# Michael J. Vandeman information?!?



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

It has come to my attention that Michael Vandeman will be speaking at the 33rd Annual Natural Areas Conference in Flagstaff in just a couple weeks: naturalareas.org

His presentation will be titled: "Impacts of mountain biking on wildlife and people - a review of the literature." He will certainly be dragging out every fact he can to make it seem like mountain biking is the most destructive influence to our wild lands and that they should be banned everywhere. What worries me is that his audience will largely include land managers such as those who are making access descisions.

I am about to contact the person in charge of the session (a former professor of mine) that Vandeman will be speaking in to make her aware of his radical views and suggest that his inclusion should be reconsidered, or at least tempered by another speaker with a more moderate view. I could use some factual information about Vandemen (not opinions or rants) to better illustrate that he is a crackpot. Please reply to this thread or PM me with any information (websites, etc.) you know of that might be helpful.

Thanks,

I am cross posting this to "General Discussion" and the Dirt Rag forums.


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

*abstract*

Here is the abstract of his upcoming presentation. It _appears_ to be fairly moderate compared to his usual ranting. I myself consider the impacts of MTBing to be about 3x those of hiking, based on distance traveled. However, it's what's NOT in the abstract that I'm worried about:

IMPACTS OF MOUNTAIN BIKING AND PEOPLE - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

VANDEMAN, MICHAEL J.

2600 Camino Ramon # 2E950I, San Ramon, CA 94583-5000; [email protected]

The sport of mountain biking is expanding rapidly, fueled partly by the mountain bike and tourism industries, the Olympics, and other competitive events (recently, e.g., "adventure racing"). It is putting intense pressure on wildlife habitat, worldwide, as well as inhibiting efforts to protect additional lands. It is important, therefore, to assess its impacts on wildlife, people, and the environment. I reviewed available studies, focusing primarily on physics and conservation biology. All of these studies on mountain biking that attempted to compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking (which addressed primarily erosion, but also intimidation of wildlife, horses, and other trail users) concluded that their impacts are essentially the same. However, their research designs all have serious flaws: they ignore speed and distance traveled, and nearly all ignore impacts on wildlife; they also make no attempt to test mountain biking under realistic conditions (e.g., normal speeds). A more accurate conclusion from the data presented would be that the impacts of mountain biking are actually from two to six times those of hiking, due in part to the greater speed and distance traveled by mountain bikers. This is important, because some land managers have used this research as justification for opening trails to bikes.


----------



## fat_weasel (Jan 9, 2005)

For starters, you could point out that the guy has no scientific background or training (he always points out that he has a PhD, but it's in psychology), so his interpretation of real science literature is pretty suspect. He's never had anything published in a peer-reviewed journal, as far as I know, so he shouldn't have any real credibility on these subjects. His abstract claims that "the impacts of mountain biking are actually from two to six times those of hiking." I doubt that he has real evidence to support this.

Vandeman's website is http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/index.htm. Check it out for a really wild head trip; the guy is anti-hiking boot, anti-road, and anti-just about everything else. The only reason that people pay attention to the guy is that he's a loudmouth who won't shut up.

He also has a tendency to quote material on ATVs and dirt bikes when talking about mountain bikes. He'll mention the impact of dirt bikes, then say stuff like "this obviously applies to mountain bikes as well." This is utter BS, of course. The difference between a 450cc moto and a bicycle should be obvious, but he ignores it whenever he can get away with it.

Vandeman's ultimate agenda is to ban all human activity in wilderness areas, and you should point this out when you contact your old professor. This is a nice idea, and I kind of agree with it in principle, but when you're trying to manage a wilderness area and keep it free from development you absolutely need to emphasize its recreation value. Otherwise people will say "Why bother?" It's unfortunate, but in the US these days the recreational value of wilderness/open land is often the only thing that keeps such areas undeveloped, and I'm sure most of the other people at the conference are aware of this.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

I think there used to be a whole FAQ on the guy somewhere on the web. I'll say this; he is persistant and singleminded. A buddy of mine worked for a couple years as a watershed manager and had contact with him. He said the guy seemed pretty reasonable at first, but then the mask started to slip...

As noted above, if you look at the guy's website, you can see that getting rid of bikes is just a piece of his agenda.

You should contact IMBA, and also contact Patty Ciesla at NORCAMBA. I'm sure they would both have some pointers.
"Patty Ciesla" [email protected]
There are some peer reviewed studies out there that show that the impacts of hikers, horses, and cyclists are all about equal in terms of erosion and trail maintenance, just different in when they occur.

