Park]
… because the hikers were more likely to be in unpredictable locations
and often directly approached [the] sheep". Actually, this is an
artifact of the experimental design, and not a result of research: the
researchers, for some reason, told the hikers (who were research
assistants) to approach the sheep! So the study actually compared
apples and oranges: bikers who stay on a road, vs. hikers who approach
bighorn sheep! Nothing useful can be concluded from such a study,
except that people who approach bighorn sheep disturb them. Of course,
there is nothing to prevent mountain bikers from getting off their
bikes and doing the same thing. It's unfortunate that the opportunity
was lost to gain more valuable knowledge. I wrote the authors, asking
why they had done this, but I got no reply. It would appear that the
intention was to exonerate mountain biking (this also applies to most
of the other studies).

It is interesting that "when bighorn sheep did respond to human
activity, they noticed vehicles and mountain bikers, on average, from
twice the distance they noticed hikers" (p.577). This would seem to
imply that, were hikers to remain on the trail where the mountain
bikers were, they might have equal or lower impacts than the mountain
bikers.

It is also unfortunate that there was no control group, so that they
could determine the effect of the presence of roads, with and without
people on them. They did note that "avoidance of the road corridor by
some animals represented 15% less use of potential suitable habitat in
the high-[visitor-]use area over the low-[visitor-]use area. … human
presence in bighorn sheep habitat may cause sheep to vacate suitable
habitat" (p.573). This argues for eliminating all recreation in the
area, especially since the absence of water forces recreationists to
bring motor vehicles carrying water and other supplies: "mountain
bikers frequently use the 161-km White Rim trail, a 4-wheel-drive
road. Caravans of mountain bikers accompanied by support vehicles are
common. Day use along the Shafer and White Rim trails exceeded 17,500
vehicles during the study period, 1993-1994. This use was concentrated
from March to October, with peak use of 134 vehicles/day in May" (p.
575).

The authors conclude "Contrary to our original expectations and the
concerns of park managers, the increase in numbers of mountain bikers
visiting the park does not appear to be a serious threat to desert
bighorn sheep, probably because mountain bikers are restricted to
predictable situations such as the currently designated road
corridors" (p.580). For several reasons, this conclusion is not
justified: (1) as they reported, all recreationists drive the sheep
away from parts of their habitat, causing loss of energy as well as
habitat; (2) permitting bikes causes the total number of visitors to
increase significantly; (3) bikes can't travel alone -- they require
motorized support vehicles, further increasing impacts (e.g. worsening
air quality); (4) there is nothing to prevent mountain bikers from
getting off their bikes and approaching the wildlife; if hikers do
that, so will mountain bikers; there is no reason to exonerate
mountain bikers.

They note, significantly, "However, these results should not be
extrapolated to other public lands where mountain bikers are not
confined to designated trails and may surprise sheep in novel
situations" (p.580). Gary Sprung didn't mention this, thus encouraging
inappropriate use of this study's already-questionable results.

I would like, however, to commend the authors for stating "we
recommend that park managers manage levels of backcountry activity at
low levels" (p.580). The best policy would be to ban all vehicles,
including bicycles (as well as animals used as vehicles). That would
reduce human impacts, without directly restricting who could go there
(perhaps occasional exceptions could be made for the disabled).

Gary next cited Gander and Ingold (1997), claiming that "hikers,
joggers & mountain bikers [are] all the same to chamois". But again,
this is not an accurate representation of the results: "They fled over
longer distances in jogging and mountain biking experiments … carried
out late in the morning" (p.109). Also, "the three activities carried
out on the ground could have long-term consequences as they prevent
the animals from using areas near trails. Thus, depending on the
density of trails and the intensity of recreational activities in a
certain area, animals may lose a large part of their habitat" (p.109).

The authors conclude "Our results show that specific restrictions on
mountainbiking above the timberline are not justified from the point
of view of chamois" (p.109). Once again (is there a pattern here?),
this conclusion is not justified. It ignores the fact that mountain
bikers are able to travel several times as far as hikers, and thus
negatively impact several times as much wildlife. It also ignores the
fact that bicycles enable a large increase in numbers of human
visitors (note that this places the blame on the bicycle, not the
bicyclists -- my argument doesn't depend on there being any difference
between hikers and mountain bikers). And, of course, wherever the
number of visitors increases, there is pressure to build more trails,
destroying even more habitat. Once again, it would appear that this
study was undertaken with the intent of excusing mountain biking.

Gary next cites a study of bald eagles by Robin Spahr (1990). "Spahr
found that walkers caused the highest frequency of eagle flushing".
However, this study is difficult to interpret. Eagles don't congregate
in large numbers, like sheep, so it is hard to ensure that all
treatments are equally balanced: it is hard to imagine that the
conditions under different treatments (or even within treatments) were
equal. Also, the bikers were apparently instructed to ride by without
looking at the eagles, whereas some of the walkers were told to look
and point at the eagles (the paper is vague on this point). In other
words, the study was comparing apples with oranges. Thus, I don't know
if this was really a controlled study. Spahr also found that
"bicyclists caused eagles to flush at [the] greatest distances", which
would tend to indicate that bicyclists have greater impacts. Distances
are also notoriously difficult to measure accurately. We are given no
information about the "rangefinder", in order to judge its accuracy.
At best, these are mixed results. And, once again, the greater
distances that bikers travel are ignored, as well as the greater
visitor numbers that the bicycle enables. Therefore, the study cannot
be said to support any conclusion about how hiking compares with
mountain biking, and certainly not Gary's statement: "Hikers have
greater impact on eagles than cyclists". To Spahr's credit, she did
not attempt to generalize beyond her data.

Gary concludes "Mountain biking, like other recreation activities,
does impact the environment. On this point, there is little argument.
But … a body of empirical, scientific studies now indicates [sic] that
mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,
including hiking [Gary's emphasis]. Thus, managers who prohibit
bicycle use (while allowing hiking or equestrian use) based on impacts
to trails, soils, wildlife, or vegetation are acting without sound,
scientific backing." Au contraire, as I have indicated, the very
studies that Gary and IMBA cite as support for mountain biking
actually show that mountain biking does much more harm to the
environment than hiking! Gary goes on to fault "the wisdom of
prohibiting [sic] particular user groups". However, as I explained
earlier, mountain bikers are not prohibited from using any trails.
Bicycles are occasionally prohibited. Mountain bikers are merely
required to follow the same rules as everyone else, and walk.

At the bottom of the same web page is the notice: "IMBA wishes to
obtain and incorporate into future revisions of this document any new
or additional empirical science regarding the impacts of mountain
biking. IMBA welcomes input [my emphasis]. To offer information,
please contact the author at ga...@imba.com". On April 25 I emailed
Gary (and Pete Webber, pe...@imba.com) the Wisdom et al study, which
demonstrates that mountain bikers have a greater impact on elk than
hikers. Not only hasn't this new research been incorporated into his
paper, but I haven't even received a reply. It would appear that IMBA
isn't really interested in achieving a scientific answer to this
question.

