A Lesson from Florida: It's Time for Regime Change!



Hi slogic was better than yours ! He stated facts, not simply replying
to his point with 'Irrelevent' as you did. In a debate, he would have
kicked your butt !!



Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:45:07 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .I think Mikey has meet his match !!!
>
> Hardly.
>
> [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote in
> .news:[email protected]:
> .
> .> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> news:<[email protected]>...
> .>> .> You obviously haven't read the research. Read the last
reference
> .>> on .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7/htm.
> .>>
> .>> Typo. Try http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.htm. You should
have
> .>> been able to figure that out yourself.
> .>
> .> Good paper.
> .> http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lagrande/starkey_na/PDFs_Preprints/ms-06
> ._Wisdo
> .> m.pdf It begins to quantify the flight reaction of mule deer and
elk
> .> to ATVs, horseback riders, mountain bikes, and hikers. It doesn't
> .> refute my statement. It merely reinforces what I said.
> .>
> .>> .And just where, in relation to your residence is this property?
How
> .>> .large is it and how close is your home to it?
> .>>
> .>> Irrelevant.
> .>
> .> Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
> .> acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
> .> American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
> .> limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the
neighbors
> .> for not mowing.
> .>
> .>> .Individuals who believe as you may do what they wish with their
own
> .>> .property. Citizens would have to be convinced, through rigorous
> .>> .science, that public land being off limits to human visitation
would
> .>> .be required to avoid exclusion of an endangered species.
> .>>
> .>> It's already been done. It's called "conservation biology". Our
> .>> MOST-protected lands are national parks, but they are still losing
> .>> species.
> .>
> .> I do not doubt the truth of that statement. Allowing snowmobiles
in
> .> the national parks when deer and elk are hard up for forage puts
> .> additional stress on already stressed animals.
> .>
> .>> .> But that is a commonly known fact. Human presence drives away
> .>> species sensitive .> to human presence.
> .>> .Persistent, continuous human presence may do so, but not
occasional
> .>> .visitation.
> .>>
> .>> How do you draw that line? It makes no sense. There is no such
line.
> .>
> .> By observing which species can accept what level of human
intrusion.
> .> Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
> .> predator.
> .>
> .>> .> .Allowed to visit, but not engage in activities that make it
> .>> .> .uninhabitable to wildlife.
> .>> .>
> .>> .> How would you know ahat those activities are? In any case, it
is
> .>> NOT off-limits .> to ALL humans, which is what I am advocating.
> .>> .
> .>> .The problem, Michael, is that you have not demonstrated
> .>> SCIENTIFICALLY .that what you are advocating is necessary.
> .>>
> .>> I just did. You simply haven't read my papers.
> .>
> .> You have done no science, Michael. You have merely regurgitated
and
> .> misinterpreted what real scientists have said.
> .>
> .> **** Durbin
>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:28:14 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .Hey Mikey,
> . I own about 86 acres of the Wet Mountains in Colorado. All of it
> is .virgin wilderness. It has never been logged.
> .
> . I have designated about half of it OFF_LIMITS to humans, (basicly
> I .told the kids to not play in the canyon, mainly due to rattle
> snakes) .
> . I am a mountain biker. Check this out:
> .
> .
> . 5280 ft/mile X 5280ft/mile X 1 square mile/640 acres =
> .43560 sqare feet/acre
> .
> . 43560 square feet/acre X 40 acres = 1742400 sqare feet of
> .wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans.
> .
> .
> .Since you have only 400 sq feet, does that mean I am 4356 times
> .better than you ???
>
> No, because of all the habitat you have DESTROYED by promoting
> mountain biking.


Hey Mikey Moron,
I said the land is virgin!! Not destroyed, absolutely pristine.
BTW LIAR, I never promoted mountain biking anywhere !!!

You are about as dumb as they come Mikey


>
> .and I do not lie !
> .
> .
> .-- Brewer
 
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:09:13 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..
..> .> .Really? Who did we acquire the monopoly from? How are we
..> maintaining .> it?
..> .>
..> .> We stole it. We maintain it by claiming the right to go anywhere
..> .> anytime we choose.
..> .
..> .Who did we steal it from? Answer the damn question.
..>
..> From the previous owner, obviously. God, you guys are slow.
..
..Who was... ?
..
..> .> and if
..> .> .you don't like it, there's nothing you can do. You don't really
..> own .> your .property. Think about it: You have to pay for it in
..> property .> taxes every .year, and it can be seized from you at any
..> time. That's .> not ownership, .that's rental.
..> .>
..> .> You are free to call it whatever you want. Someone who is
..> eventually .> going to die can't be said to "own" property, anyway:
..> your "ownership .> ends with your death.
..> .
..> .Indeed. So what?
..>
..> Private property is BS.
..
..Why?