As a non scientific observation, I would counter his claim that bikes have a greater impact than hikers on wildlife as while the bikes may go further, they linger in an area less long. My observation is that wildlife is bothered more by people who linger in their habitat.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I went searching for the Mike Vandeman FAQ which seems to be gone for good. I did find, however, the "Ode to Mike Vandeman" originally posted to alt.mountain-bike by Trekkie Dad. I posted it to the other thread. :thumbsup:


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

Ahhh... Mikey... The reason I became involved in mountain bike advocacy work.

I've had several 'discussions' long time ago on usenet. Mike's web page is one of the best things to show what he's about. Dig for his creditentials - his education was in Math and Psychology. No environmental or ecological background.

Search the usenet archives and you'll find him arguing with people who actually have expereince in related fields, and twisting words around to suit his needs. It'll take time to read all the stuff, but it's pretty self incriminating. He never used the 5th admendment. 

Also a quick email to IMBA and a perusal of their site will have a counter to the information that Mikey will submit. IMBA has done their own review of the information, and they have come to (surprise) much different results.

Good luck,

JmZ


----------



## fat_weasel (Jan 9, 2005)

There was a really good study put out by a university in Canada a while back about biking impacts. Can't find the original study, but here's a link to an article about it: http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/archives/000091.html. The text of MV's presentation is on his website, and he doesn't mention the study at all. If you do some googling you can probably find the original text-it ought to disprove most of his arguments.


----------



## imbawebguy (May 6, 2004)

IMBA is actually presenting in the same conference session track:

MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TRAIL-BASED RECREATION

VANKAT, DREW

International Mountain Bicycling Association, PO Box 7578, Boulder, CO 80306

Land managers face a variety of questions when designing and designating shared-use trail systems. Often the most pressing is how to manage the potential social and environmental impacts of trail users. Fortunately, a growing body of science is addressing these topics by providing concrete, objective information. This presentation highlights current methodologies and a summary of new research on trail impacts. It also covers lessons learned from the International Mountain Bicycling Association's (IMBA) trail design, construction, and maintenance projects around the world. IMBA is the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award for Sustainable Trail Design and Construction by the Professional Trail Builders Association, as well as the Award for Excellence for Sustainable Practices from a consortium of federal land management agencies. The second half of the presentation addresses a spects of successful land manager partnerships and their role in fostering active, collaborative trails communities . The lessons and practices focus primarily on IMBA's formal relationships with federal land managers, but are transferable to a variety of non-profit organizations. IMBA's 2005 General Agreement with the National Park Service (NPS) and our work with interested NPS units to design appropriate mountain bicycling experiences is discussed . Examples also come from IMBA's formal partnerships with the NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, and numerous state agencies across the country.


----------



## wookalar (Jan 30, 2004)

fat_weasel said:


> His abstract claims that "the impacts of mountain biking are actually from two to six times those of hiking." I doubt that he has real evidence to support this.


It appears that he drew this conclusion from the results of the studies he cites in the absract while at the same time claiming their designs were "flawed". I guess the results didn't give him the answer he wanted or justify his position so he just made up his own conclusions.

Sounds like a kook. But I must admit I haven't paid much attention to him.

I would be interested in getting a copy of the studies that he cites at this conference.


----------



## seenvic (Sep 9, 2003)

Maybe he'll bring his nutball friend Terri Avilar with him. Two peas in a nutty pod.

I was hoping this thread was a link to an obituary.


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

imbawebguy said:


> IMBA is actually presenting in the same conference session track:
> 
> MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TRAIL-BASED RECREATION
> 
> ...


FHEW! I don't know how I missed that, but I'm glad to hear that conference attendees will hear the other end of the spectrum so to speak.

I'm 95% sure I'll be at the conference, so I'll just concentrate on being a good scientist and critique vandeman's bias evaluations and questionable methods.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Could you possibly slip into his hotel room, and dose his juice, water, coffee, toothpaste, etc. With lots and lots of liquid acid?
Should do the trick, and make the conference amusing!


----------



## mergs (Feb 14, 2004)

rideit said:


> Could you possibly slip into his hotel room, and dose his juice, water, coffee, toothpaste, etc. With lots and lots of liquid acid?
> Should do the trick, and make the conference amusing!