In 2003, Jason Lathrop wrote an excellent "critical literature
review" on the ecological impacts of mountain biking, raising some
questions found nowhere else. He quotes the BLM: "An estimated 13.5
million mountain bicyclists visit public lands each year to enjoy the
variety of trails. What was once a low use activity that was easy to
manage has become more complex". He criticizes all of the studies for
not using realistic representations of mountain biking. For example,
on Thurston and Reader, he says "this study's treatment passes at best
loosely approximate the forces exerted by actual mountain biking. On
real trails, riders possess widely varying levels of skill, resulting
in variant speeds, turning, and braking. This study does not address
these variables." Lathrop also makes the excellent point that "Direct
mortality [of animals] is virtually unstudied. I could find no
references to it in the literature. Anecdotal evidence suggests,
however, that small mammals are vulnerable to impact and are not
uncommonly killed."

And: "Taylor (2001) concluded that short-term behavioral changes do
not vary between bicyclists and hikers on a per-encounter basis.
However, because bicyclists are capable of and, in most areas,
typically do travel much farther than hikers, it is reasonable to
conclude that they will create a somewhat higher total number of
encounters and flushings."

Cessford (1995) did an oft-quoted review (which I am including only
because it is so widely cited) that, like all others, uncritically
accepts Wilson and Seney (1994) as proof that mountain biking impacts
are no worse than those of hikers. His paper is mostly speculation,
based on few actual research findings. He disparages negative
information about mountain biking by such devices as claiming that
problems are caused by a minority of mountain bikers, exhibiting "poor
riding habits", that accidents involving hikers and bikers are "rare",
that hikers' dislike for being around bikes in the woods, and feelings
that bikes cause greater environmental harm than hiking, are mere
"perceptions". He blames hikers for "misperceiving" mountain bikers,
claiming that "the two groups are more similar than is generally
perceived. … The bicyclists … are basically hikers who are using
mountain bikes to gain quicker access to the wilderness boundary". He
speculates, without any evidence, that "the degree of conflict with
mountain biking may diminish over time as other users become more
familiar with bike-encounters and riders themselves". A more likely
interpretation is that hikers who dislike being around bikes simply
stop using trails that are open to bikes, thereby lessening the
conflict!

Finally, in 2004, Wisdom et al did a very well controlled study
comparing the impacts of ATV riders, mountain bikers, and hikers on
elk and mule deer. They say we have an "urgent need for timely
management information to address the rapid growth in off-road
recreation. … Mountain biking [is] … increasing rapidly".
Recreationists were allowed to stop for less than a minute to look at
the animals. All measurements were made electronically, using an
Automated Telemetry System and GPS, allowing control measurements to
be made "blind", with no humans present! "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
[the recreationists were in pairs]". He pointed out that direct
measurements, a la Taylor and Knight, tend to be biased, because some
animals can't be observed. The area was entirely fenced, allowing
researchers to completely control human access.

They found: "Movement rates of elk were substantially higher during
all four off-road activities as compared to periods of no human
activity. … For the morning pass, movement rates of elk were highest
during ATV activity, second-highest during mountain bike riding, and
lowest during hiking and horseback riding. … Peak movement rates of
elk during the morning pass were highest for ATV riding (21 yards/
minute), followed by mountain bike riding (17 yards/minute) and
horseback riding and hiking (both about 15 yards/minute). … By
contrast, peak movement rates of elk during the control periods did
not exceed 9 yards/minute during daylight hours of 0800-1500, the
comparable period of each day when off-road treatments were
implemented. Interestingly, movement rates of elk were also 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 the day. 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".

"Higher probabilities of flight response occurred during ATV and
mountain bike activity, in contrast to lower probabilities observed
during hiking and horseback riding. Probability of a flight response
declined most rapidly during hiking, with little effect when hikers
were beyond 550 yards from an elk. By contrast, higher probabilities
of elk flight continued beyond 820 yards from horseback riders, and
1,640 yards from mountain bike and ATV riders. In contrast to elk,
mule deer showed less change in movement rates during the four off-
road activities compared to the control periods". (Perhaps they seek
cover, rather than running away.)

"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 below 9 percent as animals enter the
winter period, the probability of surviving the winter is extremely
low. 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. … 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."

It is also instructive to note that only one pair of ATV users were
needed to cover the 20-mile study area, but two pairs of mountain
bikers and three pairs of hikers were needed, to cover the distance in
the time allotted, underscoring the different relative distances that
the three groups are capable of covering.

Summary:

Mountain bikers have turned to scientific research to try to make
mountain biking seem less harmful, and in particular, to studies
comparing it with hiking. Although they have interpreted this data as
indicating that mountain biking impacts are no greater than those of
hiking, a more careful look at these studies leads to the conclusion
that mountain biking impacts are actually several times greater than
those of hikers.

Some of the important characteristics of mountain biking that have
been ignored are: speed; distance traveled; the increase in number of
visitors that bikes allow; increased trail-building, with its
attendant habitat destruction; the displacement of soil (other than
downhill); the killing of roots and soil organisms and ecosystems;
most effects on wildlife; manner of riding (skidding, braking,
acceleration, turning, and representativeness); tire tread; and noise
(bikes are relatively quiet, but a rattling chain may be perceived as
"alien" to natural surroundings).

In addition, measuring techniques need to be described in more
detail, "blind" measurements should be considered (where the measurers
don't know what treatment they are measuring), controls need to be
added, and "intangibles" (e.g. loss of feelings of safety and loss of
the primitive feel of natural settings) need to be taken more
seriously. The direct killing of small animals deserves attention.

On the other hand, why do we need research to prove what is obvious?
We don't need any research to know that we shouldn’t step in front of
a speeding truck. Or mountain bike.

References:

Butler, Tom, "Mountain biking in wilderness: What bears want -- a
wilderness view". Wild Earth, Vol.13, No.1, 2003, p.4, http://www.wildlandsproject.org.

Cessford, Gordon R. (gces...@doc.govt.nz), "Off-road impacts of
mountain bikes -- a review and discussion". Science & Research Series
No.92, Department of Conservation, P. O. Box 10-420, Wellington, New
Zealand, 1995, http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politics/doc/impacts/index.htm.

Chiu, Luke (Luke...@utas.edu.au) and Lorne Kriwoken
(L.K.Kr...@utas.edu.au), "Managing Recreational Mountain Biking in
Wellington Park, Tasmania, Australia". Annals of Leisure Research, Vol.
6, No.4, 2003, pp.339-361.

Foreman, Dave, "A modest proposal". Wild Earth, Vol.13, No.1, 2003, pp.
34-5, http://www.wildlandsproject.org.

