On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:25:01 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
<Siskuwihane1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Aug 12, 9:23 am, 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.
>>
>> and 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.
You fabricated all of that misinformation. E.g. most mountain biking
is in parks near cities, where camping isn't allowed.
>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.
Ditto. Liar.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