Based on his hippie trippy ways, I'd guess that his body has developed a resistance to that.


----------



## wookalar (Jan 30, 2004)

rideit said:


> Could you possibly slip into his hotel room, and dose his juice, water, coffee, toothpaste, etc. With lots and lots of liquid acid?
> Should do the trick, and make the conference amusing!


If you can't score some acid, try TURBO LAX...

On second thought, if you can, use both.


----------



## sick4surf (Feb 4, 2004)

After the press release was issued announcing NYC was going to allow mountain biking in two parks...Vanderman called NYC Parks to try to talk them out of it.

If someone talks to Vanderman long enough...they could tell he's unbalanced and his views are one sided.

Needless to say...we're building mountain bike trails in NYC...we're 50% done.

There is a good report from the AMC hiking club that show's how mountain biking and hiking has relatively the same impact: 
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/trail_shock.html

This is the one I like to use because it is written by a hiking club.

IMBA presents themselves as a professional organization that is well respected within the trail using community.

Vanderman presents himself like a fanatic.


----------



## bad knots (Sep 18, 2006)

Show 'em this - MV in his own words:
http://tinyurl.com/qsz4r


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

The good thing is he is not taken seriously even in hard-core environmental circles. Most of the eco-nut leadership in the environmental industry try to keep their distance from him -- professionally polite to him but kept out of the loop as much as possible.


----------



## hammerheadbikes (Jan 9, 2004)

oh crap... this guy is still around?
I remember him from the old newsgroups days!!
what a nut case


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

I contacted one of the conference organizers who explained that everyone who submitted an abstract was allowed to present.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

I remember him from "back in the day" of socalmtb.com

I e-mailed the guy and tried to reason with him but he went off the deep end. I don't know why he is so against mountain bikes. I guess over population, cars pollution and what not are much less risk to the environment.

I guess he decided to take a shot at something that very few people would even think of.

His ultimate goal is to eliminate people from the wilderness except for himself.

On his web site he use to picture a full suspension mountain bike next to a dirt motorcycle and basically compares them as one in the same.

Anyone in the area should attend his lecture and draw him out until he starts frothing at the mouth. Just make sure you ride your bike to the meeting and ask him how he got there?


----------



## chucko58 (Aug 4, 2006)

MJV is a certified nut. There is no point in trying to reason with him. He has some deeply held resentments about any mode of transit that is not legs... or trains. Anyone who engages him in conversation will quickly realize he's beyond the pale.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/

Here he is in all his glory.

Hmmmm, just wondering how long it is going to take him to "walk" to the conference??


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

So I went to Vandeman's conference presentation today.

He began by presenting mountain biking as a major concern for land managers. He suggested that there was a log of money driving the mountain bike industry and that we are very political active (which seems like BS to me since the bike industry is relatively small and most MTBers can't get their heads out of their asses to be politically active). He then went on to describe programs like those that get kids into mountain biking as if he was talking about initiation into a gang or the KKK.

The core of his presentation was about evaluating the impacts of hiking vs biking. One of his opening statements here was that the addition of mountain biking to a trail is going to cause harm, which is kind of hard to argue with but is obviously a highly skewed comment.

Vandeman tore into several of the papers that reported that MTBing caused no more harm then hiking. Now, reviewing and critiquing the findings of scientific research is an important part of the process of advancing science. However, Vandeman's approach seemed a lot more like nit-picking. He would pick on one or two potential flaws in each paper, summarily dismiss it and the move on to the next. He also pointed out that at least one of the authors of the papers published on the subject thus far are mountain biking and basically called into question the objectiveness of their results, which is extremely ironic since he himself lacks all objectivity.

It seemed that the core of his argument against MTB's (and perhaps the core of his hatred for them) was based solely off of antidotal evidence.

He argued that mountain bikers drive other trail users off the trails and thus MTBs should be restricted. But I think whatever user group dominates a trail will drive other groups away. For example near here, in Sedona the Soldiers Pass Trail is one of the most fun trails around, but it gets a ridiculous amount of foot traffic and thus most MTBers avoid it except during low tourist times.