Gander, Hans and Paul Ingold, "Reactions of male alpine chamois
Rupicapra r. rupicapra to hikers, joggers and mountainbikers".
Biological Conservation, Vol.79, 1997, pp.107-9.

Goeft, Ute and Jackie Alder, "Sustainable mountain biking: a case
study from the southwest of Western Australia". Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol.9, No.3, 2001, pp.193-211.

Hasenauer, Jim (imb...@aol.com), "A niche for bicycles". Wild Earth,
Vol.13, No.1, 2003, pp.21-22, http://www.wildlandsproject.org.

Holzer, K. , 2008-07-10 "Bike Paths and New Ponds: Amphibian
Restoration in the Pacific Northwest" Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Congress for Conservation Biology,
Convention Center, Chattanooga, TN. 2010-06-06 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p244181_index.html

Lathrop, Jason, "Ecological impacts of mountain biking: a critical
literature review". 2003, http://www.wildlandscpr.org/resourcelibrary/reports/mountainbikingreport.htm.

McCoy, Michael and Mary Alice Stoner, "Mountain bike trails:
Techniques for design, construction and maintenance". Bikecentennial,
P. O. Box 8308, Missoula, MT 59807, 1992.

O'Donnell, Brian and Michael Carroll, "Don't tread here". Wild Earth,
Vol.13, No.1, 2003, pp.31-33, http://www.wildlandsproject.org.

Papouchis, Christopher M. (papo...@hotmail.com), Francis J. Singer,
and William B. Sloan, "Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased
human recreation". Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol.65, No.3, 2001,
pp.573-82.

Spahr, Robin, "Factors affecting the distribution of bald eagles and
effects of human activity on bald eagles wintering along the Boise
River". A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science of Raptor Biology, Boise State
University, March, 1990.

Sprung, Gary (ga...@imba.com), "Natural resource impacts of mountain
biking -- a summary of scientific studies that compare mountain biking
to other forms of trail travel", 2004, http://www.imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html.

Taylor, Audrey (audrey...@fws.gov) and Richard L. Knight
(kni...@cnr.colostate.edu) "Wildlife responses to recreation and
associated visitor perceptions". Ecological Applications, Vol.13, No.
4, 2003, pp.951-63.

Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader (rre...@uoguelph.ca), "Impacts
of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
2001, pp.397-409.

Vandeman, Michael J. (mjv...@pacbell.net), 1998. Wildlife Need
Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! in Personal, Societal, and Ecological
Values of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress: Proceedings on
Research, Management, and Allocation: A. E. Watson, G. H. Aplet, J. C.
Hendee, eds. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; also available at
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/india3.htm.

Vandeman, Michael J. (mjv...@pacbell.net), "The Myth of the
Sustainable Lifestyle". Presented at the Society for Conservation
Biology meeting, University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii, July 30, 2001,
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/sustain.htm.

Vandeman, Michael J. (mjv...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of

Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J.
C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation
3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Vandeman, Michael J. (mjv...@pacbell.net) http://mjvande.nfshost.com/white.htm
and http://mjvande.nfshost.com/marion.htm.

Wilson, John P. (jpwi...@usc.edu) and Joseph Seney, "Erosional impact
of hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain
trails in Montana". Mountain Research and Development, Vol.14, No.1,
1994, pp.77-88.

Wisdom, M. J. (mwi...@fs.fed.us), Alan A. Ager (aa...@fs.fed.us ), H.
K. Preisler (hpre...@fs.fed.us), N. J. Cimon (nci...@fs.fed.us), and
B. K. Johnson (john...@eou.edu), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004, pp.531-550.

[Shraga]

On Feb 13, 11:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
> any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
> generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
> scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
> Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
> you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
> while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did here:

The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING

scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"

is, as usual for you, a lie.

Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention, and the
discussions, as usual, end with you making ludicrous claims that show
your lack of even the most basic understanding of what a "literature
review" is supposed to be. For example:

"Without defining the literature database, search terms and keywords
used, we cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced
selection and exclusion of papers."
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.mountain-bike/browse_frm/thread/
d5c8180c255cba85/18639068a7d41f3f?lnk=gst&q=selection
+criteria#18639068a7d41f3f)

Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
"literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please post the citation when you're done.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 14, 11:17 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
> > any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
> > generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
> > scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
> > Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
> > you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
> > while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did here:
>
> The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING
> scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"
> is, as usual for you, a lie.
>
> Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention, and the
> discussions, as usual, end with you making ludicrous claims that show
> your lack of even the most basic understanding of what a "literature
> review" is supposed to be. For example:
>
> "Without defining the literature database, search terms and keywords
> used, we cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced
> selection and exclusion of papers."
> (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.mountain-bike/browse_frm/thread/
> d5c8180c255cba85/18639068a7d41f3f?lnk=gst&q=selection
> +criteria#18639068a7d41f3f)

Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't even READ the paper you are
complaining about. I didn't "select" papers. I reviewed ALL of them to
date. Next time try READING what you are ctiticizing, first! Sheesh.

Thanks for demonstrating, for the millionth time, what IDIOTS mountain
bikers are!

> Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
> "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
> published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Not possible, because I criticized the papers that they had already
mistakenly published, which they don't care to admit. You are very
naive!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 14, 11:17 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 13, 11:41 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, you have no intention of justifying your complaints with
> > any SPECIFICS -- a sure sign that yoiu are BLUFFING. You give vague
> > generalities only. Again, I challenge you to find ANYTHING
> > scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature.
> > Nobody else has been able to. Put up or shut up, as they say. I'm sure
> > you will just run away with your tail between your legs, as always,
> > while saying something totally irrelevant, as you did here:
>
> The claim that "Nobody else has been able to..." "find ANYTHING
> scientifically, objectively wrong with my review of the literature"
> is, as usual for you, a lie.
>
> Massive errors have been REPEATEDLY brought to your attention,

BS. No objective error has ever been found. There aren't any!

[Shraga]

And thank YOU, Mike, for meeting my expectations by making ludicrous

claims that show your lack of even the most basic understanding of
what a "literature review" is supposed to be.

You would do well to follow your own advice, Mike. You clearly failed
to follow even one paragraph of what I wrote. You might want to hold
off on name-calling unless you're sure you don't meet your own
definitions, idiot.

Here... I'll write it again as numbered points to help you, since you
struggle so much with sentences:

Without defining the

(1) literature database,
(2) search terms and
(3) keywords used...

We cannot judge to what extent your known bias influenced selection
and exclusion of papers.

Your use of the word "all" is subjective and not at all scientific.

> > Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
> > "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
> > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>

> Not possible, because I criticized the papers that *they* had already
> mistakenly published, which *they* don't care to admit. You are very
> naive!

