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



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_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.

> .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
 
"**** Durbin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
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_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.
>
> > .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.
<lots of stuff snipped>
**** Durbin-
In answer to your question about the size of Mike's wilderness preserve,
here you go:
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=2

Admittedly, what he wrote is dated from March of 2000, but for some reason I
doubt that Mike has expanded his empire since then. I'm thinking you hit it
pretty much right on the money with your comment of having "done little
except ******** the neighbors for not mowing".

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

> On 25 Sep 2004 11:05:25 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>... .> There are
> animals that TOLERATE the presence of humans, but most don't. .
> .Those are the ones that will flourish. The ones who can't tolerate
> .human presence or adapt to tolerate it will retreat to areas where
> .they can survive.
>
> 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".


>
> What is critical is that those enclaves be
> .protected an be large enough to ensure sufficient population to
> .maintain genetic diversity or that the enclaves be connected to allow
> .interbreeding between the groups.
>
> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.

LIAR !!


>
> .The question is how do we retrofit land ownership in America to
> .accomplish that? Let me give you a hypothical scenario. South
> .Florida has pockets of land that have a few Florida Panthers on them.
> .These areas are separated by orange groves or sugar cane fields.
> .
> .Ideally, we would like to see these enclaves interconnected to
> prevent .inbreeding by the limited number of panthers that remain, but
> the .farmers are not willing to give up their land for an animal they
> have .never seen except in a zoo. How do we convince them that the
> land .should be set aside for the welfare of the animals?
>
> We don't have to convince them. Eminent domain will take care of that.
> We do it for other government priorities.
>
> Big Sugar has
> .never been exactly altruistic when it comes to the environment.
> .
> .**** 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
>
 
I think Mikey has meet his match !!!




[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
 
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 ???


and I do not lie !


-- Brewer





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

> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:53:16 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .On 01 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.
> .> .
> .> .So, since there are no areas where animals can survive, what the
> hell .> keeps .eating my bushes at night?
> .>
> .> You are. It's obvious.
> .
> .*sob* Yes, it's true! All of it!
> .
> .> .> What is critical is that those enclaves be
> .> .> .protected an be large enough to ensure sufficient population to
> .> .> .maintain genetic diversity or that the enclaves be connected to
> .> allow .> .interbreeding between the groups.
> .> .>
> .> .> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
> .> .
> .> .Mike, have you ever actually been in a wilderness area? There are
> no .> .shopping malls or parking lots. There might be a narrow dirt
> trail, .> if .you're lucky. Sometimes you have to rely on cairns for
> navigation, .> if .they're still there. That's not monopolization.
> .>
> .> Yes, it is. None of it is off-limits to humans.
> .
> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability
> to .go there.
>
> Yes, we have.
>
> .> .> We don't have to convince them. Eminent domain will take care of
> .> that. .> We do it for other government priorities.
> .> .
> .> .I see, kick them out, and if anyone refuses to leave, put a gun to
> .> his .head. Violence solves everything.
> .>
> .> That's not violence, just law enforcement. As a mountain biker, you
> .> should know about violence, especially to the land and wildlife.
> .
> .Law enforcement = force (hence the "force" in "enforcement"). Force =
> .threat of violence. Furthermore, "law enforcement" is no excuse when
> the .laws being enforced (or in this case, abused) are as tyrannical
> and .dangerous as those you propose.
>
> What's "tyrannical"? Eminent domain? The public, through its
> representatives, has decided that it is acceptable. "Tyrannical" is
> humans thinking they own the Earth and can do whatever they want to
> it. Keeping some of it wilderness is simply correcting that situation
> -- giving wildlife their due. ===
> 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
>
 
Chris Phillipo wrote:

>
>"No right" means, left turn only. Chucklehead.
>
>

so - NASCAR for MTB's?

cool.

--

* enjoying the karma *
remove LKJSDFJSD from address to email
 
On 05 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> "No right" and
> "privilege" mean the same, dumdum.

Apparently. I'm waiting to find out what they actually mean, at least in
MVs cracked head.

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

[email protected]
 
On 05 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> .> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the
> .> ability .> to .go there.
> .> .>
> .> .> Yes, we have.
> .> .
> .> .And yet, we haven't.
> .> .
> .> .mo·nop·o·lize tr.v.
> .> .1. To acquire or maintain a monopoly of.
> .>
> .> This is the one that applies.
> .
> .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.

> 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?

> .And just because a law is democratically created, it is not
> necessarily .fair or just.
>
> Yes, it is. Otherwise the Supreme Court would block it.

The supreme court was democratically created. You do seem to enjoy
circular arguments.

> More often than not, it isn't. Furthermore, the idea that
> .the government should have ultimate control, simply because it
> ."protects" the populace, is not a new one. Most commonly, it is known
> as ."fascism".
>
> Or "democracy".

Now you're getting it.

> .> 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. I can do whatever I want, so
long as I don't prevent anyone else from doing whatever they want.

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

[email protected]
 
On 5 Oct 2004 16:40:22 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..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.

Thanks. The ONLY good one on the subject of mountain bike damage.

..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.)

..> .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.

12% of my property.

..> .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.

Right. The same gfoes for mountain bikers, who are FAR more numerous.

..> .> 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.

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.

..> .> .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.

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.