Another example is his core argument that even if MTBs and hikers did cause the same amount of trail damage that the fact that bikers can go farther means that we cause more damage (A legitimate point unless you consider that there's nearly twice as much foot traffic on trails, on average then there is biking traffic). But he has some ridiculous antidotal accounts of hiking vs biking distances. He, for example says that a hiker will cover 8 miles in a day on average. But then he says that MTBs cover _FIVE to TEN time that distance_. 80 miles a day?!? He then went on to say that he subscribes to several MTB newsgroups (duh) and that based on ride announcements there he says that short rides are 8 miles and the average ride is 27 miles. I wish! I'm a pretty avid rider, I race expert and do endurance races but when it comes down to it most of my rides end up being short, I'd be lucky if my "average" ride distance is 15 miles. What bothers me is not so much that his numbers are way off, but that he tries to pass them off as true. Fortunately it seemed that most of the audience wasn't buying this argument.

The other big antidotal argument is that mountain bikes impact wildlife more then hikers. OK, get this, his presentation had 3 slides. One was his title, the other two were of dead snakes! One snake he didn't have any direct evidence it had been killed by a bike other then that the injury was about the width of a MTB tire! He then gave his oft cited story about a federally endangered snake that had been killed after being run over. OK, that sucks, true enough, but how many snakes have been killed by horses or hikers over the years? Yet these antidotal incidents seem to be very important to Vandemen both personally and to his argument.

If we accept that as evidence, I could argue that I have nearly stepped on a rattlesnake 3 times while hiking. I have never encountered a rattlesnake while biking, so obviously that means hiking is much more hazardous to snakes then biking is!

Anyway, a few speakers later Drew Vankat from IMBA spoke, not addressing any of Vandemans arguments, but focusing on being smart developing trails and partnerships and so forth. So I feel like that at least balanced things out reasonably well.

Overall, I wouldn't say the conference attendees totally blew off Vandeman, but there was clearly a vibe of discontent within at least many audience members. Others may have bought into it at least to a degree. One thing he did that I think will shoot him in the foot is that he put his website up on the slide that didn't have a dead snake on it. Hopefully these folks will go to his website and find out how much a fanatical extremist he really is.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Fishman,

Nice write-up. One small thing: it's "anecdotal".

Sounds like classic MV, spreading his twisted version of the world.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

double post, oops


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

LOL, what's the "antidote" for Mike Vandeman? 
Not meaning to poke fun at a spelling mistake, I think it's a great pun.


----------



## Warthog (Feb 20, 2004)

FishMan473 said:


> Vandeman tore into several of the papers that reported that MTBing caused no more harm then hiking. Now, reviewing and critiquing the findings of scientific research is an important part of the process of advancing science. However, Vandeman's approach seemed a lot more like nit-picking. He would pick on one or two potential flaws in each paper, summarily dismiss it and the move on to the next.


Pretty typical MV behavior. I remember once he posted an article that had a few points that supported his arguements. Apparently he hadn't read the entire thing, though, because further on the article clearly contradicted many of his views. When people pointed this out to him, he just started screaming and yelling, as usual.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Here is what he neglects to mention:

1. The very fact that a trail is there is the root cause of erosion from wind and particularly rain. Summer thunderstorms will do more damage to a trail than anything.

2. Many trails get overgrown from underuse. Mountain bikers are the best group at volunteering for patrols and maintenance. In fact the head trail guy at Cuyamaca Rancho State park said he can always get mountain bikers out for trail work but not the other user groups.

3. Just the health and recreation aspects of the sport are so great that to not even mention them is stupid. What does he want people to do? Stay in the cities and drink and smoke and cause trouble? And how about the kids that get introduced to biking. Much better for them than getting gameboy thumb injuries. We need to encourage more sports like mountain biking.

Screw Vandeman. He could help out the world out a lot more by just falling on a sword. There are much great environmental dangers than mountain biking. People like him like to talk the talk but if you were to look at how he lives I doubt he walks the walk.


----------



## ~disco~ (Jun 23, 2006)

This guy is a Tool, I suppose he is walking there too?


----------



## ~disco~ (Jun 23, 2006)

This guy is a Tool, I suppose he is walking there too?



bad knots said:


> Show 'em this - MV in his own words:
> http://tinyurl.com/qsz4r


These people need to get a life...With all this extra time spent arguing over mountainbiking on the internet I mean..really did this guys dad never teach him how to ride a bike? Why mountainbiking? why not Poaching, Logging, smoking, or Phsycopathic -hippy-non biking- internet fighting-non car driving-anti hiking booters who are just making alot of people angry and converting normal people into Mike Vandeman hating-bike riding- non hippy- car drivers who are very tired right now and need to go to sleep

why the hell did I just write all that? I must sound like Im 14 years old :madman: 
In all honsety I hope that mike vandeman does not fall on a sword. I hope that he lives a long life knowing that he wasted his life preaching a worthless cause.