Bullshit. It is very common to publish papers in response to research
you disagree with. Happens all the time. There is also more than one
journal you can submit to, idiot. You're just making excuses for your
incompetence, or you don't know the basics of getting published.

By the way, who is "they?"

[Mike Vandeman]

No, because it's mathematical! All means "all". Ask your mommie what
that means. My review includes ALL experimental studies as of the date
I wrote it. So ALL of your comments (and the guy you stole them from)
are irrelevant.

You also obviously never even READ my paper, or you would know that I
reviewed ALL of the papers that IMBA selected. Obviously, they didn't
select them for making mountain biking look bad! So I can't be accused
of selection bias, since IMBA did the selection! I also included a
very good experimental study that IMBA REFUSED to put on their
website, because it is not favorable to mountain biking! So IMBA, NOT
I, is practicing selection bias. All of this is blatantly obvious, but
I'm sure you will never admit it. Mountain bikers think that simply
saying something makes it true.

> > > Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
> > > "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
> > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > Not possible, because I criticized the papers that *they* had already
> > mistakenly published, which *they* don't care to admit. You are very
> > naive!
>
> Bullshit. It is very common to publish papers in response to research
> you disagree with. Happens all the time. There is also more than one
> journal you can submit to, idiot. You're just making excuses for your
> incompetence, or you don't know the basics of getting published.
>
> By the way, who is "they?"

The editors who approved the publishing of the faulty articles. I
guess they are so embarrasseed that they don't want that mistake to be
exposed. Almost every alleged "scientific" study on mountain biking
was written by at least one mountain biker, and is deliberately biased
in favor of mountain biking.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 14, 11:17 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::

[Shraga]

On Feb 15, 4:17 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:17 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
> > "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
> > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > Please post the citation when you're done.
>
> I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::
>

> Vandeman, Michael J. (mjva...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of

> Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J.
> C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society

> for the , Herpetological Conservation

> 3:155-156; expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

Did I write "book chapter?" No, I didn't. I wrote "peer-reviewed
journal."

You're redirecting again to hide the fact you can't publish a paper in
a referred journal. Still, that's not even relevant, because we're
discussing THIS paper:

http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My
point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know.

Try a little harder to follow the conversation next time, OK?

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 15, 5:57 pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:17 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 11:17 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
> > > "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
> > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > > Please post the citation when you're done.
>
> > I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::
>
> > Vandeman, Michael J. (mjva...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of
> > Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J.
> > C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society
> > for the , Herpetological Conservation
> > 3:155-156; expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.
>
> Did I write "book chapter?" No, I didn't. I wrote "peer-reviewed
> journal."
>
> You're redirecting again to hide the fact you can't publish a paper in
> a referred journal. Still, that's not even relevant, because we're
> discussing THIS paper:
>
> http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm

It's the same paper, just shortened to fit in the book. It was also,
of course, peer-reviewed. If it were really "a load of garbage", it
wouldn't have been published. DUH!

> I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My
> point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know.

How would you know? You haven't read it. My paper proves that "a load
of garbage" can get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, when the
reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both. If you were as smart as
you THINK you are, you would already know that. Or are you too
dishonest to admit that?

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike, you sadly show your ignorance of the methods and philosophy of
modern science once again. Modern science is based on the philosophy
of the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper. Mathematicians prove, but
scientist disprove hypothesis; we accept hypotheses that have not been
disproved as the best explanation until such time as new research
falsifies part of or the whole hypothesis. If you believe you have
"proved" anything, then you clearly do not understand the basic
tenants of science. You sadly, are simply a paranoid, religious
zealot. Yes, these journals are conspiring against someone who rails
on and on that "he alone" is right; some who is armed with nothing
more then biased opinions and has not done one whit of original
research. Yes, everyone is against you, except for Ed who it seems to
be nothing more than an internet lurker and poser.

Enjoy, Rick

[Shraga]

On Feb 15, 10:15 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:57 pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:17 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 11:17 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
> > > > "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
> > > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > > > Please post the citation when you're done.
>
> > > I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::
>
> > > Vandeman, Michael J. (mjva...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of
> > > Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J.
> > > C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society
> > > for the , Herpetological Conservation
> > > 3:155-156; expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.
>
> > Did I write "book chapter?" No, I didn't. I wrote "peer-reviewed
> > journal."
>
> > You're redirecting again to hide the fact you can't publish a paper in
> > a referred journal. Still, that's not even relevant, because we're
> > discussing THIS paper:
>
> >http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm
>
> It's the same paper, just shortened to fit in the book. It was also,
> of course, peer-reviewed. If it were really "a load of garbage", it
> wouldn't have been published. DUH!

It's not worth having a discussion with you if you can't even figure
out which paper we're discussing.

> > I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My
> > point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know.
>
> How would you know? You haven't read it. My paper proves that "a load
> of garbage" can get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, when the
> reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both. If you were as smart as
> you THINK you are, you would already know that. Or are you too
> dishonest to admit that?

Your "paper" proves only your inability to get published in a journal
and nothing more.

[Mike Vandeman]

You couldn't "discuss" your way out of a paper bag. You haven't even
READ the paper you claim to be "discussing". The fact that you are
afraid to give your real name says it all: you are bluffing, and don't
know what you are talking about. You can't even come up with your own
criticisms! You plagiarized someone else's! And someone who obviously
didn't read or understand my paper. All of your hot air is simply a
smoke screen to avoid admitting that I am right: mountain biking is
extremely dangerous and destructive, and should be banned everywhere!

> > > I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My
> > > point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know.
>
> > How would you know? You haven't read it. My paper proves that "a load
> > of garbage" can get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, when the
> > reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both. If you were as smart as
> > you THINK you are, you would already know that. Or are you too
> > dishonest to admit that?
>
> Your "paper" proves only your inability to get published in a journal
> and nothing more.

It's much more difficult to get a chapter in a BOOK, as I did, than to
publish in a journal. I was INVITED to contribute to the book, because
they recognize that I am the world expert on mountain biking impacts,
which you also know but are afraid to admit. You are pathetic.

[Shraga]

So in your world, "all" includes a small collection of studies posted
in a blog post on the IMBA Web site (as you FINALLY clarify below).
Looks like you're the one who needs remedial reading lessons. The word
you are looking for is "some" not "all." You're welcome.

I "stole" from no one. I quoted him, and pasted a link, moron.

> You also obviously never even READ my paper, or you would know that I
> reviewed ALL of the papers that IMBA selected. Obviously, they didn't
> select them for making mountain biking look bad! So I can't be accused
> of selection bias, since IMBA did the selection! I also included a
> very good experimental study that IMBA REFUSED to put on their
> website, because it is not favorable to mountain biking! So IMBA, NOT
> I, is practicing selection bias. All of this is blatantly obvious, but
> I'm sure you will never admit it. Mountain bikers think that simply
> saying something makes it true.