Wildlife. There is no other possibility. DUH!

..> .> .> And
..> .> .> .since all other rights are derived from a right to property, to
..> .> .> support .eminent domain is to deny all rights.
..> .> .
..> .> .This is no small thing. You only have a right to life and liberty
..> .> because .you own yourself. Someone who is incapable of ownership
..> does .> not have .these rights.
..> .>
..> .> Who might that be? You don't own yourself, because you don't have
..> any .> right to do whatever you want. You will always be restricted by
..> law. .
..> .You're quite the statist, Mike. "Law" is nothing more than a set of
..> .restrictions agreed to be "reasonable" by a group of people who are
..> not .necessarily subjected to said restrictions, or inclusive of those
..> .subjected. Law exists only in the heads of those who believe it to
..> have .some kind of validity.
..> .
..> .Rights, on the other hand, are immutable.
..>
..> So blacks still don't have the right to vote? You make no sense.
..
..Nor do you, as this is entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
..
..> I can do whatever I want, so
..> .long as I don't prevent anyone else from doing whatever they want.
..>
..> So you can grow pot, as long as it doesn't interfere with other
..> people?
..
..Um, yeah. Pot is a relatively harmless drug. All it does is make you
..stupid and slow.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:04:02 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..
..> .> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
..> .> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
..> .> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive --
..> .> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
..> .
..> .Mike, you need to get away from Cali, not every square inch of
..> Colorado, .Utah, Wyoming, etc... has been "commandeered".
..>
..> Then name one area that is off-limits to ALL humans, liar.
..
..Chernobyl.

It's not. I met someone who went there, after the accident.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:01:06 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
..news:[email protected]:
..
..> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:28:14 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .Hey Mikey,
..> . I own about 86 acres of the Wet Mountains in Colorado. All of it
..> is .virgin wilderness. It has never been logged.
..> .
..> . I have designated about half of it OFF_LIMITS to humans, (basicly
..> I .told the kids to not play in the canyon, mainly due to rattle
..> snakes) .
..> . I am a mountain biker. Check this out:
..> .
..> .
..> . 5280 ft/mile X 5280ft/mile X 1 square mile/640 acres =
..> .43560 sqare feet/acre
..> .
..> . 43560 square feet/acre X 40 acres = 1742400 sqare feet of
..> .wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans.
..> .
..> .
..> .Since you have only 400 sq feet, does that mean I am 4356 times
..> .better than you ???
..>
..> No, because of all the habitat you have DESTROYED by promoting
..> mountain biking.
..
..
..Hey Mikey Moron,
.. I said the land is virgin!! Not destroyed, absolutely pristine.
.. BTW LIAR, I never promoted mountain biking anywhere !!!

You are a mountain biker, hence you destroy habitat. QED

.. You are about as dumb as they come Mikey
..
..
..>
..> .and I do not lie !
..> .
..> .
..> .-- Brewer

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 12 Oct 2004 11:30:58 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> .http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lagrande/starkey_na/PDFs_Preprints/ms-06_Wisdom.pdf
..> .It begins to quantify the flight reaction of mule deer and elk to
..> .ATVs, horseback riders, mountain bikes, and hikers. It doesn't refute
..> .my statement. It merely reinforces what I said.
..>
..> Which was what? (Sorry, I don't memorize everything you say.)
..
..That the transitory presence of a human does not drive wildlife off
..their range permanently. They move off a certain distance then resume
..their activity.

If there are enough humans, they leave permanently. Or die, from lack of usable
habitat.

..> .Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
..> .acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
..> .American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
..> .limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the neighbors
..> .for not mowing.
..>
..> 12% of my property.
..
..Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?

Irrelevant.

..> .I do not doubt the truth of that statement. Allowing snowmobiles in
..> .the national parks when deer and elk are hard up for forage puts
..> .additional stress on already stressed animals.
..>
..> Right. The same gfoes for mountain bikers, who are FAR more numerous.
..
..I'm not aware of mountain bikers getting into deer or elk range when
..deep snow is making it hard for the animals to forage. Of course, I'm
..not a mountain biker and I live in Florida so I am not up on the cold
..weather practices of mountain bikers.