Now... I had better stop before i make myself sound even stupider <---- see?... it happening already?:madman:


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

MV is quite the character. He likes to cite his own "literature reviews" on his website as proof of all he claims. The fact of the matter is that he a) hasn't done a lick of research himself b) doesn't believe in peer review and c) thinks he is *THE* expert on the subject of MTB impacts and that he has no peers.

I've recently started to pick apart the "literature review" he quotes most frequently on A.M-B and am having an absolute riot. He whines about people taking him out of context on A.M-B and then does it himself in his literature reviews. He discounts IMBA surveys as being biased and impossible to quanitfy and then glows over a trail use survey (that is subjective at the very least) because it supports his view. 

MV also chooses to base his arguements about trail impact based on impacts per distance and then cites those above mentioned announcements as proof that mtb'ers go further. He conveniently claims that the science indicating that mtb's and hikers have roughly the same impact as "junk science" and then says that even if they are true, the distance thing makes us worse. Of course in doing so, he neglects the fact that impact is per distance per user and his favorite group, hikers, outnumber us by a far geater factor than our longer distance covered can account for.

Of course, when you catch MV with an error, he drops into his common defences: calls you a liar because you mountain bike, ignores the point you've made completely or uses his favorite reply: "Did you say something?"


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

Don't Feed The Troll!


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

*poor sad mike..*

None of the scientists bothered to contradict you because they were embarrassed to be on the same program as you. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Mike V. said:


> What Frank "FishMan" Hassler CONVENIENTLY forgot to mention is that NOT ONE of the SCIENTISTS and LAND MANAGERS found anything wrong with what I said. In fact, NOT ONE of the SCIENTISTS and LAND MANAGERS in ANY of the 9 conferences where I have given that same paper have found anything wrong with it. Frank didn't either, or he would have spoken up.
> 
> In other words. I AM RIGHT. Deal with it. (I suggest telling the TRUTH, for once in your rotten, worthless lives, and maybe you can salvage some self-respect.)
> 
> ...


I am pretty sure that everyone present simply rolled their eyes, and muttered to each-other, "what is the silly kook saying now? And to think, we invited him here as a comedic distraction! Clowns...SO predictable!"

Mike, do YOU waste time responding to the delusional utterings of the village idiot?
Didn't think so...did you ever consider that YOU are the fool in the room, that every rational person is mocking?

Must be pretty grim being you.


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

Don't worry....he's been called on it so many times on a.m-b it isn't even funny...and the fact he posts his "literature review" here just helps make my point.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> Don't Feed The Troll!


Sorry, but it is WAY too fun playing with mental midgets. What Mike doesn't realize is that every single forum that he participates on mocks him...THAT is funny!

And humor is the sugar in the spice of life!


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

rideit said:


> I am pretty sure that everyone present simply rolled their eyes, and muttered to each-other, "what is the silly kook saying now? And to think, we invited him here as a comedic distraction! Clowns...SO predictable!"


That is true. I have since spoken with 2 people who attended the conference, and mv was the target of derision and pity afterwards in private conversations. I am comforted that no one with any experience in these matters takes him seriously.

Somehow in his deluded little mind he thinks being polite and holding ones tongue is a form of blind acceptance and agreement. He really should seek professional counseling.


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

Mike V. said:


> (I suggest telling the TRUTH, for once in your rotten, worthless lives, and maybe you can salvage some self-respect.)


You sir, have some anger management issues. Perhaps that is what is blinding your judgements about mountain biking. My driving to Washington this weekend and back from the Bay Area probably did more to destroy the world than my mountain bike ever will.

Grow up and pick a fight worth fighting


----------



## silversurfer (Dec 20, 2003)

*I'll tell the truth!*



Mike V. said:


> Either way, I win, because you guys are afraid to tell the truth!


You want the truth? Well, fine! I'll tell the truth.

Mike V. makes me wish I was a woman, because when he starts typing away in a fury on that dirty keyboard of his, it just makes me want to have his babies. I've downloaded every one of his articles from his website, and like nothing better than to draw a nice hot bubble bath, add a few essential oils, light some candles, set some mood music, slip into that warm water, drown in his words, and find the rhythm of my detachable shower head. 