You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
"ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.

> > > > Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
> > > > "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
> > > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > > Not possible, because I criticized the papers that *they* had already
> > > mistakenly published, which *they* don't care to admit. You are very
> > > naive!
>
> > Bullshit. It is very common to publish papers in response to research
> > you disagree with. Happens all the time. There is also more than one
> > journal you can submit to, idiot. You're just making excuses for your
> > incompetence, or you don't know the basics of getting published.
>
> > By the way, who is "they?"
>
> The editors who approved the publishing of the faulty articles. I
> guess they are so embarrasseed that they don't want that mistake to be
> exposed. Almost every alleged "scientific" study on mountain biking
> was written by at least one mountain biker, and is deliberately biased
> in favor of mountain biking.

By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
mountain biking. What's your point?

Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
you an A. It's clever.

However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
speculation based on your biased observations. Your response to Gary's
interpretation of Wilson and Seney (1994) does not provide a single
citation backing up your claims. This is appropriate for an
introduction, but it does not fulfill your goal. You need to cite a
study that backs you up, or you need to provide empirical data. You do
neither. At the end of the paper you provide two reasonable
references, but these do nothing to back up the specific points you
made against Wilson and Seney.

The other problem is you don't even challenge Wilson and Seney. You
challenge an interpretation. Their actual conclusion (i.e., the one in
the paper) is quite reasonable and calls for caution in interpreting
the results of similar studies. You should read it instead of letting
Gary do your work for you.

So trying to refute your preposterous claims is equivalent to arguing
science against faith. You are using faith-based arguments against
scientific papers and demanding people respond to your dogma with
science. You're quite ridiculous.

There is no need to provide a scientific rebuttal to your paper
because you failed to refute any of the scientific articles. THAT is
why people don't respond to your inquiries on the topic, and that is
why you can't get it published. You wrote an opinion piece, nothing
more.

You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
reviewed journal. Short of that, you're just spouting more dogma and
making excuses for your failure.

[Edward Dolan]

"Rick Hopkins" <rhop...@loainc.com> wrote in message

news:75217f2e-751c-465c...@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
[...]

> Mike, you sadly show your ignorance of the methods and philosophy of
modern science once again. Modern science is based on the philosophy
of the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper. Mathematicians prove, but
scientist disprove hypothesis; we accept hypotheses that have not been
disproved as the best explanation until such time as new research
falsifies part of or the whole hypothesis. If you believe you have
"proved" anything, then you clearly do not understand the basic
tenants of science. You sadly, are simply a paranoid, religious
zealot. Yes, these journals are conspiring against someone who rails
on and on that "he alone" is right; some who is armed with nothing
more then biased opinions and has not done one whit of original
research.

All kinds of erroneous shit gets published in so-called "scientific
journals" and the "peer reviews" are often as crazy as the article being
reviewed. Your faith in such a procedure is extremely naive.

What is all this discussion about dark matter and dark energy by
cosmologists except an excuse for what is NOT known. Same goes for the
discussion about man made global warming. Faith indeed!

Like most ignoramuses, you do not have a proper contempt for facts. I
suggest you study less physical science and more social science. But if you
are not steeped in the Humanities, then you know practically nothing at all
worth knowing. It is why your knowledge of mountain bikers and their
psychology is so lacking.

> Yes, everyone is against you, except for Ed who it seems to
be nothing more than an internet lurker and poser.

Ed Dolan the Great simply does not want mountain biking on hiking trails.
What Mr. Vandeman and I have accomplished, at least on these newsgroups, is
to put mountain bikers in their place - which is nowhere. Mr. Vandeman is
still trying to educate them whereas I consign them to Hell since they are
too stupid to be educated.

[you]

In article
<74175657-0246-41d7...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Mike Vandeman <mike.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How would you know? You haven't read it. My paper proves that "a load
> of garbage" can get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, when the
> reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both. If you were as smart as
> you THINK you are, you would already know that. Or are you too
> dishonest to admit that?

Now there you go..... Mikey ADMITS in the above quotation, that his
paper is ""a load of garbage".... Well It is about time some "Truth"
came out of Mikey's IP Address...... Just Say'en.....

[Mike Vandeman]

Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
even read all of them, as I have.

> > > > > Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
> > > > > "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
> > > > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > > > Not possible, because I criticized the papers that *they* had already
> > > > mistakenly published, which *they* don't care to admit. You are very
> > > > naive!
>
> > > Bullshit. It is very common to publish papers in response to research
> > > you disagree with. Happens all the time. There is also more than one
> > > journal you can submit to, idiot. You're just making excuses for your
> > > incompetence, or you don't know the basics of getting published.
>
> > > By the way, who is "they?"
>
> > The editors who approved the publishing of the faulty articles. I
> > guess they are so embarrasseed that they don't want that mistake to be
> > exposed. Almost every alleged "scientific" study on mountain biking
> > was written by at least one mountain biker, and is deliberately biased
> > in favor of mountain biking.
>
> By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
> mountain biking. What's your point?

No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
follow from their data.

> Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
> in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
> you an A. It's clever.
>
> However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
> scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
> speculation based on your biased observations.

BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
"citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
argued with that point.

Your response to Gary's
> interpretation of Wilson and Seney (1994) does not provide a single
> citation backing up your claims. This is appropriate for an
> introduction, but it does not fulfill your goal. You need to cite a
> study that backs you up, or you need to provide empirical data.

BS. You obviously missed the point of my paper. All I am proving is
that Wilson and Seney's paper proved absolutely NOTHING. So all the
mountain bikers are LYING when they use that study to "prove" that
mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking. You seem to be an
intelligent guy, so I can only conclude that you are deliberately
lying. You are intelligent enough to understand my point, but you
pretend not to. You confirm my point: all mountain bikers lie.

You do
> neither. At the end of the paper you provide two reasonable
> references, but these do nothing to back up the specific points you
> made against Wilson and Seney.

Because I don't need any "research" to prove that artificial rain on a
metal pan doesn't measure erosion.

> The other problem is you don't even challenge Wilson and Seney. You
> challenge an interpretation.

Yes, their own interpretation. Basically, they LIED.

Their actual conclusion (i.e., the one in
> the paper) is quite reasonable and calls for caution in interpreting
> the results of similar studies. You should read it instead of letting
> Gary do your work for you.
>

All he did was find the studies for me. Of course, he ignored the
"unfavorable" studies.

So trying to refute your preposterous claims is equivalent to arguing
> science against faith.

No, junk science against REAL science.

You are using faith-based arguments against
> scientific papers and demanding people respond to your dogma with
> science. You're quite ridiculous.
>
> There is no need to provide a scientific rebuttal to your paper
> because you failed to refute any of the scientific articles.