They have the same effect, regardless of snow or lack of it. God, you are slow!

..> .By observing which species can accept what level of human intrusion.
..> .Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
..> .predator.
..>
..> BS. There are lots of reasons they don't like having us around, e.g. scaring
..> birds off the nest, which alerts predators to its location.
..
..And you think that birds react differently to humans than they do
..other animals?

Irrelevant.

..> .You have done no science, Michael. You have merely regurgitated and
..> .misinterpreted what real scientists have said.
..>
..> You just contradicted yourself. You said it was a good paper. Scientists colledt
..> data and interpret it. The ones I reported on misinterpreted their own data, to
..> try to make it support mountain biking. I just pointed that out. That's science.
..> I guess you, just like other mountain bikers, just didn't like my conclusions.
..> Tough.
..
..I said the paper was good, not your extrapolations from the data
..provided by the scientists. As I told you before, I'm a roadie, not a
..mountain biker.

I didn't extrapolate. Can't you read?

..**** Durbin

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:04:02 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
> .
> .> .> What an idiot. There are no such areas left, since humans have
> .> .> commandeered every square inch of the Earth. It is our moral
> .> .> obligation to make sure they have areas where they can survive
> -- .> .> namely, human-free areas. That is required by teh ESA.
> .> .
> .> .Mike, you need to get away from Cali, not every square inch of
> .> Colorado, .Utah, Wyoming, etc... has been "commandeered".
> .>
> .> Then name one area that is off-limits to ALL humans, liar.
> .
> .Chernobyl.
>
> It's not. I met someone who went there, after the accident.

Mikey, Would you please go visit it yourself


===
I am working on creating a newsgroup that is off-limits to
Vanda-monkeys ("pure logic"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting stupidity and ignorance.)


> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:01:06 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
> .news:[email protected]:
> .
> .> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:28:14 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Hey Mikey,
> .> . I own about 86 acres of the Wet Mountains in Colorado. All of
it
> .> is .virgin wilderness. It has never been logged.
> .> .
> .> . I have designated about half of it OFF_LIMITS to humans,
(basicly
> .> I .told the kids to not play in the canyon, mainly due to rattle
> .> snakes) .
> .> . I am a mountain biker. Check this out:
> .> .
> .> .
> .> . 5280 ft/mile X 5280ft/mile X 1 square mile/640 acres
=
> .> .43560 sqare feet/acre
> .> .
> .> . 43560 square feet/acre X 40 acres = 1742400 sqare feet
of
> .> .wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans.
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .Since you have only 400 sq feet, does that mean I am 4356 times
> .> .better than you ???
> .>
> .> No, because of all the habitat you have DESTROYED by promoting
> .> mountain biking.


LIAR

I have not promoted anything except the fact that I have designated
about 4356 times the amount of space "OFF_LIMITS to humans" as you have.

I have destroyed absolutly no more than you have Duh


===
I am working on creating a newsgroup that is off-limits to
Vanda-monkeys ("pure logic"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting stupidity and ignorance.)




> .
> .
> .Hey Mikey Moron,
> . I said the land is virgin!! Not destroyed, absolutely pristine.
> . BTW LIAR, I never promoted mountain biking anywhere !!!
>
> You are a mountain biker, hence you destroy habitat. QED
>
> . You are about as dumb as they come Mikey
> .
> .
> .>
> .> .and I do not lie !
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .-- Brewer
>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .That the transitory presence of a human does not drive wildlife off
> .their range permanently. They move off a certain distance then resume
> .their activity.
>
> If there are enough humans, they leave permanently. Or die, from lack of usable
> habitat.

That's not the focus of the study or the findings of the authors.

> .> .Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
> .> .acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
> .> .American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
> .> .limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the neighbors
> .> .for not mowing.
> .>
> .> 12% of my property.
> .
> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
>
> Irrelevant.

Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
question with an honest answer?

> .I'm not aware of mountain bikers getting into deer or elk range when
> .deep snow is making it hard for the animals to forage. Of course, I'm
> .not a mountain biker and I live in Florida so I am not up on the cold
> .weather practices of mountain bikers.
>
> They have the same effect, regardless of snow or lack of it.

Healthy, well fed animals can tolerate a lot more human intrusion than
can stock weakened by lack of easily accessible forage due to deep
snow.

> God, you are slow!

Again, insults add nothing to the discussion.