..**** 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 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
 
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 06:56:57 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 05 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:
..
..> .> .> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the
..> .> ability .> to .go there.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Yes, we have.
..> .> .
..> .> .And yet, we haven't.
..> .> .
..> .> .mo·nop·o·lize tr.v.
..> .> .1. To acquire or maintain a monopoly of.
..> .>
..> .> This is the one that applies.
..> .
..> .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.

..> 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.

..> .And just because a law is democratically created, it is not
..> necessarily .fair or just.
..>
..> Yes, it is. Otherwise the Supreme Court would block it.
..
..The supreme court was democratically created. You do seem to enjoy
..circular arguments.
..
..> More often than not, it isn't. Furthermore, the idea that
..> .the government should have ultimate control, simply because it
..> ."protects" the populace, is not a new one. Most commonly, it is known
..> as ."fascism".
..>
..> Or "democracy".
..
..Now you're getting it.
..
..> .> 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.

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? BS.
===
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, 05 Oct 2004 16:22:27 GMT, "Pete" <ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com>
wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
..> .
..> .Try riding through Clifton, Passaic, or Paterson, NJ the 2nd most
..populuous
..> .city in the nation. 150,000 people in 8 square miles with a very high
..crime
..> .rate and terrible drivers. The people in that area do not respect bicycle
..> .riders as the often show by throwing bottles and other objects out the
..> .window at them.
..> .Between the bad drivers and restless minorities every ride feels like a
..> .mission.
..>
..> There are some places that humans shouldn't live.
..
..Such as the formerly pristine area which has now become the overcrowded,
..wasteful, unsustainable area known as San Francisco?

S.F. Is one of the most sustainable cities in the U.S.

Pete
..

===
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, 05 Oct 2004 19:27:27 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:21:19 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:53:16 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..>.By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability to
..>.go there.
..>
..>Yes, we have.
..>
..Exactly what wildlife are you speaking for, that lives on the Moon?

Any that are there or would like to be there.

..Happy trails,
..Gary (net.yogi.bear)
..------------------------------------------------
..at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
..
..Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
..Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

===
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 Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:22:24 GMT, Brewer <[email protected]> wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
..news:p[email protected]:
..
..> On 25 Sep 2004 11:05:25 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> news:<[email protected]>... .> There are
..> animals that TOLERATE the presence of humans, but most don't. .
..> .Those are the ones that will flourish. The ones who can't tolerate
..> .human presence or adapt to tolerate it will retreat to areas where
..> .they can survive.
..>
..> 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.

..> What is critical is that those enclaves be
..> .protected an be large enough to ensure sufficient population to
..> .maintain genetic diversity or that the enclaves be connected to allow
..> .interbreeding between the groups.
..>
..> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
..
..LIAR !!

No, fact. You can't name a single area off-limits to all humans.
===
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, 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.

..and I do not lie !
..
..
..-- Brewer
..
..
..
..
..
..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
..news:[email protected]:
..
..> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:53:16 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .On 01 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.
..> .> .
..> .> .So, since there are no areas where animals can survive, what the
..> hell .> keeps .eating my bushes at night?
..> .>
..> .> You are. It's obvious.
..> .
..> .*sob* Yes, it's true! All of it!
..> .
..> .> .> What is critical is that those enclaves be
..> .> .> .protected an be large enough to ensure sufficient population to
..> .> .> .maintain genetic diversity or that the enclaves be connected to
..> .> allow .> .interbreeding between the groups.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Where are they? We have monopolized every area.
..> .> .
..> .> .Mike, have you ever actually been in a wilderness area? There are
..> no .> .shopping malls or parking lots. There might be a narrow dirt
..> trail, .> if .you're lucky. Sometimes you have to rely on cairns for
..> navigation, .> if .they're still there. That's not monopolization.
..> .>
..> .> Yes, it is. None of it is off-limits to humans.
..> .
..> .By that logic, we have monoplized the moon, since we have the ability
..> to .go there.
..>
..> Yes, we have.
..>
..> .> .> We don't have to convince them. Eminent domain will take care of
..> .> that. .> We do it for other government priorities.
..> .> .
..> .> .I see, kick them out, and if anyone refuses to leave, put a gun to
..> .> his .head. Violence solves everything.
..> .>
..> .> That's not violence, just law enforcement. As a mountain biker, you
..> .> should know about violence, especially to the land and wildlife.
..> .
..> .Law enforcement = force (hence the "force" in "enforcement"). Force =
..> .threat of violence. Furthermore, "law enforcement" is no excuse when
..> the .laws being enforced (or in this case, abused) are as tyrannical
..> and .dangerous as those you propose.
..>
..> What's "tyrannical"? Eminent domain? The public, through its
..> representatives, has decided that it is acceptable. "Tyrannical" is
..> humans thinking they own the Earth and can do whatever they want to
..> it. Keeping some of it wilderness is simply correcting that situation
..> -- giving wildlife their due. ===
..> 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
..>

===
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 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> .> 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.
>
> 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.

The predators that have been scared away?

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

[email protected]
 
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.

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

[email protected]
 
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?

> .> .> 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.

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

[email protected]
 
On 11 Oct 2004, Mike Vandeman offered up this insight:

> .> There are some places that humans shouldn't live.
> .
> .Such as the formerly pristine area which has now become the
> overcrowded, .wasteful, unsustainable area known as San Francisco?
>
> S.F. Is one of the most sustainable cities in the U.S.

But only because he happens to live there.

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

[email protected]
 
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.

> .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?

> .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.

> .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?

> .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.

**** Durbin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back