BS. You are obviously INCAPABLE of defending Wilson and Seney, as you
just demonstrated. That's okay, because they CAN'T be defended. Just
be honest enough to admit it.

THAT is
> why people don't respond to your inquiries on the topic, and that is
> why you can't get it published. You wrote an opinion piece, nothing
> more.
>
> You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
> reviewed journal.

I published in a book, but you choose to ignore it. You would ignore
my paper, wherever it was published, because your mind is closed
against anything unfavorable to mountain biking. Why don't you get
IMBA to include the Wisdom et al paper on their website? It is good
science,but doesn't support mountain biking. I know you can't do that,
and won't even try, because you don't care about science or the truth.

Short of that, you're just spouting more dogma and
> making excuses for your failure

While you are at it, tell us what your real name is, coward. And your
email address. You CAN'T, because it would embarrass you, liar that
you are.

[Bob Berger]

In article <0498f5a6-d317-4245...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Feb 16, 8:39=A0am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 10:15=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 5:57=A0pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 15, 4:17=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> > > > On Feb 14, 11:17=A0am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Anyway, if there is truly nothing wrong with this so-called
>> > > > > "literature review," then you should have no problem getting it
>> > > > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>>
>> > > > > Please post the citation when you're done.
>>
>> > > > I did already. Sorry to disappoint you::
>>
>> > > > Vandeman, Michael J. (mjva...@pacbell.net), 2008. The Impacts of

>> > > > Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J=

>.
>> > > > C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society
>> > > > for the , Herpetological Conservation

>> > > > 3:155-156; expanded version also available athttp://mjvande.nfshost=

>.com/herp.htm.
>>
>> > > Did I write "book chapter?" No, I didn't. I wrote "peer-reviewed
>> > > journal."
>>

>> > > You're redirecting again to hide the fact you can't publish a paper i=

>n
>> > > a referred journal. Still, that's not even relevant, because we're
>> > > discussing THIS paper:
>>
>> > >http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm
>>
>> > It's the same paper, just shortened to fit in the book. It was also,
>> > of course, peer-reviewed. If it were really "a load of garbage", it
>> > wouldn't have been published. DUH!
>>
>> It's not worth having a discussion with you if you can't even figure
>> out which paper we're discussing.
>
>You couldn't "discuss" your way out of a paper bag. You haven't even
>READ the paper you claim to be "discussing". The fact that you are
>afraid to give your real name says it all: you are bluffing, and don't
>know what you are talking about. You can't even come up with your own
>criticisms! You plagiarized someone else's! And someone who obviously
>didn't read or understand my paper. All of your hot air is simply a
>smoke screen to avoid admitting that I am right: mountain biking is
>extremely dangerous and destructive, and should be banned everywhere!
>
>> > > I want to see you publish THAT paper in a peer-reviewed journal. My

>> > > point is, you can't, because it's a load of garbage, as you well know=

>.
>>
>> > How would you know? You haven't read it. My paper proves that "a load
>> > of garbage" can get published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, when the
>> > reviewers are either idiots, biased, or both. If you were as smart as
>> > you THINK you are, you would already know that. Or are you too
>> > dishonest to admit that?
>>
>> Your "paper" proves only your inability to get published in a journal
>> and nothing more.
>
>It's much more difficult to get a chapter in a BOOK, as I did, than to
>publish in a journal.

>I was INVITED to contribute to the book, because
>they recognize that I am the world expert on mountain
>biking impacts,

Would you please list a few credible academic institutions and/or scientific
organizations that in published documents have listed you as "the world expert
on mountain biking impacts"; and please provide links to copies of those
documents. I'm thinking of institutions and organizations like, for example,
Princeton University, Stanford, or the American Academy of Sciences.

>which you also know but are afraid to admit. You are pathetic.

May I also ask you to explain a seeming inconsistency in what you wrote above.

First, you wrote: "It's the same paper, just shortened to fit in the book. It

was also, of course, peer-reviewed. If it were really "a load of garbage", it
wouldn't have been published. DUH!"

Then you wrote," My paper proves that "a load of garbage" can get published in a

[Shraga]

On Feb 16, 4:35 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:17 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
> > "ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.
>
> Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
> missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
> even read all of them, as I have.

So which is it, Mike? You read them all, or you just cherry-picked
them off IMBA's Web site?

If it's "all," then why are you afraid to post the name of this
miraculous search engine you use and your search terms?

> > By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
> > mountain biking. What's your point?
>
> No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
> follow from their data.
>
> > Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
> > in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
> > you an A. It's clever.
>
> > However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
> > scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
> > speculation based on your biased observations.
>
> BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
> would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
> data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
> "citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
> perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
> paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
> argued with that point.

Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy. People hope the
less you are engaged, the sooner you will leave.

Awkward silences aren't evidence of success.

Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
doesn't refute the science.

<snip more recycled dogma>

> > You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
> > reviewed journal.
>
> I published in a book, but you choose to ignore it.

Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
congratulations, you should go elsewhere.

Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.

> You would ignore
> my paper, wherever it was published, because your mind is closed
> against anything unfavorable to mountain biking. Why don't you get
> IMBA to include the Wisdom et al paper on their website? It is good
> science,but doesn't support mountain biking. I know you can't do that,
> and won't even try, because you don't care about science or the truth.

Oh lord no, Mike. You are so very wrong there. I would LOVE to read
ANYTHING you get published in a peer-reviewed journal. That is the
absolute truth.

You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
"Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.

Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?

You.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 16, 4:58 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <0498f5a6-d317-4245-a86d-37a7f17ee...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,

If you had READ it, you would know: 7 of the 8 papers I reviewed were
published garbage (junk science), whether or not they were peer-
reviewed. Of course, those were the ones written by mountain bikers.
Their conclusions don't follow from their data! DUH!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 16, 7:21 pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:35 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:17 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
> > > "ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.
>
> > Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
> > missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
> > even read all of them, as I have.
>
> So which is it, Mike? You read them all, or you just cherry-picked
> them off IMBA's Web site?

Both statements are true. ALL experimental papers = IMBA's list plus
the one I found.

> If it's "all," then why are you afraid to post the name of this
> miraculous search engine you use and your search terms?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
> > > mountain biking. What's your point?
>
> > No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
> > follow from their data.
>
> > > Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
> > > in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
> > > you an A. It's clever.
>
> > > However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
> > > scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
> > > speculation based on your biased observations.
>
> > BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
> > would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
> > data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
> > "citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
> > perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
> > paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
> > argued with that point.
>
> Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy. People hope the
> less you are engaged, the sooner you will leave.
>
> Awkward silences aren't evidence of success.

Scientists aren't shy about speaking up, IF they find a problem. They
didn't find any! Neither have YOU!

> Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
> qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
> doesn't refute the science.

IMBA's lsi includes only junk science.