> .> .By observing which species can accept what level of human intrusion.
> .> .Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
> .> .predator.
> .>
> .> BS. There are lots of reasons they don't like having us around, e.g. scaring
> .> birds off the nest, which alerts predators to its location.
> .
> .And you think that birds react differently to humans than they do
> .other animals?
>
> Irrelevant.

Not at all. Remember how, when Bob the cat would go out in the yard,
the squirrels barked at him and the birds scolded him? In the wild,
they react the same way to deer, bobcats, humans and all other animals
that come into their territory.

> .I said the paper was good, not your extrapolations from the data
> .provided by the scientists. As I told you before, I'm a roadie, not a
> .mountain biker.
>
> I didn't extrapolate. Can't you read?

Yes, Michael, I can read. What is more important, I can comprehend
what is written by real wildlife biologists. They made no case for
requiring humans to stay completely out of wildlife habitat. You made
that leap.

**** Durbin
Going to the lake in my subdivision to put up Wood Duck nesting boxes.
 
On 21 Oct 2004 13:51:12 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> .That the transitory presence of a human does not drive wildlife off
..> .their range permanently. They move off a certain distance then resume
..> .their activity.
..>
..> If there are enough humans, they leave permanently. Or die, from lack of usable
..> habitat.
..
..That's not the focus of the study or the findings of the authors.

See _Wildlife and Recreationists_.

..> .> .Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
..> .> .acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
..> .> .American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
..> .> .limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the neighbors
..> .> .for not mowing.
..> .>
..> .> 12% of my property.
..> .
..> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
..>
..> Irrelevant.
..
..Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
..question with an honest answer?

I just did.

..> .I'm not aware of mountain bikers getting into deer or elk range when
..> .deep snow is making it hard for the animals to forage. Of course, I'm
..> .not a mountain biker and I live in Florida so I am not up on the cold
..> .weather practices of mountain bikers.
..>
..> They have the same effect, regardless of snow or lack of it.
..
..Healthy, well fed animals can tolerate a lot more human intrusion than
..can stock weakened by lack of easily accessible forage due to deep
..snow.

So what?

..> God, you are slow!
..
..Again, insults add nothing to the discussion.

But true.

..> .> .By observing which species can accept what level of human intrusion.
..> .> .Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
..> .> .predator.
..> .>
..> .> BS. There are lots of reasons they don't like having us around, e.g. scaring
..> .> birds off the nest, which alerts predators to its location.
..> .
..> .And you think that birds react differently to humans than they do
..> .other animals?
..>
..> Irrelevant.
..
..Not at all. Remember how, when Bob the cat would go out in the yard,
..the squirrels barked at him and the birds scolded him? In the wild,
..they react the same way to deer, bobcats, humans and all other animals
..that come into their territory.

Your point being?

..> .I said the paper was good, not your extrapolations from the data
..> .provided by the scientists. As I told you before, I'm a roadie, not a
..> .mountain biker.
..>
..> I didn't extrapolate. Can't you read?
..
..Yes, Michael, I can read. What is more important, I can comprehend
..what is written by real wildlife biologists. They made no case for
..requiring humans to stay completely out of wildlife habitat. You made
..that leap.

I wasn't using that paper to argue for that, but it DOES prove that ALL
recreationists have an impact on wildlife, so it would be better (for elk, in
this case) to ban humans. QED

..**** Durbin
..Going to the lake in my subdivision to put up Wood Duck nesting boxes.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> See _Wildlife and Recreationists_.

I trust you mean "Wildlife and Recreationists - Coexistence Through
Management and Research". Check out Chapter 11. Cole and Landres
have some real-life examples of how to manage for both wildlife and
human recreation including restrictions on the amount of use,
restrictions on the type of use, restrictions on the spatial
distribution of use, and enhancing site durability.

Here's an example, "To illustrate, trails and campgrounds might be
situated away from critical strips of riparian vegetation, while
periodic opportunities for visitors to access the watercourses they
find so attractive are maintained."

> I wasn't using that paper to argue for that, but it DOES prove that ALL
> recreationists have an impact on wildlife, so it would be better (for elk, in
> this case) to ban humans. QED

Ideally, for all wildlife, it would be better if we were not around.
We are here, however. It's a fact of life and there is not much
possibility that we are all going to go back to Olduvai Gorge or
wherever it was that we evolved into humans.

