On Aug 12, 9:23=A0am, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:34:40 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
>
> <templetagteam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >(Snip of Mike going off on a tangent again)
>
> >> Nonsense. What I left out was IRRELEVANT to the basic question of
> >> which form of recreation causes more erosion..
>
> >Irrelevant? Hmmm... So let me get this right. If you take a quote out
of
> >context
>
> No, I didn't. I quoted the relevant part. And it wasn't my major
> point, anyway, which was that they didn't measure erosion.
>
> =A0and use it to formulate an argument against a re****t, yet you
>
> >still consider it a good argument? Your "lit review" claims the Wilson
> >and Seney quote you gave as a reason to question the results...but if
> >you include the full quote, your argument isn't justified. ("E" for
> >effort in trying to redirect the discussion away from your deception.)
>
> Yes, it is. The fact that you refuse to include any details is proof
> that you are LYING.
>
> >Geee...sounds like your quote from Wisdom about flight speeds...you
know
> >the one. It's where you conveniently snip out the fact that the evening
> >mean movement rate of elk for mountain bike events was the same as
> >hiking events. The dot-dot-dot thing is a convenient way of glossing
> >over that text you don't want others to see, ain't it?
>
> You are cherry-picking irrelevancies.
>
> >Oh...and don't forget that Wisdom et al suggest things contrary to
> >you...like the fact that participant populations needs to be included
> >and addressed (Does recreationist equivalent ring a bell?).
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> >And one more thing....have you figured out the difference between speed
> >and distance yet? You keep posting your "lit review" where you talk
> >about speed as proof about relative distances traveled. (You
> >know...number of teams to cover a set distance over a set time...it's
in
> >you comments about Wisdom et al). I know certain vehicles with 100 mph
> >average speeds (dragsters), but a hiker will go a lot further in
typical
> >distance covered.
>
> You are just trying to avoid admitting that I'm right: a mountain
> biker has a much greater impact on wildlife & the environment than a
> hiker.
Wrong. More opinion, not fact from Michael J. Vandeman.
Hikers are more likely to spend the night in wildlife habitat, cook
meals in wildlife habitat, go off-trail in wildlife habitat, litter in
wildlife habitat, defecate in wildlife habitat, light fires in
wildlife habitat.
An animal may be bothered for a few seconds by a mountain-biker
passing through, but it will be disrupted for hours, even days when
someone sets up camp, starts cooking meals, urinates/defecates, builds
a fire, sleeps and more in an animals living space.
|