> <snip more recycled dogma>
>
> > > You can prove me wrong by getting the full article published in a peer
> > > reviewed journal.
>
> > I published in a book, but you choose to ignore it.
>
> Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
> congratulations, you should go elsewhere.

It's not a minor accomplishment. Show us even ONE paper you have
published on ths subject, which you pretend to be an expert on!

> Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
> seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.

You are bluffing again! You obviously haven't READ it.!

> > You would ignore
> > my paper, wherever it was published, because your mind is closed
> > against anything unfavorable to mountain biking. Why don't you get
> > IMBA to include the Wisdom et al paper on their website? It is good
> > science,but doesn't support mountain biking. I know you can't do that,
> > and won't even try, because you don't care about science or the truth.
>
> Oh lord no, Mike. You are so very wrong there. I would LOVE to read
> ANYTHING you get published in a peer-reviewed journal. That is the
> absolute truth.

BS. You can read it right now, but you won't, because you don't like
the conclusions.

> You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
> "Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
> vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
> The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
> literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
> of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.

Obviously, they can't tell science from junk science, if they trust
that garbage.

> Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?
>
> You.

What's your point? Or IS there one?

[Edward Dolan]

"Bob Berger" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:jhk8m...@drn.newsguy.com...
[...]

> Would you please list a few credible academic institutions and/or
> scientific
> organizations that in published documents have listed you as "the world
> expert
> on mountain biking impacts"; and please provide links to copies of those
> documents. I'm thinking of institutions and organizations like, for
> example,
> Princeton University, Stanford, or the American Academy of Sciences.

What is all this blather about being published and academic institutions? I,
Ed Dolan the Great, have declared Michael Vandeman to be the world's
foremost expert on the damage that mountain biking does to hiking trails.
That should be good enough even for an idiot like you.

By the way, my credentials are impeccable (far superior to those of asshole
academics and their fucked-up institutions) since I have hiked thousands of
milles on trails in the Western US. It used to be a pleasant experience
before the advent of mountain biking. Fuck'em all the way to Hell and back I
say!

[Edward Dolan]

"Shraga" <shrag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f19797ee-2f7f-47f9...@hk10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
[...]

> Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy. People hope the
less you are engaged, the sooner you will leave.

The only creep here is you. Time for you to get lost if you ask me.

> Awkward silences aren't evidence of success.

Your fucked-up protestations are evidence of failure. You sputter like a
rickety internal combustion engine.

>> Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
doesn't refute the science.

Professors and editors belong to a benighted class of morons. That is why
all of our academic institutions and the mass media are incurably liberal.
They will side with Hussein Obama no matter how bad things get. It is due to
their biased dogma (liberalism).

Your faith in science is equally ludicrous. The dogma of the Church was the
salvation of mankind for over a thousand years. Tell me Shraga, you cowardly
anonymous nincompoop, were you born stupid or did you have to work at it!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 16, 10:59 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Shraga" <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:f19797ee-2f7f-47f9...@hk10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> [...]> Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy. People hope the
>
> less you are engaged, the sooner you will leave.
>
> The only creep here is you. Time for you to get lost if you ask me.
>
> > Awkward silences aren't evidence of success.
>
> Your fucked-up protestations are evidence of failure. You sputter like a
> rickety internal combustion engine.
>
> >> Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
>
> qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
> doesn't refute the science.
>
> Professors and editors belong to a benighted class of morons.

The last editor of a so-called "scientific" journal I talked to was a
Professor of Hotel Management! Yeah, very scientific! :)) Needless to
say, he couldn't see anything wrong with the mountain bikers'
research....

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 16, 7:21 pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

BS. If it was a real article, you would have supplied the citation.
Bluffing again?

> The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
> literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
> of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.
>
> Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?
>

> You.- Hide quoted text -

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 16, 7:21 pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Your statement disproves itself! Nice trick!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 16, 4:58 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <0498f5a6-d317-4245-a86d-37a7f17ee...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,

I have a better idea: you tell ME who the world experts are. But if
you could have done that, you would already have done so! So it is I,
after all. QED

[Shraga]

No, but you're definitely lying again.

You see those quotes, moron? That means I quoted something. I figured
someone who tried to write a literature review would be able to figure
that out. Guess not.

Since you're too lazy to do it yourself, here you go:

http://bit.ly/xQcTh2

[Shraga]

On Feb 16, 11:43 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:21 pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
> > qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
> > doesn't refute the science.
>
> IMBA's lsi includes only junk science.

Then why was it the basis for your "scientific" literature review, and
why do you claim to have read all the science on the topic, if there
isn't any?

Make up your mind.

> > <snip more recycled dogma>

> > Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
> > congratulations, you should go elsewhere.
>
> It's not a minor accomplishment. Show us even ONE paper you have
> published on ths subject, which you pretend to be an expert on!

Show me where I claimed to be an expert on the subject, liar.

And yes, getting two pages in a book is pretty minor, especially given
your preposterous claims at "expert" status. Stop kidding yourself.
Your lack of academic stature proves your irrelevance.

> > Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
> > seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.
>
> You are bluffing again! You obviously haven't READ it.!

Bring it up all you want. It still has nothing to do with this
conversation. I responded to this post, intended for Dr. Hopkins:

"Just for grins, I wonder if you can find anything SPECIFIC that is
wrong with my paper? http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. I doubt it."

That link doesn't go to your woefully brief book chapter. It goes to a
~15 page opinion piece, which I successfully refuted.

Besides, I can't access your mini-chapter because I don't have access
to that book. You keep posting an "expanded version," but that wasn't
published verbatim, now was it, Mike? Your bait and switch won't work
on me.

> > You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
> > "Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
> > vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
> > The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
> > literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
> > of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.
>
> Obviously, they can't tell science from junk science, if they trust
> that garbage.
>
> > Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?
>
> > You.
>
> What's your point? Or IS there one?

You claim to be "the world expert on the harm that mountain biking
does" and that you "have given papers on the subject at a *couple
dozen* scientific conferences;" yet there is NO evidence to support
your "expert" status. You often challenge this forum to provide the
name of one expert who knows more than you on the topic. Well, the
authors of that paper did, in spades, and you, Mike, were NOT
included.

My point is this: despite over a decade of effort on the topic, you
are unknown and unsupported in the field you so desperately want to
think you are part of.

Instead, the most recognition you have achieved from your efforts thus
far is this:

http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 17, 9:13 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:43 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 7:21 pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Comparing yourself with a professor or editor is a stretch. You're
> > > qualified for neither, and my argument stands. Your biased dogma
> > > doesn't refute the science.
>
> > IMBA's lsi includes only junk science.
>
> Then why was it the basis for your "scientific" literature review, and
> why do you claim to have read all the science on the topic, if there
> isn't any?

There is: Wisdom et al. Pay attention. I know it's hard for you.