I believe that the cause of conservation and maintenance of
biodiversity requires that we work toward reasonably attainable goals.
The world needs visionaries, Michael, but visionaries with the
willingness and ability to work with others to attain that vision.

**** Durbin
 
On 22 Oct 2004 07:44:20 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> See _Wildlife and Recreationists_.
..
..I trust you mean "Wildlife and Recreationists - Coexistence Through
..Management and Research". Check out Chapter 11. Cole and Landres
..have some real-life examples of how to manage for both wildlife and
..human recreation including restrictions on the amount of use,
..restrictions on the type of use, restrictions on the spatial
..distribution of use, and enhancing site durability.
..
..Here's an example, "To illustrate, trails and campgrounds might be
..situated away from critical strips of riparian vegetation, while
..periodic opportunities for visitors to access the watercourses they
..find so attractive are maintained."

They are suggesting a compromise, but the entire book is a litany of reasons why
"coexistence" is harmful to wildlife. The subtitle is politics, NOT science!

..> I wasn't using that paper to argue for that, but it DOES prove that ALL
..> recreationists have an impact on wildlife, so it would be better (for elk, in
..> this case) to ban humans. QED
..
..Ideally, for all wildlife, it would be better if we were not around.

Glad you agree.

..We are here, however. It's a fact of life and there is not much
..possibility that we are all going to go back to Olduvai Gorge or
..wherever it was that we evolved into humans.
..
..I believe that the cause of conservation and maintenance of
..biodiversity requires that we work toward reasonably attainable goals.
.. The world needs visionaries, Michael, but visionaries with the
..willingness and ability to work with others to attain that vision.

That seems to be a euphemism for "compromise the welfare of wildlife". We may
have to compromise "on the ground", but there's no reason to compromise on
telling the truth.

..**** Durbin

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 22 Oct 2004 11:08:54 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mr_Kingkillaha <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> > .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
..> >
..> > Irrelevant.
..>
..> Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
..> question with an honest answer?
..>
..>
..> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X
..> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be
..> considered human free.

Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch off-limits to
all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with "off-limits to all humans". The
former is only temporarily human-free. The latter is human-free by agreement and
law.

..> If I ride my bike in the mountains, and always keep a distance of more
..> than 20' from any animal, Mike would not think that is good enough.

Because there's nothing to prevent you from going off-trail.

..> Therefore his own "human free" area is irrelevant, from the viewpoint
..> of the wildlife.

Not for the wildlife that live there. They have something no other wildlife in
the world have: guaranteed safety.

..You just saved me the trouble of making that point to him. Thanks.

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .I believe that the cause of conservation and maintenance of
> .biodiversity requires that we work toward reasonably attainable goals.
> . The world needs visionaries, Michael, but visionaries with the
> .willingness and ability to work with others to attain that vision.
>
> That seems to be a euphemism for "compromise the welfare of wildlife". We may
> have to compromise "on the ground", but there's no reason to compromise on
> telling the truth.

If you are unwilling to compromise to help wildlife, you will do no
good for them. Read "Wildlife -- and Everyone Else -- Gains if
Critics and Supporters Compromise" by William Robert Irvin, director
of U.S. conservation at the World Wildlife Fund.
http://www.shewolfworks.com/wolfsong/news/Alaska_current_events_787.htm
 
On 19 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

> .> .> and if
> .> .> .you don't like it, there's nothing you can do. You don't really
> .> own .> your .property. Think about it: You have to pay for it in
> .> property .> taxes every .year, and it can be seized from you at any
> .> time. That's .> not ownership, .that's rental.
> .> .>
> .> .> You are free to call it whatever you want. Someone who is
> .> eventually .> going to die can't be said to "own" property, anyway:
> .> your "ownership .> ends with your death.
> .> .
> .> .Indeed. So what?
> .>
> .> Private property is BS.
> .
> .Why?
>
> Cottage cheese. There is no other possibility. DUH!

IFYPFY.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On 22 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres? .> >
> .> > Irrelevant.
> .>
> .> Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer
> the .> question with an honest answer?
> .>
> .>
> .> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X
> .> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be
> .> considered human free.
>
> Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch
> off-limits to all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with
> "off-limits to all humans". The former is only temporarily human-free.
> The latter is human-free by agreement and law.