Does anyone have any pictures of this hunk of manmeat? Any man with such passion for the world has got to be drop dead sexy and filthygeorgeous!


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

Oh but he has a psych degree...he must be fine and we're all delusional...Duh!

After all, we ride moutain bikes and believe folks who go out, do research, have it peer reviewed and published.


----------



## LWright (Jan 29, 2006)

Someone way up there in the thread hit on a point I have been thinking of also, the claim that bikes do more damage because they go further, using this logic, hikers or pedestians still do more damage,, as they outnumber cyclist more than just 10 to 1, I am sure it has to be more like 1,000 to 1.
The guy is a classic definition of a bigot.


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

Thing is....if you point that out to him, his response is usually something like:

"Did you say something?"


----------



## BobL (Feb 20, 2004)

*Even the Sierra Club kicked him out*

But not before he did them a world of damage. Even the hardcore trail nazis in the club saw him as delusional and huge deficit to their movement. 
He's a classic megalomaniac.


----------



## Joe Fisher (Jul 30, 2005)

*Curious, where did MV's original reply go?*



rideit said:


> Mike, do YOU waste time responding to the delusional utterings of the village idiot?
> Didn't think so...did you ever consider that YOU are the fool in the room, that every rational person is mocking?
> 
> Must be pretty grim being you.


I realize that this in an old thread, but where did MV's reply go? Not that I'm really interested in reading it, he is pretty much the reason I don't go to a.m.b. any more. I"m just curious.
The only mention I saw in the thread of MV talking in the thread was a reply that someone made when they quoted what he said.

Joe


----------



## SoloHiker (Jun 2, 2005)

I, too, remember this mental giant from a.m-b years ago. His rants usually left me without words, just because I was trying to understand how any intelligent person could possibly believe his tripe!

Bikers cover 80 miles per day?!?!?! Jeezus, I WISH I could ride that many miles in a day ride!! Hah! I would LOVE to hear about anyone hitting 80 miles per day in the backcountry, carrying everything they need on thir backs! Hahahaha!


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

his posts were deleted, since he was banned, reregistered, then banned again.


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

I have a sneaking suspicion that, just to cheese us off, he'll sneak back in and start posting his usual delusional drivel...

I guess if he does make a return visit, we should all give him a pat on the back for his 20ft x 20 ft chunk of "pure habitat" that he's been fighting for over the last 12 years....his back yard.


----------



## Joe Fisher (Jul 30, 2005)

Gotcha, thank you, that makes sense. As I said, I don't really *want* to read his drivel, I was just curious as to why I couldn't see it.
Joe



jorgemonkey said:


> his posts were deleted, since he was banned, reregistered, then banned again.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

Arrested.

And it wasn't even anything we had to do.

You'd thinking someone with a Ph.D would know better than to go ahead and chop someone across the chest with a handsaw...

...and handsaw he was probably creating booby traps with.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Prettym1k3 said:


> Arrested.
> 
> And it wasn't even anything we had to do.
> 
> ...


Do not confuse education with intelligence. They are not same thing, and sometimes are mutually exclusive.


----------



## CanyunRider (Oct 29, 2004)

Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Suspect Arrested) 
UCPD crime report # 10-02127 

East-West Fire Trail June 1, 2010 

On Friday, May 28, 2010 UCPD received a report of an assault with a deadly weapon which had occurred around 6 weeks earlier. The assault occurred on a Sunday on the East-West Fire Trail located in the hills above campus. The victims, two non-affiliated White males, reported the crime after hearing of similar incidents occurring to bicyclists on the fire trail. The victims were riding their bicycles westbound on the trail when they encountered the suspect walking in the opposite direction. The suspect was holding a handsaw and cut one of the victims across the chest with the saw. The victims asked the suspect why he had attacked them. He told them they should not be riding their bicycles on the trail. The victims positively identified the suspect from a photograph. UCPD contacted the suspect who admitted to holding a saw in front of some bicyclists on a trail and contacting one of them with the saw. The suspect was subsequently taken into custody. One of the victims suffered minor injuries during the assault. Additional charges may be filed from similar incidences on the fire trail including one reported in a crime alert on May 6, 2010.

The suspect is described as:

VANDEMAN, Michael J., a White non-affiliated male, 67 years of age.





If you have any information about this crime, please contact: 
University of California Police Department
Criminal Investigation Bureau 
(510) 642-0472 / 8AM-5PM 
(510) 642-6760 / All other times


----------