> Make up your mind.
>
> > > <snip more recycled dogma>
> > > Stop waving around this minor accomplishment. If you're looking for
> > > congratulations, you should go elsewhere.
>
> > It's not a minor accomplishment. Show us even ONE paper you have
> > published on ths subject, which you pretend to be an expert on!
>
> Show me where I claimed to be an expert on the subject, liar.

Then if you aren't an expert, do your homework, as I have. You
admitted to "skimming" an article. That is what passes for "study"
among mountain bikers.

> And yes, getting two pages in a book is pretty minor, especially given
> your preposterous claims at "expert" status. Stop kidding yourself.
> Your lack of academic stature proves your irrelevance.

None of the other researchers were able to get even ONE page in that
book. That proves that I am the world expert.

> > > Your silly book chapter is irrelevant to the conversation, which you
> > > seem to be having a LOT of trouble following.
>
> > You are bluffing again! You obviously haven't READ it.!
>
> Bring it up all you want. It still has nothing to do with this
> conversation. I responded to this post, intended for Dr. Hopkins:

The "doctor" is out. Ran away with his tail between his legs, after
producing nothing but how air, just like you.

> "Just for grins, I wonder if you can find anything SPECIFIC that is

> wrong with my paper?http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm. I doubt it."

>
> That link doesn't go to your woefully brief book chapter. It goes to a
> ~15 page opinion piece, which I successfully refuted.

BS. You weren't able to find a single thing scientifically wrong with
it.

> Besides, I can't access your mini-chapter because I don't have access
> to that book.

No money? Good. Evolution in action.

You keep posting an "expanded version," but that wasn't
> published verbatim, now was it, Mike? Your bait and switch won't work
> on me.

Yawn.

> > > You know what I just did, Mike? I just skimmed over an article,
> > > "Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on
> > > vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America."
> > > The authors of that peer-reviewed work performed an EXTENSIVE
> > > literature review, citing around 130 related articles, including most
> > > of the ones you cited in your opinion piece.
>
> > Obviously, they can't tell science from junk science, if they trust
> > that garbage.
>
> > > Yet... Of the ~130, you know who is NOT cited or even mentioned?
>
> > > You.
>
> > What's your point? Or IS there one?
>
> You claim to be "the world expert on the harm that mountain biking
> does" and that you "have given papers on the subject at a *couple
> dozen* scientific conferences;" yet there is NO evidence to support
> your "expert" status.

You just listed evidence of that.

You often challenge this forum to provide the
> name of one expert who knows more than you on the topic. Well, the
> authors of that paper did, in spades, and you, Mike, were NOT
> included.

BS. That paper made the same mistake that the other junk science
authors did: their conclusions don't follow from their data. They
admitted that after 500 passes, mountain biking has greater impacts.
QED They also say mountain biking impacts are "similar" to hiking
impacts, an unscientific, unquantifiable word.

> My point is this: despite over a decade of effort on the topic, you
> are unknown and unsupported in the field you so desperately want to
> think you are part of.

BS. They all know me and my work, they just don't want to admit that
I'm right.

> Instead, the most recognition you have achieved from your efforts thus
> far is this:
>
> http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm

Sorry to disappoint you: "Charge dismissed". Must have ruined your
day, if not your year. :)

[Shraga]

Wrong. You just don't want to admit you are irrelevant.

It wouldn't surprise me if they knew your "work," Mike. They probably
had a good laugh at your desperate cries for attention right before
they properly categorized your email as junk.

> > Instead, the most recognition you have achieved from your efforts thus
> > far is this:
>
> >http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm
>
> Sorry to disappoint you: "Charge dismissed". Must have ruined your
> day, if not your year. :)

Hardly. I chuckle every time I see your mugshot.

Go look up "recognition" in the dictionary, idiot. It has nothing to
do with whether you were innocent or guilty and EVERYTHING to do with
the fact that you are more widely recognized for being charged with
assault than you are for being an expert on anything.

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 17, 12:11 pm, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 1:49 pm, Mike Vandeman <mike.vande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 9:13 am, Shraga <shragap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > My point is this: despite over a decade of effort on the topic, you
> > > are unknown and unsupported in the field you so desperately want to
> > > think you are part of.
>
> > BS. They all know me and my work, they just don't want to admit that
> > I'm right.
>
> Wrong. You just don't want to admit you are irrelevant.

BS. If I were irrelevant, you would be spending your valuable time
attempting to discredit me, 100% unsuccessfully, of course..

Let us know when you decide to come clean and use your real name and
start telling the truth. Until then, you are hereby officially a non-
person.

[Bob Berger]

In article <251bb2d1-ac3d-422f...@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Vandeman says...
>
>On Feb 16, 4:58=A0pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <0498f5a6-d317-4245-a86d-37a7f17ee...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> Mike Vandeman says...

<SNIP>

>>>...I am the world expert on mountain

>>>biking impacts,

>>Would you please list a few credible academic institutions and/or
>>scientific organizations that in published documents have listed
>>you as "the world expert on mountain biking impacts"; and please
>>provide links to copies of those documents. I'm thinking of
>>institutions and organizations like, for example, Princeton
>>University, Stanford, or the American Academy of Sciences.

<SNIP>

>I have a better idea: you tell ME who the world experts are. But if
>you could have done that, you would already have done so! So it is I,
>after all. QED

It was a simple request. I asked that you backup your claim, and you dodged the
request; as I expected, since I doubt you can provide the information requested.
If you could have, you would have.

I have no idea who's recognized as the real world's expert on the subject.
Couldn't find any credible assignments of the title. But, since the topic is so
insignificant, it's quite possible no authoritative source has bothered.

[Edward Dolan]

"Bob Berger" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:jhmfu...@drn.newsguy.com...
[...]

> It was a simple request. I asked that you backup your claim, and you
> dodged the
> request; as I expected, since I doubt you can provide the information
> requested.
> If you could have, you would have.
>
> I have no idea who's recognized as the real world's expert on the subject.
> Couldn't find any credible assignments of the title. But, since the topic
> is so
> insignificant, it's quite possible no authoritative source has bothered.

I am the world's greatest authority on everything under the sun and I say
Mr. Vandeman is a genius and Bob Berger is an idiot. NOW you can go to your
grave knowing who Ed Dolan the Great is, who Mr. Vandeman is and who Bob
Berger is. Thus spake Zarathustra!

[Mike Vandeman]

On Feb 17, 1:13 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <251bb2d1-ac3d-422f-813f-acfe0dde2...@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

I AM the authoritative source. All the mountain biker so-called
"researchers" are dishonest. I'm the only one who will tell the truth.

[Edward Dolan]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:10fuj7hgu6mtpijo6...@4ax.com...
[...]
>>I, Phil W Lee, AM the authoritative farce. All the mountain biker
>>so-called
>>"researchers" are ASSHOLES. I'm the only one who won't tell the truth.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm
deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a
weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a
revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.