You seem to have this notion, common among statists, that law is
something real and tangible. You act as if someone attempting to enter
your "off-limits to all humans" yard would be turned back by an invisible
force-field and a blaring voice saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! IT'S AGAINST
THE LAW!" Last week a drunk wandered into my front yard and vomited a
couple times. I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in your weed-
patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that deliberately go out
and break stupid laws, for fun. There are millions of acres of forest in
the US that are more "off-limits to all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:05:12 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 22 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
..noise emerged:
..
..> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres? .> >
..> .> > Irrelevant.
..> .>
..> .> Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer
..> the .> question with an honest answer?
..> .>
..> .>
..> .> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X
..> .> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be
..> .> considered human free.
..>
..> Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch
..> off-limits to all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with
..> "off-limits to all humans". The former is only temporarily human-free.
..> The latter is human-free by agreement and law.
..
..You seem to have this notion, common among statists, that law is
..something real and tangible. You act as if someone attempting to enter
..your "off-limits to all humans" yard would be turned back by an invisible
..force-field and a blaring voice saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! IT'S AGAINST
..THE LAW!" Last week a drunk wandered into my front yard and vomited a
..couple times.

You shuldn't talk about your brother like that.

I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
..There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in your weed-
..patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that deliberately go out
..and break stupid laws, for fun. There are millions of acres of forest in
..the US that are more "off-limits to all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.

You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it off-limits to humans,
not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go there. The latter is impossible.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 23 Oct 2004 17:46:51 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> .I believe that the cause of conservation and maintenance of
..> .biodiversity requires that we work toward reasonably attainable goals.
..> . The world needs visionaries, Michael, but visionaries with the
..> .willingness and ability to work with others to attain that vision.
..>
..> That seems to be a euphemism for "compromise the welfare of wildlife". We may
..> have to compromise "on the ground", but there's no reason to compromise on
..> telling the truth.
..
..If you are unwilling to compromise to help wildlife, you will do no
..good for them. Read "Wildlife -- and Everyone Else -- Gains if
..Critics and Supporters Compromise" by William Robert Irvin, director
..of U.S. conservation at the World Wildlife Fund.
..http://www.shewolfworks.com/wolfsong/news/Alaska_current_events_787.htm

I don't agree.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 26 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

> .> .> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously
> 20' X .> .> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too
> small to be .> .> considered human free.
> .>
> .> Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch
> .> off-limits to all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with
> .> "off-limits to all humans". The former is only temporarily
> human-free. .> The latter is human-free by agreement and law.
> .
> .You seem to have this notion, common among statists, that law is
> .something real and tangible. You act as if someone attempting to
> enter .your "off-limits to all humans" yard would be turned back by an
> invisible .force-field and a blaring voice saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
> IT'S AGAINST .THE LAW!" Last week a drunk wandered into my front yard
> and vomited a .couple times.
>
> You shuldn't talk about your brother like that.

I've heard Vandeman compared to a four-year-old, but this is ridiculous.
Even if I had a brother, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an
insult.

> I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
> .There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in your
> weed- .patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that
> deliberately go out .and break stupid laws, for fun. There are
> millions of acres of forest in .the US that are more "off-limits to
> all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.
>
> You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it off-limits to
> humans, not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go there. The latter
> is impossible.

Then what's the point? "Keep Out" is only as good as the 49 cent plastic
sign it's written on.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:57:22 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 26 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
..noise emerged:
..
..> .> .> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously
..> 20' X .> .> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too
..> small to be .> .> considered human free.
..> .>
..> .> Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch
..> .> off-limits to all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with
..> .> "off-limits to all humans". The former is only temporarily
..> human-free. .> The latter is human-free by agreement and law.
..> .
..> .You seem to have this notion, common among statists, that law is
..> .something real and tangible. You act as if someone attempting to
..> enter .your "off-limits to all humans" yard would be turned back by an
..> invisible .force-field and a blaring voice saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
..> IT'S AGAINST .THE LAW!" Last week a drunk wandered into my front yard
..> and vomited a .couple times.
..>
..> You shuldn't talk about your brother like that.
..
..I've heard Vandeman compared to a four-year-old, but this is ridiculous.
..Even if I had a brother, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an
..insult.
..
..> I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
..> .There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in your
..> weed- .patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that
..> deliberately go out .and break stupid laws, for fun. There are
..> millions of acres of forest in .the US that are more "off-limits to
..> all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.
..>
..> You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it off-limits to
..> humans, not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go there. The latter
..> is impossible.
..
..Then what's the point? "Keep Out" is only as good as the 49 cent plastic
..sign it's written on.

Yes, for scofflaws like you and other mountain bikers.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back